Geezer

Indeed it wasn't but then again neither was Berlin before 1939. The population of Berlin was attacked as a by product of the war, they were not the target (well, not up until the spring of 1945). New York is not in a war zone.



Who's comparing body counts? Not me, never mentioned it. I am talking about intent to harm innocents.



Well, you've got me there!

Geezer

gsm1

- No one said they were acceptable.
- Americans aren't prepared to kill themselves in the process of killing others.
- In terms of the cost/damage ratio I doubt they'd be cheaper.
- Even to the gullible they'd have no chance of claiming they actually gave a crap about civilian casualties.

MJW

Berlin wasn't a target ? Have you spoken to any Lancaster bomber pilots lately or are aware of what happened at Dresden ? Anyway, we digress ... You are correct New York is not in a war zone. Neither was Baghdad before it was razed to the ground. Military or terrorist activity as I am sure you are aware is not limited to pre-defined war zones, it creates them.

No, but you implied that insurgents were being successful with their bombing campaigns. I merely stated that they were nowhere near as successful as coalition attacks using the body count to illustrate the point.

AsifScoob

Overall, I agree with this.

Further, If the terrorists had wanted to take the maximum number of lives, after all of the preparation they had clearly done, wouldn't they have waited for at least the buildings to have significant numbers of people in them? Remember it was still early morning.

Asif

gsm1

That's an anti-west comment? You find it incredible because of what?

Look, if you want to believe a crock, that's up to you. As for living in Afghanistan or Iraq, you obviously can't see the irony of your statement.

tiggers

gsm1,

You may not be anti-west, but it's certainly how your posts come across sometimes or in the least very anti-American. Not trying to wind you up, just pointing out that I too can see how B2Z arrives at that conclusion.

tiggers.

Angry

Al Qaeda is as real as Father Christmas, didnt anyone see The Power of Nightmares on BBC2?

gsm1

If someone has a problem with my argument then by all means counter it but making remarks about me doesn't cut it. And if people choose to call me anti-west, or whatever else, they'd better back it up.

anc-sti

Absolutely, created by the American government to create fear among its people to stay in power, well out of order.

The same was made of the Soviet block countries in the 60's and 70's. There wasn't nearly as greater threat to western civilisation as they made out.

tiggers

Or what?

Anyway try being a little less hostile in your posts - I was simply pointing out that that is how you come across sometimes (in my opinion) rather than saying that is how you are. It's not making remarks about you , it was simply explaining that B2Z is not the only one who pulls that opinion out of some of your posts.

tiggers.

MJW

Can we keep it civil and impersonal please, I don't want this thread going the same way as the Guantanamo one. Please respect others' rights to have an opinion whether you agree with it or not.

gsm1

That was directed at B2Z, not you. And that wasn't a threat, I was trying to say that if anyone wants to accuse me of something then they should back it up. I'm sick and tired of people who rather than argue a point find it easier to label people lefties, liberals, lentil eaters..tree huggers and the rest of it. I don't deny some of my posts in the past may have appeared 'hostile' but considering the content of other posters it was probably valid. I'm also not a great user of emoticons so it may appear that way.

tiggers

Fair enough mate, but to be fair it was me you quoted in your reply so I think you can understand my confusion.

FWIW I agree with the labelling point - after all I am told on here often enough how I try and take the moral high ground whatever that may mean in the context of some of my posts.

Regards,

tiggers.