Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

[Virus]

It's my opinion that if you invade a country and you are the initial aggressor (ie. they didn't invade you or an ally first) then you are responsible for the state of the country following the invasion, particularly any new problems that arise. As before, you may disagree, but this isn't a "moonbat" position.

Saddam started it by refusing to honour his ceasefire obligations. If you break a ceasefire, the hostilities are back on.

Joey's implication was that in retrospect the war may look bad, but the intentions were good, or something. I was pointing out that part of the support for the war was based on a false premise.

The Gulf War was partly based on false premises about Iraqi troops dumping kids from incubators. So what?

Show evidence that the million or so people who marched against the iraq war, or their organisers, were communists, supported saddam, or sympathized with terrorists.

I never said they were. I said the march was organized and run by Saddam and terrorist supporters. The people who turned up were just hapless, witless dupes of Saddam and terrorist supporters.

I checked with my dad about this one as he's been to enough protests over the years, and he says back when he was in university he was attending protests against america's original support for saddam. Remember when your government gave saddam hussein lots of weapons? That.

The Australian government gave Saddam lots of weapons? News to me.

Well, for one thing, show evidence there were any more plans for genocide or any indication that it might reoccur.

His predilection for it in the past. Multiple times.

If it were possible to fly a plane over a country and send out some kind of radio signal that painlessly switched their country from dictatorship to democracy, i'd pay tax towards that. But what america and the uk did was an invasion that had little international support and was based largely on lies (such as the false connection between saddam and 9/11, tony blairs dodgy "sexed up" dossiers, or the fake "iceman" informant). And as david cameron (who i dislike, but like the quote) recently said, "you can't drop democracy from 40,000 feet." Middle eastern intervention has a bad history, even if you decide that you do have a right to go around replacing dictatorships with democracies through extreme force.

Well duh, who wouldn't use magic democracy bombs if there were such a thing.

And if regime change was genuinely the only motivation, why do it to the country with the third largest oil reserves in the world, instead of, say, zimbabwe?

Because it's not a good thing when genocidal fascist regimes seize a quarter of the world's oil reserves.

 

[stokes234]

Saddam started it by refusing to honour his ceasefire obligations. If you break a ceasefire, the hostilities are back on.

...what? He invaded where?

The Gulf War was partly based on false premises about Iraqi troops dumping kids from incubators. So what?

So it was still justified because it prevented genocide. The more recent iraq war had no such justification.

I never said they were. I said the march was organized and run by Saddam and terrorist supporters. The people who turned up were just hapless, witless dupes of Saddam and terrorist supporters.

Yeah, re-read my sentence. I'm still looking for evidence that the million or so demostrators or their organisers were communists or saddam sympathisers.

The Australian government gave Saddam lots of weapons? News to me.

Fair enough, I assumed wrongly.

His predilection for it in the past. Multiple times.

So are we to lock up everyone with a criminal record, on the basis that that is sufficient evidence that they will do it again?

Because it's not a good thing when genocidal fascist regimes seize a quarter of the world's oil reserves.

...seize? Care to explain "seize" in this context?

 

[IDB87]

It's my opinion that if you invade a country and you are the initial aggressor (ie. they didn't invade you or an ally first) then you are responsible for the state of the country following the invasion, particularly any new problems that arise. As before, you may disagree, but this isn't a "moonbat" position.

It certainly isn't any sort of rational opinion, that's for sure.

The United States and its' allies were certainly responsible for the stability of the country post-invasion, which was maintained as best could be done under the circumstances (feel free toe argue the contrary - I know you will).

Now, what is to be said of the groups and militias that purposefully tried to destabilize a fledgling democracy by bombing (almost daily) religious centers, markets, schools and government buildings? Is there no blame for them - after all, these are foreign invaders.

 

[stokes234]

Now, what is to be said of the groups and militias that purposefully tried to destabilize a fledgling democracy by bombing (almost daily) religious centers, markets, schools and government buildings? Is there no blame for them - after all, these are foreign invaders.

