Justice

I disagree with the context, which attempts to downplay 9/11 by justifying it. But we've been through this before, haven't we? Whatever. I don't find it to be that reliable, but it's all based on one's opinon. *Shrugs*

No offense, but Darwin had a theory. It's never been actually proven or anything. Just because it's the main belief of SCIENCE~! doesn't mean much. Science can and sometimes is wrong. Look at Hawking on Black Holes. Theories = written truth. Secondly, I've always sort of subscribe that if I were ever to really believe the bible, that much of 'creation' could easily concide with Big Bang and evolution, with 'days' being the simplest way to represent the gross amount of time that it all took. Of course, being agnostic, I'm not really a firm believer in anything. Not exactly true. Huh? No offense, but religion is often tied with morals. While I don't agree with everyone's morals, it's impossible to disconnect them from politics and dumb to try and suggest it's actually possible. Okay, now you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.

It was a response to American foreign policy. If not, then what? Perhaps I should be more specific: I forgot to mention that they were simply freedom fighters fighting the power. My bad. Here's one. He's on there more than a few times. Hell, the article you posted not long ago is there, even. Their writers are so far to the left that I it's not hard to dismiss them as they begin to intone on a giant neo-con plot to rule the world through Wal-mart or some other such brilliant topic.

*Shrugs* Believe what you want to believe. I didn't know that religious freedom meant we all had to be atheists.

One can find anything he wants if he 'researches' it. Of course, your idea of truth revolves around 9/11 being a response rather than an attack, but whatever. 'Anonymous sources' that report things like these incredible US massacres of the Iraqi people, Allawi shooting prisoners, etc. And much of their credibility is up to you: they post articles by Noam Chomsky.

It's not the context of World War II, which is the context that the Atomic Bombs are in. You simply can't remove this completely from WWII. Because we weren't the ones who started the war in the first place. Trying to act as though the Atomic Bombs being dropped suddenly started a new war. Was it the beginning of the age of the Nuclear Warfare? Yes. But it didn't start any warfare. We weren't the aggressors because we didn't start initial hostilities. If hositilities started with an Atomic Bomb, you'd have a point. But they didn't, so you really don't. Read: I can't defend against it, so I'll just cut it out and ignore it. The casualties from the bomb were speculation at the time, too, you know. It's pretty dumb to try and dismiss one because of speculation because that's purely what it was decided on. The fact that you can't comprehend the idea that both plans of action were speculation when the decision was made shows your complete lack of thought on the subject. Lemme put YOU in the position. Choose one. If you can't, then you are a hypocrit: Operation Olympic: Invasion of the Southern Islands of the Japan, likely to have at least 500,000 casualties American (Happy medium between the two numbers given). After that we firebomb Japan into submission, causing an estimated 3,000,000 dead. Fat Man and Little Boy: Complete devestation of two cities at the cost of 300,000. What do you choose? If you can't give me an answer, then you lack the capacity to judge the action in any way. But that argument doesn't hold water. Just with think that was justified means that we are any more likely to light off one today. There are people from other countries who believe the same as we do, why aren't they mentioned? This entire idea that because we are the only ones who did it, we are the only ones crazy enough to do it again doesn't add up. Hell, I'm sure other countries could find their own justifications as well for using nuclear arms. Seriously, you are arguing non-existant semantics since anyone can justify anything if it comes down to it, regardless of history (Not even considering how flawed your example is) or country. No, the analogy doesn't fit. Just because a police officer shot a person in a certain situation, does that make him more likely to shoot at someone in the future? No, because it's completely dependent upon the situation. You are completely ignoring any context that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in. I bolded that part because I love it so much. I'm sorry, but I didn't know that there was something assured in this whole thing. Where was the plan where we knew everthing beforehand? Can you cite the plan where we magically knew what was definitely going to happen? Or perhaps the whole 'It was speculation' is a magnificent straw man so that you can ignore anything that might go against your argument? I think ANYONE could be capable of a first strike nuclear attack, given the right situation. The entire idea is completely situational, which is why your trying to pass this judgement is moronic: Could the US do it? Yes, given the right circumstances. Give me the cicumstances, and I can give you a good answer.

So, we should believe your lies instead? Dude, no offense, but anonymous sources at commondreams.org don't really cut it as the 'most truthful' or 'unbiased' sources. Just a thought, though.

I really doubt that those are still the real deal, considering they are around something like a decade to two decades old.

