Come on, DC.
And you're accusing others of not debating properly? I expected better from you.
Who debated him? As a matter of fact some of the things that he wrote make some sense. All I did was add on to what he said by pointing out the 3000 civilian lives that were taken from us.
And I didn't attack him, call him any names, or piss on him in any way. That's what I am talking about when I mention about properly debating.
But let's say, for a moment, that I was debating him. Is my posting the names of 3000 civilians being killed, in reply to his statement about civilians being killed, considered improper debating in your eyes?
:rolleyes:
What's the matter with you Enzo? trying to start a debate for no reason. I expected better from you.
Actually, DC, it mattered very much to the 9/11 terrorists that civilians should die. That, after all, was there plan.
So Dr., does that make it excusable? Are we supposed to understand them now and realize that they were only doing what they felt needed to be done? Are we supposed to accept it as being "strictly business?
In Africa 3000 people also die every 2 hours, due to simple diseases like diarrea, and starvation. And not 1 time those 2 hours, but every hour of the day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, for so many years already. That's a lot of hours.
That is unexcusable in our world. I don't dispute that. But that is completely unrelated to discussing the war on terror. Nothing to do with it whatsoever.
As far as the total death count on 9/11, well for some reason, (one that is very upsetting to me), whenever some people talk about the deaths on 9/11, they only quote the death total of those who were murdered in the towers, always forgetting the number of people on the planes and in the Pentagon.
Don Cardi