Well, they were a predictable consequence of the destablising of the country through invasion. Some of them were angry about being sent home from the army, some of them were angry about their state-run factories being closed down in favour of new private enterprises, some were angry about family members being killed by american bombs or bullets, some were jihadi terrorists previously kept out by saddam, some may have been saddam loyalists. But because they were a forseeable consequence, the responsibility in my eyes lies at least partly with the destabilising invasion force. And, as may times before, you may disagree, but this point of view doesn't require me to be insane.

 

[IDB87]

Well, they were a predictable consequence of the destablising of the country through invasion.

Is this an argument in support of the Saddam status quo?

Some of them were angry about being sent home from the army, some of them were angry about their state-run factories being closed down in favour of new private enterprises, some were angry about family members being killed by american bombs or bullets

Sorry, but this is excusing murder. You realize we are talking about such slighted persons targeting Iraqi civilians, not American soldiers, correct?

But because they were a forseeable consequence, the responsibility in my eyes lies at least partly with the destabilising invasion force.

Glad to see you are at least dividing the responsibility. Now, did America and its' allies put in place a system that would at least attempt to mitigate such groups' impact on Iraqi civil society, or were they completely disregarded?

Can we also agree that a Syrian militiaman has no right to blow himself up in a market square, killing dozens of Iraqis (who happen to be a different type of Muslim) and that that sort of murder should not be supported (in spite of the wrongs committed by American in Iraq), and should be strongly condemned?

 

[Toontown]

IIRC, the question that made Jiggery flip out is when I asked him if he'd rather live in America or in Bin-Laden territory. I use that question as a shorthand whenever some silly person, indoctrinated into relativism and equivalence, claims to be unable to distinguish good guys from villains. He refused to answer, saying that he'd rather live in an imaginary place. (well, duh! who wouldn't?)

Oh, is that it. No wonder he kept badgering me about it until he couldn't stand it any more and added me to his ignore list.

 

[stokes234]

Is this an argument in support of the Saddam status quo?

No, it's not intended as one. For example, i'd be opposed to invading north korea because of the dangers of them retaliating with nuclear weapons, but I don't mean to say that I support the north korean regime. It's fear of the consequences, rather than support of the status quo.

Sorry, but this is excusing murder. You realize we are talking about such slighted persons targeting Iraqi civilians, not American soldiers, correct?

It's not excusing murder, it's explaining why the murders resulted from the original invasion. I condemn the murders the same as you no doubt would. But you have to try to understand someone's point of view even if you completely disagree with them if you want to try to resolve a conflict, and it's quite clear that one of the strongest reasons for bombing in iraq after the war was the invasion.

Glad to see you are at least dividing the responsibility. Now, did America and its' allies put in place a system that would at least attempt to mitigate such groups' impact on Iraqi civil society, or were they completely disregarded?

Well, they tried, but it wasn't very effective as we can see. And because I believe it was the responsibility of the invaders to ensure stability, the failure to do so is their responsibility. And it's not something that can be dismissed as a "mistake" - hundreds of thousands of lives were lost, and if they didn't believe they could prevent this they should never have invaded.

Can we also agree that a Syrian militiaman has no right to blow himself up in a market square, killing dozens of Iraqis (who happen to be a different type of Muslim) and that that sort of murder should not be supported (in spite of the wrongs committed by American in Iraq), and should be strongly condemned?

Yes. I would question how many of the bombers were actually from outside of iraq, though.

 

[Toontown]

In the galaxy? So now the USA are The Space Police too? Cool, bro!

Starship troopers. Bug-bashing starship troopers. But, unlike the movie, we didn't capture the brain-bug alive. No need. We already knew how their brains function.

Oh wait. I forgot. I'm talking to deaf ears.

