A Human Face to a Barbaric Slaughter

[Cato]

i am curious to find out your opinion on Why or what action the US was single out for, to deserve or warrent the 911 attack. while the rest of the world has it's share of players in what is considered terroristic activities....

I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this relation not available to the wide public. I guess it was a mixe of symbolism (hitting the greatest power) and revenge for many actions of the USA during the decades, mainly the unconditional support of Israel's actions.

Zionists are trying to suppress this aspect, but bin Laden stated personally:

The Palestinian cause has been the main factor that, since my early childhood, fueled my desire, and that of the 19 freemen (Sept. 11 bombers), to stand by the oppressed, and punish the oppressive Jews and their allies

[Army Guy]

I don't pretend to have any knowledge in this relation not available to the wide public. I guess it was a mixe of symbolism (hitting the greatest power) and revenge for many actions of the USA during the decades, mainly the unconditional support of Israel's actions.

It sounds like you've already determined your opinion through all the information available in the wide public. Not many have study both sides of the coin, or let emotions take over common sense,or facts as the majority of people do...

As far as symbolism goes why not England or France, although they are not Super powers today, they sure played a major role for most of the middle easts problems, and the creation of so much chaos, and hate towards the west. US playing a back ground role in all these problems. Instead they, the newest generation has changed history,and the finger pionting, and blame towards the new Super power, the US government.

While the US is responsable for some of problems in the middle east, it has also been asked by alot of middle east countries to assist in these world or district problems...and the US has paid dearly not only in funding, but also in personal, military, and diplomatic pers.. One of the problems of being a super power i guess, everyone expects thier to act or help, and when they fail, they want revenge.....

Unconditional support of Israels actions is plain bullshit, and while the US government has supported Israel on many occasions, it has also put Israel in it's place when they have over stepped it's bounds...that info is also available to the wide public....but is surpressed by extremists...So while the US may be one of Israels allies, like Britain, Canada, they have not supported each other unconditionally...

Zionists are trying to suppress this aspect, but bin Laden stated personally:

The Palestinian cause has been the main factor that, since my early childhood, fueled my desire, and that of the 19 freemen (Sept. 11 bombers), to stand by the oppressed, and punish the oppressive Jews and their allies

I don't think they have fueled thier desired ,but rather thier hate of the jews, and anyone that has supported the nation of Israel, regardless of how many other Middle east countries the US supports as well, Bin Ladin has argued that anyone supporting Israel is to be punished.....therefore a target of terrorist actions....and while the extremists are willing to give thier lives for the cause, what has thier nations or other muslims done inregards to the palestinian problem....have they supported them with funding, a place to live, arms....what ?

[jbg]

....and while the extremists are willing to give thier lives for the cause, what has thier nations or other muslims done inregards to the palestinian problem....have they supported them with funding, a place to live, arms....what ?

Notice, from your quote of bin Laden, he hasn't given his life for anything; he's content to give the lives of others to slaughter yet others.

[eyeball]

As far as symbolism goes why not England or France, although they are not Super powers today, they sure played a major role for most of the middle easts problems, and the creation of so much chaos, and hate towards the west.

Yes they certainly did. A thorough reconciliation process of some kind would probably benefit the US as much as anyone.

US playing a back ground role in all these problems. Instead they, the newest generation has changed history,and the finger pionting, and blame towards the new Super power, the US government.

Excuse me but the background? They may have tried to go underground in the sense of its covert operations to interfere in people's affairs in the ME and surrounding region(s) but the US clearly chose to take a leading role following WW2.

As for symbolism I'd say it's more likely the US was just the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back is all. The result was blowback, something its own intelligence agency acknowleged.

Edited August 6, 2009 by eyeball

[Army Guy]

Excuse me but the background? They may have tried to go underground in the sense of its covert operations to interfere in people's affairs in the ME and surrounding region(s) but the US clearly chose to take a leading role following WW2.

As for symbolism I'd say it's more likely the US was just the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back is all. The result was blowback, something its own intelligence agency acknowleged

I thought i was refering to to those treaties and nations involved in the creation of the problem , which dates well before WWII, when the US did have a back ground role.

[jbg]

I thought i was refering to to those treaties and nations involved in the creation of the problem , which dates well before WWII, when the US did have a back ground role.

The West's problems with the Muslim world go all the way back to Marco Polo and probably beyond. To blame it on post-WW I treaties would be wrong.

[Army Guy]

The West's problems with the Muslim world go all the way back to Marco Polo and probably beyond. To blame it on post-WW I treaties would be wrong.

We were talking about symbolisms and why the US was attacked, the whole main piont of contention for the arabs and rest of the muslim world within the mid east seems to date back to those same treaties, and the creation of a jewish homeland....And the main players at the time were Britian and France, although the US was a powerful nation it was not a Super power at the time....

[eyeball]

The West's problems with the Muslim world go all the way back to Marco Polo and probably beyond. To blame it on post-WW I treaties would be wrong.

