another 9-11 attack planned?

[M.Dancer]

I searched by I couldn't find any European country, not participating in Iraq or Afghanistan who have been attacked by terrorists or there has been an attempt to attack them. Tell me if you find any.

Terrorists were attacking Europe long before anyone was in Afghanistan. You realize don't you your point is nonsense?

You may have heard of 9-11? That was before afghanistan too

[GostHacked]

Regarding Canadian troops. pulling out of Afghanistan will not put us at any more risk of a terrorist attack than the current risk or the risk before 9/11. If it happens, it will happen. Law enforcement can only go so far, they don't get all their guys. Or they can throw a rediculous amount of security out there on on everyone, but even in those conditions it can still happen. So, we might as well pull out, to prevent more troops from needing to make that ultimate sacrafice. This will also put a stop to spending a crap load of money on a war that really does not have any solid defined direction anymore.

If one war was concentrated on like this one should have. We would not have two messed up situations. Iraq and Afghanistan. (And a 3rd wants to be started with Iran????????) The resources should have went into Afghanistan early on. And a lot of them. Or are we going down the same road the Russians went down?? Then went back home on. They could not do it in 20 years even with all the right gear. And today we have better .. much better gear. Why are we not really winning this war???

I will also say that 9/11 was not an attack on democracy or the people of America, it was an attack on capitalism. The Twin Towers essentially were the icons of capitalism. While this capitolistic society has not completely faultered yet, you can already hear the drums of socialism.

[DogOnPorch]

Nine years...not twenty. As well, the Russian were kicking butt with their Hind helicopters. Thus the need for Stingers from the US of A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24

[DogOnPorch]

I will also say that 9/11 was not an attack on democracy or the people of America, it was an attack on capitalism. The Twin Towers essentially were the icons of capitalism. While this capitolistic society has not completely faultered yet, you can already hear the drums of socialism.

You don't seriously believe that, do you? That was an attack on the USA for daring to piss OBL off by having troops stationed in the one country no infidel is supposed to set foot in.

[M.Dancer]

I will also say that 9/11 was not an attack on democracy or the people of America, it was an attack on capitalism. The Twin Towers essentially were the icons of capitalism. While this capitolistic society has not completely faultered yet, you can already hear the drums of socialism.

Umm..Mr. Moore, the investors have approved your business plan, you can make another movie...

[DogOnPorch]

Good one...

[GostHacked]

Nine years...not twenty. As well, the Russian were kicking butt with their Hind helicopters. Thus the need for Stingers from the US of A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24

However the end result was failure. If the strategy is really not changed and ramped up. We are destined to fail as well.

Yeah, I figured you guys would get a kick out of that. But how many cries of socialism have you seen as of late? Bank bail outs, huge bailouts for the auto industry, and now a single payer option in health care. Should not be that much of a strech. All socialistic in nature. Government now owns and operates many banks, and has a huge stake in the auto market and maybe soon your health care in the US.

And for the record I have not seen the new Moore movie about capitalism. Though I've somehow seen the movie played out for us in the past year or so.

[DogOnPorch]

However the end result was failure. If the strategy is really not changed and ramped up. We are destined to fail as well.

No arguement here. I say send in several more divisions + assets there and turn the Pakistani border into a freefire zone. Then, I'm not footing the bill...so who knows the military's viable options. Not I.

But, keep in mind the CIA's involvement in Afghanistan was because the Mujahadeen were losing. Not winning. They needed weapons that could bring down the Mi-24 which is pretty much a flying tank with troops aboard. The CIA in one of their more cowboy moments (I thought George Bush Sr cleaned up the CIA of cowboys ) saw an opportunity to stick it to Ortega and the Russians at the same time. Ah...the 1960s...trouble was it was the 1980s.

[eyeball]

SAVAK was putting the screws to the religious nut-barz in charge now.

No doubt these nut-barz were also a fringe minority at the time. This is one of the peril's of blow-back you see...

The current lot is far-far worse than the Shah ever was.

...and this is another.

By the way I'd really like to hear you (and no doubt Morris will have lots to add) expound more on the virtues and wisdom of aiding and abetting a government that engages in persecuting or 'putting the screws to people' as you say, for their religous views. I'd sure appreciate it if you guys could give this an honest effort. Thanks in advance.

[DogOnPorch]

No doubt these nut-barz were also a fringe minority at the time. This is one of the peril's of blow-back you see...

...and this is another.

By the way I'd really like to hear you (and no doubt Morris will have lots to add) expound more on the virtues and wisdom of aiding and abetting a government that engages in persecuting or 'putting the screws to people' as you say, for their religous views. I'd sure appreciate it if you guys could give this an honest effort. Thanks in advance.

The Shah was a fairly progressive fellow...women's rights, etc. But much like a wounded bull, he lashed out at his enemies in the traditional fashion of the area and the times he lived in. I believe Jimmy Carter left him to rot when he should have helped America's ally, Iran. For the next 400+ days, those of us alive at the time watched Carter f**k things up royally. But, your buds were firmly in power by then and it took Reagan to fix things.