Do you know much of the history of war in Afghanistan? Every army that ever attempted to impose itself on that harsh landscape and its tribes and factions was pretty sophisticated. They all failed, the USA is failing, just as it did when it took its sophisticated army to Vietnam and got taught some serious lessons by a low-tech army in pyjamas . Shiny kit and self-belief do not win wars.

Alright, that's it. I can't stand it any more. I'm putting this guy on ignore, effective immediately.

They always go running back to Vietnam, don't they. All you have to do is rattle a sabre at them a little bit, and off they go, running away to Vietnam.

Vietnam is their warm, fuzzy, safe place. Because they really don't know diddly squat about what Vietnam was really like back then. All they know is that's the place where The Federation Of All Earth Nations Except Amerika finally, at long last, managed to pin a defeat on the Evil Empire.

It was, at best, a defeat by proxy, or victory by proxy, depending on one's POV. In reality the Northern Communists were driven to the negotiating table by progressively destructive B-52 strikes on Hanoi and Haiphong, which the commies had become convinced would never happen. Then, after much histrionic bickering, posturing, walkouts and subsequent repeated bombing raids, the communists were forced to sign a peace agreement. Then they veeeery cunningly waited until a couple of years after the U.S. pulled out of the region, and then they heroically overran the hapless South Vietnamese with hundreds of Soviet tanks.

And PRESTO! Victory (by proxy) over the Evil Empire. It was a long time coming, but by Jiggery, it was worth the wait. And The Federation Of All Earth Nations Except Amerika rejoiced. It didn't matter that the south half of Vietnam was the actual victim of the Great Victory Over The Evil Empire. It doesn't matter that the people of South Vietnam were lobotomized by a communist purge, then brutalized by a decade of communist savagery, oppression, and thievery, and then overrun by columns of Soviet tanks.

What matters is the victory (by proxy) over the Evil Empire. A victory every citizen of The Federation Of All Earth Nations Except Amerika can rightfully feel proud of, even though the vast majority of them had absolutely nothing to do with it. Even though they accomplished absolutely nothing except a communist dictatorship over the people of South Vietnam. What matters is that the communists got what they wanted (a communist dictatorship over all of Vietnam), and the Evil Empire did not get what it wanted (a free democratic South Vietnam).

That's what really matters. And that's why the Amerika-haters always go running back to Vietnam, their soft, warm, fuzzy, safe place.

 

[bikerdruid]

..........................

 

[bikerdruid]

Organized by Communist front groups that supported Saddam and sympathized with terrorists.

Show evidence that the million or so people who marched against the iraq war, or their organisers, were communists, supported saddam, or sympathized with terrorists.

I never said they were. I said the march was organized and run by Saddam and terrorist supporters. The people who turned up were just hapless, witless dupes of Saddam and terrorist supporters.

hmmm....are your pants on fire, virus?

 

[Toontown]

No, it's not insane. One act of aggression lead to the deaths of 3000, one lead to the deaths of ~200,000. It's not insane to believe that the aggressor responsible for the ~200,000 has committed worse crimes.

Yes it is insane, in part because it reduces to an insane absurdity.

If Superman were to fall victim to this brain disfunction, myself and a couple of other Kryptonian criminals would soon rule the earth. Superman (the fool) will be psychologically unable to attack us, because if he does, we will simply begin slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians, easily enough accomplished by simply blowing on them with our hurricane breath. And it will all be Superman's fault, and he will be very sad. We will use the civilians (whom Superman loves) as hostages, forcing the SuperDupe to surrender. Then Lex Luthor will kill the Superjerk with his Kryptonite.

Checkmate, you silly monkeys. Now bow down before ZARG!

 

[Joey McGee]

No, it's not insane. One act of aggression lead to the deaths of 3000, one lead to the deaths of ~200,000. It's not insane to believe that the aggressor responsible for the ~200,000 has committed worse crimes.

It absolutely is unintelligent to compare the two events without full context and without all of the facts. Obviously most of the Iraqi dead were killed by the enemy, but the impression is made that if big mean old America didn't want to steal their oil than they wouldn't have waged the war. Poppycock. Shameful posturing. High-school attention getting nonsense.

