Moonlight Graham

Haters gonna hate.

Watch Ron Paul get boo'd by audience members of the US Republican Tea Party debate last night while debating Rick Santorum (you can skip to 1:50 in the video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMAzQ5YB304 Ron Paul lays out the facts that virtually any comprehensive piece of scholarly literature about al-Qaeda and the motives of 9/11 reveals, and is boo'd for it. It's sad that some people still believe the "we were attacked for our freedom" propaganda that was spouted after 9/11...but it truly frightens me that a US Presidential candidate like Santorum would spout the same things while being visibly upset that Ron Paul actually, like, reads books.

The archbishops/cardinals that turn a blind eye? No, more like the family member of a molested child who shoots a clergyman or whatnot for it. Neither side is in the right.

You argue for never-ending warfare then? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi At some point, some side(s) has to say "ok you win, i've got better things to do".

That's a pretty darn good analogy.

Huh? Yes there is always going to be a top 1%, just as there will always be a bottom 1%. But if the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 1% goes higher and higher, how is that good for society? It means the have-nots are being left behind compared to the haves, with more money being concentrated into the hands of a few.

The two reports come from 2 different UN panels. They conflict each other, that`s the whole point here.

"Blowback" refers to covert operations. Which covert operation(s) made al-Qaeda declare war on the US & other westerners? Personally I don't think it was just "blowback", there are grievances over clandestine operations but maybe even more importantly are the ones right in front of their faces (ie: Gulf War I and Israel support) that caused resentment.

Give me torrents or give me death.

That's IF you believe the guy. Dalton is a proven liar during campaigns. Remember this one: "I won't cut your taxes, but I won't raise them either." Ha! I can't trust the man. He should just zip the lip and run on his record, that's the only thing he can stand on with any reality to it. I don't know who i'm going to vote for

agreed.

It wasn't a nationalistic celebration, it was a nationalistic remembrance. We did similar with Jack Layton a few weeks ago. You are saying 9/11 was a result of US foreign policy in the middle-east. This is true, but only part of the explanation. 9/11 also occurred because of the radical Islamic ideology that bin Laden & al-Zawahiri believed in, which was greatly based in Qutbism (google it!). Qutbism espouses offensive jihad against enemies of "true" Islam, and was key in convincing OBL to switch focus from fighting the "near enemy" (USSR in the 80's in Afghanistan, and aposate "Islamic" leaders in the M.E. etc.) to the "far-enemy" (the "Jewish-Crusader (aka US) alliance). Bin Laden was furious when the US was allowed to station military forces in Saudi Arabia near Mecca and Medina. Al-Qaeda also seeks to spread fundamental Islam across the world & create a global fundamentalist Islamic caliphate. You can't take blowback/US foreign policy as a reason for 9/11 without al-Qaeda's radical Islamic ideology as a reason as well. Like peas and carrots, very much inter-linked. Any book or journal article on al-Qaeda will say this.

No. I never said that "no good' has come from the Iraq War, and if you're talking about the sanctions before the war, those were also horrible, though a bit of progress was being made with the "oil for food" program. The previous sanctions were not sustainable, they were awful for Iraqis. If a way to contain Saddam while not starving the country was not attainable, then let the Bush admin and other govs make an honest case about invasion. Bring that rationale to the people. Don't make up horsecrap lies to invade for reasons that had nothing to do with humanitarian concern. It's not a democracy, it's a democracy-by-gunpoint. When NATO/US leaves, we'll see how long it stays a democracy, and i'm not very optimistic. But here's hoping i'm wrong. I would say an attack on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was definitely necessary. I disagree that a full-scale regime change was wise when weighing the costs/benefits, because fighting the Taliban (who didn't even attack the West) is taking over a decade with mediocre results, and when we leave there's an excellent chance that the pseudo-democracy in place will become authoritarian via coup (possibly by the people we ourselves are training/equiping) or plain corruption. IMO NATO/US has a really stupid strategy. Why focus so much on the Taliban (a much tougher opponent), when al-Qaeda is the real threat?