There is no 'in context of nuclear war'. It's simply war in general. Just because you bring tanks first doesn't mean 'in the context of armored warfare you were the aggressor'. The war itself was started by the Japanese. We WEREN'T the aggressors, no matter how much you try to twist the matter. Secondly: Thirdly, no it isn't. Comparing 300,000 potentially dead in one course of action to multi-millions potentially dead is not that relative. It's simple math. You seem to forget that they hadn't dropped the bomb when they did this calculation. It's not "This many dead vs. this many potential", it's "This vs. This". There isn't any relative part about it: People will die, more people will die one way than another. Make your choice. I don't see it as being exactly the same way. A fist-fight, the only person involved is you two. War on a whole is much more complex than to simply try to bring it down to that equation. And I find your conclusion to be bs, but since that's pretty much completely subjective, I won't try to argue it. I personally found, though, your justification through the A-Bomb argument to be flawed.

Would that count as an Easter egg? 'The Side of the Carnival You Never Saw!!!' "With Z singing 'Now You're a Man'!"

This is where your argument is completely flawed. To ignore the facts that we were attacked first (Thusly NOT the aggressors) and we had fought this war for 3 years and were desperately trying to end it with the least amount of lives lost. Our justification for dropping the atomic bomb: Millions of lives would be lost any other way. I don't see how that morally relative. Perhaps you could justify why we shouldn't have dropped the bomb. Maybe that'll help me out here.

Yes. You are very a very self-righteous people. And, you know, you *did* drop 2 of them before and still feel justified in doing so. We were completely justified. Like Kahran said, the Invasion of Japan would have been a disaster. The predicted military casualties, judging by trends as we got closer to Japan, were around 1,000,000 Americans. That's JUST Americans. Considering the better part of the plan consisted of invading the southern islands, setting up air-strips, and firebombing them into submission, atomic weapons were BY FAR the best option.

Judge Mental: Believe it or not, a lot of my character's basics came from Thor of all people. The name was originally his idea, and he convinced me to use it instead of a hockey-themed guy (Hence why I was Powerplay for so damn long). William Hearford III: William sounds sophisticated, and I've always associated it with William Regal when I think of wrestling. Hearford... I dunno, just something that sounded fairly upper-class, which is why I put 'III' in as well. Justice: Mak is the innovater of this, coming up with the name "Justice and Rule". Since Judge Mental sounded so damn gimmicky, I decided to take this or just plain "The Judge" as a proper sub. Well, I'm a fan of the movie Mallrats. And I always thought La Fours looked completely bad-ass. So I modelled Judge after him. He looks essentially the same, only with a closer cropped beard and maybe a bit more grey in there. Oh God, this is a long story. Originally, this guy was gonna be a big power wrestler, because, well, that's about all I knew about when I entered the fed. I had not be into wrestling in YEARS. But, surprisingly enough, it was Thor who convinced me that he should be a manipulative lone heel. So I shrunk him down (And continued to as I tweaked the character. He lost around 3" of height and 25 pounds) a bit over time. My original story, which sort of got covered up in the end, focuses mainly on Judge's past as a prosecutor, eventually a county judge, and his history with a local federation back when wrestling was more acceptable, and his eventual fall from grace as times changed. I think I took like, two months alone writing three promos that contained my background info, though only one of them was posted. One of them was an 8,000 word match that was supposed to show how my fall from grace began. That was back in the day when I busted out 3 1,000 word promos in as many days. Lord, how long ago was that? Judge was originally supposed to turn face during my ill-fated feud with Kamikaze (Sarah), but it just never really took off. First off I won the JL title in 4 matches and Kazi got the T.V. Title. So I decided to stay heel for a better opportunity, but it never came. I was too busy beating the shit out of Matt Myers after he took my title to ever execute a change, and after that I formed the JL Mag 7 with Ejiro and the returning Fugue with help from Tom. I really wish I had turned face at one time. I was prepped for it when I came back briefly, but my life took a turn into the shitter and that just dried up on me (Sorry Toxxic). I also wish I had worked a serious program with Tom rather than fleeing back to the tag ranks to let Silent take his chance. In all honesty, the beginning of my Hardcore Run and the very beginning of Justice and Rule, and most of my JL Career would please me. That's before it got all fucked up with my own problems :\. Also, the few promos that I wrote for Tom and Thugg because both of them were busy and couldn't get it done. I honestly loved writing that sort of gang-warfare jazz between the Mag 7, the Carnies, CC, and Thugg.

Just to mention, if it hasn't been, North Korea does have ICBMs.

*Points to the above sources* Again, look at the size of our contribution in comparison to just about every other country. This is a straw man. We've never found any weapons with American material, despite the fact that we sold them some material way back when. I believe all the weapons we've ever found were made by Iraq, in Iraq, out of Iraqi materials. Why does this matter? Because it shows that our help to Iraq meant little to nothing; his WMD programs were largely already running full tilt, and his massive stockpiles were homegrown, not American made. Our token help had little impact on his stay in power or his military.