I remember the arguments before the invasion. They were extremely flimsy and suspect. Remember how roughly half of the population of your country at the time of invasion thought that saddam hussein was involved in 9/11?

There are technical, natural reasons why the U.S. has so many stupid people in it. Forget them, we're talking about the reasons it was done by the people in charge and their capable-minded constituents which is the only thing worth talking about. Unless you somehow think the stupider Americans are responsible for much of anything that happens.

The people I relate to politically staged the biggest demonstration in the history of the uk against the iraq war,

I was there, count me among the early reactionary anti-war activists. Funny thing was that day depressed me because I saw how hollow and futile it was. All hummus and no beef.

because they saw right though the WMD claims

Funny thing in the bible it says the universe has a beginning. See that proves it's divine. Granted it was only a 50-50 chance, but still, it was correct.

and they knew the dangers of invading

Yes one thing I'll agree with you, armies need to know war is dangerous.

so trying to claim that this argument is only being made in hindsight is dead wrong

I'm claiming that it's only seen as a failure by so many in government because of what happened, not because of the reasons they went in. And that's a fact. I claim nothing out of spite or delusions.

I don't care about a questionable claim made by michael moore - he's a propaganda merchant, one that I usually agree with politically but one that I recognise distorts the truth to enforce his points.

So what does your thoughts have to do with the point? My point was that these people are slightly insane by way of the conspiracy virus, and here is just one of example of a shameful, unacceptable deplorable action by one of these types that are criticizing the bin Laden raid

The point of this topic is whether or not bush's crimes are worse than bin ladens, and while i'm undecided on that point myself, chomsky's position doesn't make him insane

You're undecided? And what's going to tip you one way or the other? What's got you hung up? Trying to decide if 9/11 was more horrifying than those soldiers caught murdering for fun? As the math teach says show me your work. I think you've screwed up orders of magnitude or direction, angle, and nuances.

 

[jiggeryqua]

IIRC, the question that made Jiggery flip out is when I asked him if he'd rather live in America or in Bin-Laden territory. I use that question as a shorthand whenever some silly person, indoctrinated into relativism and equivalence, claims to be unable to distinguish good guys from villains. He refused to answer, saying that he'd rather live in an imaginary place. (well, duh! who wouldn't?)

That's the second time a quote of one of your posts has revealed that you insist on discussing me (in disparaging terms), even though you know I have you on ignore (and can't respond to the criticism). What a big brave boy you are. I've managed to avoid discussing you, I suppose I should be flattered that you can't forget me

Was that the question Toontown has been banging on about? No wonder he refused to repeat it when I said I would answer any honest questions but not respond to, eg, false dichotomies. I didn't 'refuse' to answer your 'shorthand' question - I dismissed your false dichotomy...and then ignored you because you can't maintain a rational, dispassionate discussion.

I don't recall my 'imaginary' answer, but I'll stand by it anyway. Failing that I'd rather live in the UK, which is where I live. The US would come some way down a list of other 'territories'. Meanwhile, OBL didn't have (and never will have) territory larger than a small compound (and now a patch of sea bed). For the record, I'd rather live in Pakistan than the US. :O No, really, hard as it may be to imagine that there are people who aren't like you, I did just say that. Make of it what you will (possibly 'well there you are then he must be mad/wrong/evil').

I get that you don't like relativism. Life is so much easier in black and white, I do understand that. You might find it easier to be civil if you avoid discussions with grey areas - binary topics. This isn't one. You'd find that other people (silly relativists, for example) don't ignore you if you don't ascribe your own emotive terms to them in place of rational argument (there I go, flipping out again...that'll be my indoctrination. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you suggest any view more complex than 'USA!USA!' is the result of indoctrination? I didn't have to take an oath of allegiance every schoolday, I don't chant the name of my country in place of rational discourse - who's indoctrinated?)

