She has a very dim view of America.

So, she's saying after 9/11, that being American meant you were white, right? with "meant" being past tense, it is referring

to before 9/11, yes? and after 9/11, she says she suddenly started fighting for the right to be just as American...right?

So, she thinks it is a good thing that 9/11 happened, because before, she was racist and despised white Americans

as being the only Americans... ? and after 9/11, the focus was on Muslims, and she spoke out to demand that

she be considered "American" too.

Which, is not saying that 9/11 was a bad thing. So, imho, she is saying white America got clobbered, and that gave

her the initiative to insist on being considered American, too.

Except I don't know why she thinks other people didn't consider her "American"

btw, I hope you aren't a lawyer or you should go back to skewel.

@calfoxwc said:

Your reasoning is rather fallacious. Lets examine what she said in that above mentioned tweet:

A) 9/11 changed the world for good.

B)I just hope we can keep having conversations about our differences

These two statements are two individual thoughts (of which I agree with both). "A" means that the state of the world before and after 9/11 are irreversibly different from one another. "B" simply states that people have differences, and that she hopes that the conversations about those differences can be continued.

Neither of these two statements are mutually exclusive to the other. However, your "interpretation", as you described it, is your attempt to create a "correlation equals causation" relationship between both of those two statements together, in a negative connotation, ie. "It is good that 9/11 happened, because now we can keep having conversations about our differences". This is a false cause logical fallacy - cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Now, where you become libelous is when you added "the" in your thread title as a correlating conjunction between A and B; which didn't originally appear in her original statement. This unintentionally (but likely intentionally) and damagingly misconstrues the original context of her statements into your stated interpretation of believing that she is implying that 9/11 was good.

@calfoxwc said:

of course it doesn't make sense.

And scene

having conversations about our differences, meaning, "having conversations about

our differences" is a result of 9/11.

So, she deems it a good thing.

So, learn to read and analyze, stop with the emotional knee jerk, jblew.

You don't get much.

@calfoxwc said:

So you were committing libel. Gotcha.

You could've saved everyone some time by stating so at the beginning of your thread.

hit our country - it changed us forever about knowing we are at war with them.

Like, Pearl Harbor changed us a bit forever.

She said "for good"....

but look at her antagonistic hatred for white people, and America not being

a great country, etc etc...

and gloating that white people won't be the majority one day, etc etc...

she is saying that 9/11 changed America for good....

and she likes the change - she didn't like America before the change - and now white

people..... what? got what was coming to them? To me, the hater has a hate for white people

in America, and 9/11 showed that Muslims got the upper hand once, and white people lost it.

or something like that. She's a nasty, hating belligerent, dishonest excuse for a human being.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

The Irish built this country.

The only thing the irish built was the alcohol industry. And our affinity for all products derived from the potato. Thats it.

Italians on the other hand.....

So did Constitution originally wrote the aricle as "the good" and then edit to "good", or was it always "good"?

@diehardbrownsfan said:

The Irish built this country.

Well that's how we see it.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

The Irish built this country.

@mld-woody said:

Ok, well post and thread are two different things. That's what confused me.

☆Cal put up the post and began the thread. Constitution wrote the article, but whatever.☆

Why did Cal change the thread title?

Just me personally, but I didn't find fault with her saying she was a Syrian. Born and raised in Syria can still be a loyal u.s. citizen.

One of my ancestors was a proud American citizen but his nickname was Irish John Moore.

And 911 did make major permanent changes in the United States.

WSS

Why did Cal change the thread title?

WSS

@westside-steve said:

I have no evidence that the Constitution Article was ever incorrect in its title. I'm saying that the title of the post was changed.

I don't see what is so confusing.

WSS

The post or the thread title?

@gftchris said:

Because admitting you made a mistake and jumped in with both feet is difficult to do when you're so entrenched in a position?

Well now

@mld-woody said:

Ok, so why does the article on constitution.com still exist? They updated their title to "for good", but they're still trying to push the same point?

I have no evidence that the Constitution Article was ever incorrect in its title. I'm saying that the title of the post was changed.

I don't see what is so confusing.

WSS

@mld-woody said:

Because admitting you made a mistake and jumped in with both feet is difficult to do when you're so entrenched in a position?

@mld-woody said:

The title of the article in the OP says "for good". So they still have the inaccurate quote?

WSS