If one believes that the invasion of Iraq was all about settling a personal vendetta, why shouldn’t they be moral equivalents?
Evil means to achieve evil ends, both obviously likely to result in thousands of civilian deaths.
Well if a firefighter says it, it must be true.
Tenet.
/drive-by ignorance battle
/hijack
[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]
Say they beat my ass, what would that prove, other than these particular guys were assholes/bullies?
Contrapuntnal, say Dubya in his heart believes Saddam/OBL are buddies and they are the Antichrist(s) and are going to one day nuke the US into oblivion, and say he feels it is his job as a good Chrisitian president to deal with them, but feels he needs to show US citizens a really good reason, or he won’t get elected to a second term. So the bombing plan comes across his desk and he does nothing- 3000 US lives are lost, but in Dubya’s mind this gives him the opportunity to go in and wipe them both out, thus saving millions of Americans of lives down the road. I don’t see that as being an impossible scenario- isn’t every war ever fought pretty much sacrificing some lives now to save millions later?
Thanks, I thought that looked wrong, but I was too lazy to look it up.
When the subject is the nature of the emotional bond between firefighters, then yes, their answer probably has a very high truthiness quotient.
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
It means that they certainly do not share your opinion. Ergo your phrase ‘That’s the dumbest thing I’ve seen in this thread’ is a bit overextending things
We’re not talking about “the nature of the emotional bond between firefighters”. We’re talking about whether they are brothers, not whether they think they are. According to Merriam-Webster, Wee Bairn’s contention that “if firefighters are brothers, my coworkers are too” is perfectly correct.
Not that I have a single fucking clue what this has to do with the thread topic, but still.
You’re quoting a review of a movie with that title, but yes it is common for some to refer to firefighters as that, I am aware, just it is my OPINION that it is silly to do so.
Great, you’re a nice guy as long as someone doesn’t disagree (sic) with you on a given topic. 
Fine then.
Your opinion is patently stupid, narrow-minded, and literalist.
That is all.
Sorry I don’t bow down in reverence and give blowjobs every time I pass a firestation. Fireman do good work, some perform amazing acts of heroism, same as regular people. Some took the job just becasue it pays well and gives them three days off in a row. I believe an individual should be judged on his own merits, not because of his job. A given fireman is due no more respect or admiration, lacking any other knowlege of him as a person, than a soldier, policeman or file clerk. There are evil asshole fireman out there I’m sure.
But I really don’t want to hijack this scintillating debate with talk of firemen.
And you don’t know shit about firemen if you think they run wildly in buidlings that they know are about to collapse.
Where the fuck did I say that?!
What thread are you reading? Some firemen refer to each other as “brothers”, and the only thing people are doing here is defending that definition as is used by firemen.
Nobody gives a fuck what you think about firemen or firefighting as a profession, and nobody’s trying to debate the merits of the profession or the people in it. You started this stupid semantic war and for who the fuck knows what reason find it “silly” that someone else uses a word in a different way than you do.
Actually it was introduced by** Cisco**, probably to give his post some added pathos- kind of like calling a dead child an “innocent”, but you are right, it was an off topic hijack that should not have been made. Thanks for keep the thread on topic 
And yet that’s exactly what they did on 9/11. Amazing, isn’t it?
With apologies to Algorithm and no offense to anyone who died, but-
That was an anomoly or a flat out error- most did not think the buildings would fall. And firefighter death rates, excluding 2001 are never in the Top 10- taxi driving is usually statistically a more dangerous job.
If this scenario did play out, then why wasn’t there any evidence linking 9/11 to Saddam Hussein? It would’ve made whipping the country up to go war against Saddam so much easier. You seem to be positing an administration ruthless enough to murder a couple of thousand people to further its ends yet strangely squeamish about using forgery for the same purpose.
Do you really think we’re fucking stupid or are you trolling? I want a fucking answer - are. you. trolling?
Unless you’re seriously trying to say that I coined the term “brothers” for members of a fire department then YOU introduced this hijack with your deliberately offensive little “nitpick” in post 171 you renegade drop of pre-cum.
Well, I’d hope that when analyzing an event, we don’t waste a lot of time examining possibilities simply because they are conceivable. Any number of things are conceivable, but few have supprtorting evidence.
Sure, in theory. And if you had any evidence (eyewitness accounts, blast damage originating from the garage level) then it would definitely be worth exploring. Idf you’re willing, however, to explore possibilities that have no supporting evidence, why stop with the prosaic idea of carbombs? We could invoke orbiting lasers as a possible element, which have been “conceivable” since the 1970s, if not earlier.
Sure. Conceivably, one immense truck bomb parked in the right spot could have destroyed a tower, and this was a concern back in 1993 (I don’t offhand know of any serious engineering analysis of the possibility, but I’d gladly concede it). What evidence do you have that such an approach was used in 2001 against either or both towers? If you have none, but want to float the idea anyway, we’re back to orbital lasers.
I daresay the level of curiosity about the WTC collapse in the months following was several orders of magnitude greater than Watergate in 1972. If evidence existed of a non-plane factor, are you under the impression it’s being suppressed?