I do not distinguish between good guys and bad guys...because there's no such thing. There are individual actions that are generally good and generally bad, and individuals whose actions require that a civilised nation restrict their freedom. That's another grey argument, by the way - it's not a black & white choice between absolute freedom and execution.

 

[dtugg]

For the record, I'd rather live in Pakistan than the US.

And you have just proven that your hatred of the USA has made you completely irrational.

 

[Mycroft]

That's the second time a quote of one of your posts has revealed that you insist on discussing me (in disparaging terms), even though you know I have you on ignore (and can't respond to the criticism). What a big brave boy you are. I've managed to avoid discussing you, I suppose I should be flattered that you can't forget me

Was that the question Toontown has been banging on about? No wonder he refused to repeat it when I said I would answer any honest questions but not respond to, eg, false dichotomies. I didn't 'refuse' to answer your 'shorthand' question - I dismissed your false dichotomy...and then ignored you because you can't maintain a rational, dispassionate discussion.

I don't recall my 'imaginary' answer, but I'll stand by it anyway. Failing that I'd rather live in the UK, which is where I live. The US would come some way down a list of other 'territories'. Meanwhile, OBL didn't have (and never will have) territory larger than a small compound (and now a patch of sea bed). For the record, I'd rather live in Pakistan than the US. :O No, really, hard as it may be to imagine that there are people who aren't like you, I did just say that. Make of it what you will (possibly 'well there you are then he must be mad/wrong/evil').

I get that you don't like relativism. Life is so much easier in black and white, I do understand that. You might find it easier to be civil if you avoid discussions with grey areas - binary topics. This isn't one. You'd find that other people (silly relativists, for example) don't ignore you if you don't ascribe your own emotive terms to them in place of rational argument (there I go, flipping out again...that'll be my indoctrination. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you suggest any view more complex than 'USA!USA!' is the result of indoctrination? I didn't have to take an oath of allegiance every schoolday, I don't chant the name of my country in place of rational discourse - who's indoctrinated?)

I do not distinguish between good guys and bad guys...because there's no such thing. There are individual actions that are generally good and generally bad, and individuals whose actions require that a civilised nation restrict their freedom. That's another grey argument, by the way - it's not a black & white choice between absolute freedom and execution.

I think it's the relativists, those who can't seem capable of discussing a short-coming of another country or group without diverting to some criticism of the United States, who are the ones that see the world in stark black & white terms and seem incapable of distinguishing shades of grey.

 

[jiggeryqua]

For the record, I'd rather live in Pakistan than the US. [...]Make of it what you will (possibly 'well there you are then he must be mad/wrong/evil').

And you have just proven that your hatred of the USA has made you completely irrational.

Just 'irrational'? That's 'mad' & 'wrong' covered, why not include 'evil' too?

You've just added yourself to my ignore list, which kind of gets you off the hook in that other thread where you're making no sense.

No, I'll not ignore you just yet. Very tempting, given your crossthread antagonism, but first I'd like you to explain rationally why everyone in Pakistan should want to live in the US. Clue: "We're Number One!" isn't a rational argument. Then I'd like you to explain why you think I 'hate' the USA. I don't even hate you, and I find you personally very annoying. I like a lot of the USA's cultural output, I think it's (in places) a profoundly beautiful country, and I've known (and loved) some individual americans.

I'm only giving you one shot, by the way. Rational, hatred-free substantiations please. Then I pop you on ignore, because you can't provide them - but at least I get a laugh from watching you try.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I think it's the relativists, those who can't seem capable of discussing a short-coming of another country or group without diverting to some criticism of the United States, who are the ones that see the world in stark black & white terms and seem incapable of distinguishing shades of grey.

So the people who don't think in terms of absolutes are the ones who think in terms of absolutes? I suppose you might be right....


...but you're not. You might more readily fool some people with such a blatent disregard of definition if you didn't include that telltale strawman.

 

[dtugg]

Just 'irrational'? That's 'mad' & 'wrong' covered, why not include 'evil' too?