Here, how about this: If you can explain where in the little video it condemns this sort of attack, I'll agree with you. It's light wording and placement, though, makes me believe, though, that it found the attacks on the WTC justified in part, if not wholely.

It was a response. It was a reason. It does not mean it was right. (aka justfying it) You guys are really quite amazing at this whole spin doctoring business. It's amusing, yet terribly frightening at the same time. Perhaps you are dense, but it did justify it with the previous statement. It was a response to an evil megolmanic group trying to enforce corporate consumerism on the world. All it was was a response, retaliation for wrongs inflicted on it. It never says it was wrong in any way, shape, or form. In the context of the film, it actually goes a long way towards justifying it, especially with the segment I put in before it. They obviously saved so many from becoming mindless mall rats! Dear God, bless those boys who took down those towers. And hey, it's not spindoctoring, it's the truth. You just don't want to accept it.

That's not what it said. Huh. That seems like it's justifying 9/11 as an attack against a megolmanical country bent on bending the world to it's consumerist goal. Wow, that sorta seems like an excuse, don't it? Saying you support stuff like that and then saying "I never support terrorist attacks, no matter the reason" is an pretty good example of backtracking.

Actually, um, if you read up on the sources, it's 4.4 from Oil for Food and 5.7 Billon seperately for smuggling. If you are going to try and call me out on numbers, then please, at least get them right. Here's the exact quote: Oil for Food Facts He looted it of 4.4 Billion dollars. How he did or not doesn't matter, whether he stole it from a vault or bought sub-standard goods, the fact remains he illegally profited $4,400,000,000 from it. I wonder why the UN never noticed it before. Perhaps it was because Sevon was getting kickbacks from Saddam? Hm... Huh, and the UN instantly clears any possible involvement through kickbacks with a tyrannical dictator. Huh, why would that seem questionable? It's funny how you don't question the UN despite the incredible amount of scandals it's up against, but you'll consistantly find ways of manipulating the facts so that the US is always shat upon. Bravo. I've given you sources, and when presented with their facts you try to dodge around them to fulfil your inane argument. Go ahead, take your ball and go home. Perhaps you can find a terrorist attack to justify somewhere.

You mean like that time you showed us the video that claimed 9/11 was simply a response to a super-secret Neo-Conservative push for world domination through consumerism? I think it's really, really funny to watch you backtrack like. It absolutely hilarious.

At the moment he's still attributed with 4.4 Billion of it by the GAO. As the UN was too innept to do their job the first time, why should I trust them to do an able job of fact checking, especially if they aren't even checking out very legitimate claims because they are connected to the SG's son? Secondly, in your previous statement attacking the WP, you failed to realize that those kickbacks were to highly influential individuals. Again, Sevon got over $13,000,000 in vouchers alone, and he ran the program. That doesn't seem like a massive kickback to you? If G.W. got one of those from someone like Saddam Hussein, he would have been immediately impeached and probably shot by the general public. Yet, for you, this is not an outrage. You bitch about 'slick oilcrats' bribing G.W. through campaign funds, yet pure, unadulterated profit in the millions doesn't bother you? Hypocrit.

They do. Their called Muslme terrorist. They don't discriminate, they want to kill everyone whose not exactly like them. and if they manage to defeat America, we'll worry about them then. I'm sure Spain was saying the exact same thing.

No kickbacks? Not true. Washington Post The economist has a nice report on this, as well They cite a few places where they did limit the investigation (perhaps most indicative of what type of investigation this really is, they forgot all about Kojo Annan...) and I'd really like to see what the non-UN Auditors have to say about this. Okay, perhaps I was a bit frustrated with you there. Anyways, here we go: NYT: Who armed Iraq? What Iraq Admitted about it's CWP. Just as well: There are NO reports of anyone EVER finding ANY American-made chemical or bio-weapons in Iraq, before, during, or after. If you have ANY articles that prove that American Chemical weapons were found in Iraq, please produce them. Otherwise, please shut up about us arming them. There are far, far more worthy candidates for that scorn. Hey, Communist Russia had all those ideals, too. Just because they list them doesn't mean that it was gonna work out exactly that way. Again, I've provided articles that talk about killings of political dissidents and the Indians. Providing their idealistic list and once again trying to shift the blame doesn't hide the fact that the Sandinistas weren't a good regieme, and that there was ample reason for them to be pushed out. The only problem was we chose the most ass-backwards way of doing it.

Huh. Let's see if we can keep the streak up: Who here doesn't like to eat puppies?

Eh, if we just gave teachers the power to beat the shit out of kids, I'm sure we'd be much better off. "A billy club in every classroom and a taser for every teacher!"