Happy Nuke Day

Eh, that's a tad more cynical than I can go... the Kaiser wasn't inherently evil, he just tried to overthrow the established order. Hitler on the other hand will always go down as an evil bastard. Within a generation or two the war propaganda can overcome relative moral stances, but eventually you can see if one side was more 'right' than the other. Hell, Andrew Jackson, the Conquistadors, the Crusaders... plenty of folks that aren't looked kindly at by history despite getting really good press at the time and winning their little brouhahahas...

Wow. You should compare notes with Osama binLaden. I'm sure that's his rationale too.

Why were the WTC attacks wrong again?

Neither myself nor Packard are pacifists, and there is such a thing as a just war.

This would necessarily involve both the aims and the methods of the war being above reproach.

According to whom? Everyone on Earth, to a man?

According to morality - which is not relative.

Killing innocent people, is wrong, just like rape, pillage and torture.

Since everyone on Earth, to a man, doesn't agree that morality isn't relative, your premise is already hopelessly flawed.

There is no such thing as absolute morality.

Truth does not require unanimous (or indeed any) agreement to remain true.

Morality requires consistency or it ceases to become morality.

Truth is as real as God.

Is that the truth?

One person's truth is another person's lie.

Is that the truth?

From a Western perspective, they were morally wrong because they deliberately targeted innocent civilians in a surprise attack.

From a military perspective, they were tactically sound because they achieved their mission objectives. However, they were strategically unsound (i.e.; "wrong") because they focused the attention of a vastly superior enemy against their main operating base: Afghanistan. In absolute terms, the September 11 attacks in general cost Al Qaida more than they returned.

It's the truth according to me which, just as with morality, is as specific and absolute as the notion gets.

Is that the truth?

Infinite regress here. I won't continue, as you hopefully get the point.

I do get the point. But the point you're making is mine

If it weren't relative, you wouldn't have to ask

No. No, you don't get the point. You're either stupid or obtuse.

Of course, I'm wary of your dance routine. Bye!

Actually, I did get my point...I'd recognize it anywhere

Ah, but they were a smashing success in one way -
I imagine Bin Laden laughing his ass off every time he hears how much we keep spending on everything that resulted from those attacks. The spending on Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror, homeland security, etc, is bleeding us dry financially. And the security crap that's descended on airports worldwide, causing varying levels of grief to western passengers, bankrupting airlines ...
Fuck every time I have to jump thru four hoops just to renew my drivers' license, I curse Osama.

9/11 was a very successful attack on US and western economy with effects that will continue to be felt for years.

Dammit.

My ass! All they had were a few good generals and a few good designs. Their entire war effort was thanks to the gracious terms of the Lend-Lease agreement.

On the other hand, America was fighting two wars overseas and could easily make the logistics train; the Russians had to steal our bomber designs just to keep up.

Though, I will admit that the KGB had the OSS beat. Damn sympathizing traitors.

You have too much faith in the hearts of men.

Far too much...

What he's saying is that your interpretation of morality and "the truth" are no more valid than the person next to you.

There are things which we accept as absolute, but people still believe the moon landings were faked and Elvis is pumping gas down the street.

And a bazillion men that they were willing to throw into the grinder.

And we had likewise on the factory floor, making tanks and bullets...

Just remember - that day 62 years ago would never had happened if the "poor folks who were assaulted" had not started the ruckus a little over three years earlier.
It's something that a lot of folks seem to forget.

Just to play Devil's Advocate: You think two wrongs make a right?

So did the Japanese at that time.

Just for argument's sake - who says that stopping the war in the quickest way possible with the fewest lost of life on both sides is a second wrong?
And please - don't say that we chose a civilian target; at the time the US thought it was still a military target.