You've just added yourself to my ignore list, which kind of gets you off the hook in that other thread where you're making no sense.

No, I'll not ignore you just yet. Very tempting, given your crossthread antagonism, but first I'd like you to explain rationally why everyone in Pakistan should want to live in the US. Clue: "We're Number One!" isn't a rational argument. Then I'd like you to explain why you think I 'hate' the USA. I don't even hate you, and I find you personally very annoying. I like a lot of the USA's cultural output, I think it's (in places) a profoundly beautiful country, and I've known (and loved) some individual americans.

I'm only giving you one shot, by the way. Rational, hatred-free substantiations please. Then I pop you on ignore, because you can't provide them - but at least I get a laugh from watching you try.

The US is better than Pakistan in every conceivable way. US citizens are more free, politically, socially, and economically. There is no rational reason that anybody would choose to live in Pakistan over the USA. This isn't to say that the USA is the best country in the world, and anybody who wouldn't choose to live in it is irrational. There are many countries that one could rationally prefer to live in over the USA. Pakistan is not one of those countries. So, your preference of Pakistan over the USA is irrational. Probably motivated by hatred of the USA.

 

[epepke]

No, it's not insane. One act of aggression lead to the deaths of 3000, one lead to the deaths of ~200,000. It's not insane to believe that the aggressor responsible for the ~200,000 has committed worse crimes.

It isn't insane to come to that conclusion. I was opposed to the Iraq war, and I'm opposed to the occupation, and personally, I wouldn't exactly be heartbroken if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the lot were to wind up at the Hague.

What people consider Chomsky a moonbat is the history and context. OK, we know that Chomsky considers Bush bad for the Iraq war, as you say ~200,000 deaths, directly and indirectly attributable by Chomsky logic to Bush and company. It would be interesting to know what he would be saying had the invasion never happened.

Fortunately, we can know that, because we know what he was saying before the invasion. Then it was all about what he called the "murderous sanctions." It was claimed that 5,000 Iraqi children were being killed by them each month. This is supposed to have been based on a UNICEF report which I haven't seen. Anyway, the figure was not challenged by Madeleine Albright.

By the magic of math, we can multiply 5,000 (per month) by 12 (months in a year) by 8 (years of the Iraq war). We get 480,000, which is bigger than 200,000. Does anybody think that Chomsky wouldn't call Bush "Hitler" for that? It's more than twice.

Of course, those were UN sanctions, but Chomsky doesn't care, as he said that it was obvious that the US pushed for them. OK, well, if Gore had been elected, and he had pushed for dropping the sanctions, does anyone imagine that Chomsky would have been happy about that?

Then there's Afghanistan. The UN release a report saying that 3 million people were at risk of losing basic necessities, such as food. This was not because the mean ol' US were going to blow up their infrastructure; the story went around that the US was preventing relief from entering the country. Never mind that the Red Cross announced that it was able to get all the supplies they thought were needed into Afghanistan 45 days ahead of schedule.

Chomsky jumped on this bandwagon, but he used his linguist-fu to state that there was a risk of 3 million people in Afghanistan starving, an extremely different statement. When this did not happen and he was confronted about it, instead of being a mensch and expressing happiness that it didn't happen, he became defensive and abusive denying that's what he said (which is a lie).

I hope the point is made and we don't have to go into his rushed-to-press 9/11 book or all the examples from before the late 1990s.

This is not the pattern of an intelligent communicator, and it is not the pattern of a humanitarian who actually cares how many Iraqis or Afghanis are killed. It is the pattern of a cynical, self-aggrandizing opportunist, whose continued cultish popularity can only be explained by the short memories of his audience. In other words, a moonbat. You can say he's not insane if you like, but it is clear that his connection to reality is tenuous and self-serving. That's true whether one agrees with him or not on this or that issue.