This is an excellent point, one you hear very seldom, even from Americans. Though i would replace the phrase "all the ills" with "many (or most) of the ills". Maybe you (and other Americans) should explore this further, and try to list the different things the US has given to the world. Much of it may be hard to empirically quantify, but so are many of the negative influences charged to the US. I've read a good article on this subject (though at times a bit chest-thumping) by Robert Kagan, printed in the well-known scholarly journal Foreign Policy: The Benevolent Empire One thing I know for sure, i'm very grateful to have the US as the lone world superpower compared to many other nations who could have or may replace them (ie: USSR/Russia, China, Iran etc.). In 20 years people may be begging to have the US back as the hegemon if China starts to equal or surpass US power. The above article makes this point as well.

Right. He wasn't just "not very welcome" in Saudi Arabia, he was exiled from the country in the early 90's.

A friend woke me up just after the 3rd plane crashed into the Pentagon. I was off that day so i spent the day watching the news, so the 2 towers collapse live on TV. Later i found out that a poster from another message board i frequented worked in the WTC and died, that really hit it home for me.

Oops lol, too many zeros! Thank you for catching that.

As for the OP, it's hard to say they "won", but I would say their attacks on 9/11 was very successful in achieving its intent. It harmed the US and other western govs economically, dragged them into 2 large wars where they could kill them on their own soil, got people in the west to pay attention to their political grievances, and served as an excellent recruitment tool for terror groups. Some of al-Qaeda have been killed and the network weakened, but they likely see themselves as martyrs, and the US and the west are hated more than ever in the middle east and has likely certainly increased substantially the number of those who wish to attack the US/west.

It recently came out that an estimated 1 trillion dollars has been spent by the Canadian gov for extra security expenses related to 9/11. That's about $30,000 per Canadian. So yes, i'd say it has affected me!...as it has you too. edit: actually it's almost $100 billion, not 1 tril, so almost $3000 per Canadian. I don't sense any anti-Americanism in the OP. His is a fair statement, and a fair question. To say the 9/11 attacks were successful from a strategic point of view, which is where I see the OP coming from, is a fair statement. This 9/11 anniversary is for everyone to remember those who lost their lives and otherwise suffered because of the attacks, but it should also be a time when we should reflect on the actions of our governments after the attacks. We will mourn the 3000 or so who were killed in NYC/DC, but it is also tragic the tens of thousands of innocents, if not over a hundred thousand, who were killed needlessly by our govs militaries & hired guns.

Woops, sorry missed the link you posted. thanks.

What does "other costs" mean? Are we talking foreign wars re: Afghanistan

The question shouldn't be "do you feel safer?". Of course we don't feel safer post-9/11. The question should be: are we much safer having spend the extra 92 billion for security post-9/11? Or better yet, has the 92 billion been worth it in terms of security? I haven't looked at all the expenditures, but I feel we've done a decent job in terms of domestic security since 9/11.

To be replaced by who? Would the Bush, Clinton, Reagan, or Carter admins etc. have done any better? The problem is that special interests have massive influence on Congress and the White House, as well as just about every federal department. Many of these special interest groups are bipartisan, meaning they don't care which party they support as long as they go along with their demands. With every election it becomes more and more clear that it doesn't matter as much as we think if it's a Republican or Democrat in the White House, because each will be beholden in large part to the same special interests whom they rely on for money and votes etc. Big business and the banks have the government by the balls. If you vote for sellouts, you get sellouts.

If you're going to judge the effectiveness of the Bush admin simply by how many terror attacks occurred on US soil after 9/11, so be it. That's an easy thing to hide behind, because it's about the only thing they did right. I guess you forgot that 9/11 itself occurred on their watch? Effective! Anyways, the failures of the admin has been well documented thousands of times by thousands of different pundits, scholars etc., so no need repeating it.

I respect politicians who are effective, and who respect the rule of law, due process rights, y'know crazy things like that. Everyone does what they think is right. Some people are just wrong on what they think is right. One foot in hell?