No, I'd blame the Cold War on these treaties and the west's problems in the Muslim world are just blowback from that debacle. WW2 of course should be blamed on the treaties following the lousy treaties that followed WW1 which followed the implosion of the Ottoman empire or whatever...and on and on it goes. I see no reason why the whole historical can of worms shouldn't be upended and sorted through. The bottom line is that rogues and super-rogues...all end up in the same boat. Why idiot nations like ours keep getting involved in their affairs is anyone's guess.

Apparently they call Kabul the graveyard of empires.

[Bonam]

The West's problems with the Muslim world go all the way back to Marco Polo and probably beyond. To blame it on post-WW I treaties would be wrong.

No, I'd blame the Cold War on these treaties and the west's problems in the Muslim world are just blowback from that debacle. WW2 of course should be blamed on the treaties following the lousy treaties that followed WW1 which followed the implosion of the Ottoman empire or whatever...and on and on it goes. I see no reason why the whole historical can of worms shouldn't be upended and sorted through.

You blame the Cold War on the treaties signed after WWI? WWI "followed" the implosion of the Ottoman Empire?

Methinks if you are gonna suggest "sorting through" the "historical can of worms", you may want to learn a bit of history first.

[jbg]

Methinks if you are gonna suggest "sorting through" the "historical can of worms", you may want to learn a bit of history first.

Many Canadians don't know history real well. Heck, I had to teach two Peterborough ON schoolteachers about Montcalm, Wolfe and the Plains of Abraham.

That would be like you teaching me about the Gettysburg Address.

[eyeball]

You blame the Cold War on the treaties signed after WWI? WWI "followed" the implosion of the Ottoman Empire?

Methinks if you are gonna suggest "sorting through" the "historical can of worms", you may want to learn a bit of history first.

Methinks I probably shouldn't try posting after a 3 day/night marathon fishing trip that I capped off by tearing a #13 circle-hook through my finger. I think the painkillers were kicking in. It was just a flesh wound as they say but it still took 15 stitches to close things up.

The garbled point I was making is that if the war to end all wars had lived up to its billing WW2 and the Cold War would likely never have happened. I see little reason why I shouldn't blame the Cold War on some of the villainous treaties that were signed after WWI. As for the Turkish empire it had long been in a state of decline and its collapse and WW1 were as much concurrent events as anything. The rot had long since settled in and WW1 simply ushered in a new flock of greedy Machiavellian vultures who were hot on the scent. The treaties they wrote carved up the old empire which contributed greatly to the mess the world is in today. They certainly didn't do squat to stop or even slow the development of more empire-like expansion, exploitation and geo-political interferance in other people's lives.

To all intents and purposes the war to end all wars - The Great War - has never really stopped. In some circles they probably think that's what's so great about it. In this light WW2 was actually the Great War, Part 2...the same shit in a slightly different bucket.

[jbg]

To all intents and purposes the war to end all wars - The Great War - has never really stopped. In some circles they probably think that's what's so great about it. In this light WW2 was actually the Great War, Part 2...the same shit in a slightly different bucket.

WW II is often called the "Good War" for that reason.

[Bonam]

The garbled point I was making is that if the war to end all wars had lived up to its billing WW2 and the Cold War would likely never have happened.

So your point is that the few people who referred to WWI as "the war to end all wars" were wrong? That seems oddly unrelated to the topic.

I see little reason why I shouldn't blame the Cold War on some of the villainous treaties that were signed after WWI.

The Cold War was a result of a conflict of ideologies and a rivalry for influence between the capitalist West (the US) and the communist East (the USSR). It emerged in the aftermath of WWII, as the US and the USSR were the two greatest powers on Earth at the end of WWII. The treaties after WWI are only the "cause" of the Cold War in the same way the the fall of Rome is the "cause" of the Cold War, in that such events made up part of the history of the world that eventually led it to the state in which it existed when the Cold War began.

As for the Turkish empire it had long been in a state of decline and its collapse and WW1 were as much concurrent events as anything.

It had been rotting and declining for a long time, yes, but that is not "collapse" or "implosion". The Empire collapsed at the end of WWI, or during if if you like, but WWI certainly did not "follow" its collapse.

The rot had long since settled in and WW1 simply ushered in a new flock of greedy Machiavellian vultures who were hot on the scent. The treaties they wrote carved up the old empire which contributed greatly to the mess the world is in today.

What else do you suggest they should have done?

They certainly didn't do squat to stop or even slow the development of more empire-like expansion, exploitation and geo-political interferance in other people's lives.

Not right then, but starting about 30 years down the road they did.

To all intents and purposes the war to end all wars - The Great War - has never really stopped. In some circles they probably think that's what's so great about it. In this light WW2 was actually the Great War, Part 2...the same shit in a slightly different bucket.

I'm still not quite sure what your point is.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Bonam

[eyeball]

What else do you suggest they should have done?

They should have let the people in these regions determine their own course - let nature take its course I suppose.

I'm still not quite sure what your point is.

That the cause of barbaric slaughter largely remained the same the day after WW1 & 2, the Cold War and now the War of Terror as they did in Marco Polo's day.

Its a cause with an imperial face on it.

[FuzzyOnDetails]

The IMF is the second largest military on the planet. next only to the US, (who often use the IMF to do their dirty work).