 

[stokes234]

It absolutely is unintelligent to compare the two events without full context and without all of the facts. Obviously most of the Iraqi dead were killed by the enemy, but the impression is made that if big mean old America didn't want to steal their oil than they wouldn't have waged the war. Poppycock. Shameful posturing. High-school attention getting nonsense.

Well, until you finish constructing that mind-reading machine that it sounds like you've been working on, neither of us have any way of knowing for certain what motivated george bush and his cabinet to go to war. You can throw as many ad hominems out as you like - fill a couple of books, it won't prove it either way. I happen to believe that the motivations for war were less than genuine. You believe they were genuine. But you've yet to explain why iraq was chosen if oil wasn't a factor, as opposed to say, zimbabwe.

There are technical, natural reasons why the U.S. has so many stupid people in it. Forget them, we're talking about the reasons it was done by the people in charge and their capable-minded constituents which is the only thing worth talking about. Unless you somehow think the stupider Americans are responsible for much of anything that happens.

If the american populace had opposed the invasion, it might not have been politically possible. But they widely supported it, and regularly their reasons for supporting it were false.

I was there, count me among the early reactionary anti-war activists. Funny thing was that day depressed me because I saw how hollow and futile it was. All hummus and no beef.

What? I was there, count me among the anti-war activists. Demonstrations should motivate politicians to change their mind. As a result of failing to listen to the population, tony blairs legacy is in tatters in the uk. Hopefully, the political fallout from his going against the will of the people will be a warning to future politicians.

Funny thing in the bible it says the universe has a beginning. See that proves it's divine. Granted it was only a 50-50 chance, but still, it was correct.

Blix asked for more time. Tony blair deliberately mislead with documents. The WMD claims were not well founded.

Yes one thing I'll agree with you, armies need to know war is dangerous.

Politicians need to know war is dangerous for the stability of the country. They were warned that the iraq war wouldn't improve the situation in iraq, and they ignored the warnings. In my eyes, this makes them responsible for the resulting shambles.

I'm claiming that it's only seen as a failure by so many in government because of what happened, not because of the reasons they went in. And that's a fact. I claim nothing out of spite or delusions.

But the results were predictable. You can't march into a middle eastern country and enforce democracy and expect everything to be hunky dory afterwards. We already knew this, but bush and blair went in anyway.

So what does your thoughts have to do with the point? My point was that these people are slightly insane by way of the conspiracy virus, and here is just one of example of a shameful, unacceptable deplorable action by one of these types that are criticizing the bin Laden raid

Action? He spoke out against it, those are words, not actions. I would say marching into a country, destroying it's infrastructure and creating instability that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths is a deplorable action, while criticising the people that do it is not, nor is comparing it to other war crimes.

You're undecided? And what's going to tip you one way or the other? What's got you hung up? Trying to decide if 9/11 was more horrifying than those soldiers caught murdering for fun? As the math teach says show me your work. I think you've screwed up orders of magnitude or direction, angle, and nuances.

Yes, i'm undecided. On the one hand, the iraqi economy was devastated. Hundreds of thousands of people died. Hundreds of thousands more were made refugees. It is quite possible that the invasion actively increased global jihadi terrorism, and may have been a motivation behind the london bombings. Images of iraqi prisoners being tortured no doubt soured middle eastern attidues towards western countries as well.

The invasion has also quite likely reduced the political will of western countries to intervene in more humanitarian situations - for example, very few western countries are willing to even consider ground troops in libya, and iraq is cited as a reason for this. The invasion also cost large amounts of money that could have gone towards improving the economies of the uk and america.

On the other hand, 9/11 directly killed 3000 people and injured thousands more, destroyed an expensive piece of infrastructure, encouraged racism in countries around the world, caused an expensive and costly war in afghanistan, furthered political will to justify torture in places such as guantanamo, and forced western countries to spend money on security that could have gone to better causes.

So yes, i'm undecided. In my eyes, both were atrocities. One was larger in scale but the motivations were dubious, while the other was smaller in scale with obviously evil motivations.