Terrorism is using fear for political ends.

Plane hi-jacking has traditionally been terrorism. Give us money, or we kill all these people. Release these prisoners, or we will kill all these people. Whatever the demands.

Did the attackers on September 11th issue demands? Were they trying to instill fear, or were they fighting what they saw as a holy war?

Terrorism is an attempt at coercion, not just an attack.

There are many warmongers in the US, and most are willfully blind to it. If taken as an act of war, the attacks on September 11th, 2001 were the second on US soil in over 100 years, yet the US has taken up arms on other nations soil with ONGOING campaigns over 50 times in the past 65 years. Somehow, it gets seen as a "Terrorist" attack, like someone is trying to bully them.

[M.Dancer]

The IMF is the second largest military on the planet. next only to the US, (who often use the IMF to do their dirty work).

What is the IMF?

[Argus]

The IMF is the second largest military on the planet. next only to the US, (who often use the IMF to do their dirty work).

I'm assuming you mean the IDF here, and how could you possibly imagine they were the second largest on the planet? Ever hear of a place called .... China? You think the IDF is bigger than the Russian military? In fact, Israel is, by number of troops, the 33rd largest military in the world.

China - 2,255,000

...

Iran - 545,000

Egypt - 450,000

Syria - 296,000

---

Israel - 175,000

Now go forth and be frightened of Jews no more.

There are many warmongers in the US, and most are willfully blind to it. If taken as an act of war, the attacks on September 11th, 2001 were the second on US soil in over 100 years, yet the US has taken up arms on other nations soil with ONGOING campaigns over 50 times in the past 65 years. Somehow, it gets seen as a "Terrorist" attack, like someone is trying to bully them.

Generally speaking, the US takes up arms, as you term it, in response to the violent actions of someone else. I don't think most sane people would equate that with flying crowded civilian airliners into crowded civilian buildings just cause you can.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Argus

[FuzzyOnDetails]

I realized at work today I had typed IMF when I meant IDF. I must admit I was parroting something I had heard, and had not done my homework. I knew it couldn't have been the size of the standing army, but was assuming it was related to resources, but a quick Google search shows I am bound to be wrong on that account as well, based on spending. They are much further down the list than I thought. I do, however, stand by my assertion that the September 11th attacks were more likely an act of open warfare, and not an attempt to bully or coerce the US. I could be wrong, perhaps there were demands issued that got ignored, but if so we were never told about that, as then much blame would have been focused on those that refused to negotiate.

[DogOnPorch]

I realized at work today I had typed IMF when I meant IDF. I must admit I was parroting something I had heard, and had not done my homework. I knew it couldn't have been the size of the standing army, but was assuming it was related to resources, but a quick Google search shows I am bound to be wrong on that account as well, based on spending. They are much further down the list than I thought. I do, however, stand by my assertion that the September 11th attacks were more likely an act of open warfare, and not an attempt to bully or coerce the US. I could be wrong, perhaps there were demands issued that got ignored, but if so we were never told about that, as then much blame would have been focused on those that refused to negotiate.

Israel is more a regional power than anything like a superpower. As well, in spite of rumors you may have heard, the IDF is a defensive army rather than one designed for long offensives in faraway locales.

Israel's strength lies in its command control over the battlefield combined with training, excellent officers and NCOs and top-notch defensive military equipment.

Edited August 18, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[Black Dog]

Many Canadians don't know history real well. Heck, I had to teach two Peterborough ON schoolteachers about Montcalm, Wolfe and the Plains of Abraham.

That would be like you teaching me about the Gettysburg Address.

Jesus Christ. How many years later and buddy here is still dining out on that story? Time to get some new experiences, mate.

[dub]

Jesus Christ. How many years later and buddy here is still dining out on that story? Time to get some new experiences, mate.

jpg is a part time humanist who tries to portray himself as compassionate and caring, but when it comes to war crimes committed by israel, he begins apologizing.

ask him if he cares to put a human face on the victims of the barbaric slaughter by the IDF in gaza, just a few months ago.

[jbg]

Jesus Christ. How many years later and buddy here is still dining out on that story? Time to get some new experiences, mate.

I retell the story where it's relevant.

[jbg]

jpg is a part time humanist who tries to portray himself as compassionate and caring, but when it comes to war crimes committed by israel, he begins apologizing.

That's a bit rich.

There's a huge difference between collateral damage and deliberate attack on civilians. There's a difference between bombing an apartment complex which contains terror headquarters and sending a hormone-crazed 17 year old to blow himself up on a bus.

And by the way "jpg" is a lot more "picturesque" than "JBG".

[dub]

That's a bit rich.

There's a huge difference between collateral damage and deliberate attack on civilians. There's a difference between bombing an apartment complex which contains terror headquarters and sending a hormone-crazed 17 year old to blow himself up on a bus.

And by the way "jpg" is a lot more "picturesque" than "JBG".

and this is what i meant by jbg is a part time compassionate person who spends the other time apologizing forr war crimes.

[tango]

and this is what i meant by jbg is a part time compassionate person who spends the other time apologizing forr war crimes.

I haven't heard him apologizing.