Meanwhile, your friends in Iran use torture on a regular basis that makes the Shah look tame. Beating and raping and torturing even Canadian women to death. Shooting defenceless women in the streets. Your support for such people over that of the USA and Canada makes me wonder why you're not moving to Iran to be with your gang. Why not? Can I help?

[naomiglover]

The Shah was a fairly progressive fellow...women's rights, etc. But much like a wounded bull, he lashed out at his enemies in the traditional fashion of the area and the times he lived in. I believe Jimmy Carter left him to rot when he should have helped America's ally, Iran. For the next 400+ days, those of us alive at the time watched Carter f**k things up royally. But, your buds were firmly in power by then and it took Reagan to fix things.

Meanwhile, your friends in Iran use torture on a regular basis that makes the Shah look tame. Beating and raping and torturing even Canadian women to death. Shooting defenceless women in the streets. Your support for such people over that of the USA and Canada makes me wonder why you're not moving to Iran to be with your gang. Why not? Can I help?

Why do you always respond like that? That's an ugly way to debate.

[ReeferMadness]

I agree. Dog, you're way over the line. That's an ad hominem attack.

[GostHacked]

How do you know that Christian Iceland is not a target?

So I guess the other parts of Iceland are a target?

[DogOnPorch]

Why do you always respond like that? That's an ugly way to debate.

Happens anytime I see the word 'Zionist'.

ReeferMadness: I agree. Dog, you're way over the line. That's an ad hominem attack.

What part? Eyeball's indefatigable support of various anti-Western aspects of Iranian government both today and in the past combined with a general conspircy-theory-like attitude toward the culture and civilization I call my own make him pretty much an excellent candidate for immediate Iranian citizenship.

[ReeferMadness]

I think it's in retaliation for our way of life, so in that regard I think it was "retaliatory."

Getting back to the original topic. I realize I'm a bit late but I wanted to comment on this.

I've long wondered what motivates people to abandon their homes and travel 10 thousand miles to a strange place so that they can sacrifice their lives to kill random bunches of people. Is it that they hate us for our way of life? I suppose anything is possible but in all honestly, that explanation doesn't feel right.

I've long believed that driving someone to engage in a suicide attack required something deep, something visceral, something elemental, something personal, something like this.

A year after her family died in an airstrike, a young girl still lives in the same village, alone and constantly in fear.

“I loved my family very much,” she said, tears in her dark eyes. “Every moment I hear the voices of my mother, father, sister and brothers calling me, but I can’t see them. We had a good life. I used to play with my brothers and sister on the street. My father was Abdurrashid, my mother was Khumari, my sister was Huma and my brothers were Halim and Salim. The Americans killed them and now I am alone.”

Suddenly bitter, she adds, “The American killed everyone in the village. They killed my friends and other children. I hate them.”

Gwynne Dyer, a journalist and historian, has written extensively about 9/11. He posited that the entire intent was to get the US to react. Having American troops killing Muslims in Muslim countries is the best recruiting tool if you are looking to attact people to extremist causes.

[BubberMiley]

He posited that the entire intent was to get the US to react. Having American troops killing Muslims in Muslim countries is the best recruiting tool if you are looking to attact people to extremist causes.

Of course it was. And in that regard, the brainless actions of a multitude of stooges made that attack successful beyond their wildest dreams.

They also wanted to frighten people, and the reaction in that regard---from colour-coded threat levels to old ladies taking off their shoes at airports---made them wildly successful in that regard too.

It's ironic that the people who claim to hate the terrorists the most consistently do exactly what the terrorists want them to do.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: I think it's in retaliation for our way of life, so in that regard I think it was "retaliatory."

Getting back to the original topic. I realize I'm a bit late but I wanted to comment on this.

I've long wondered what motivates people to abandon their homes and travel 10 thousand miles to a strange place so that they can sacrifice their lives to kill random bunches of people. Is it that they hate us for our way of life? I suppose anything is possible but in all honestly, that explanation doesn't feel right.

I've long believed that driving someone to engage in a suicide attack required something deep, something visceral, something elemental, something personal, something like this.

A year after her family died in an airstrike, a young girl still lives in the same village, alone and constantly in fear.

“I loved my family very much,” she said, tears in her dark eyes. “Every moment I hear the voices of my mother, father, sister and brothers calling me, but I can’t see them. We had a good life. I used to play with my brothers and sister on the street. My father was Abdurrashid, my mother was Khumari, my sister was Huma and my brothers were Halim and Salim. The Americans killed them and now I am alone.”

I wasn't talking about those who hate us after 9-11; I was talking about those who hated us enough to carry out 9-11. Those who have issued a jihad against the West.

Gwynne Dyer, a journalist and historian, has written extensively about 9/11. He posited that the entire intent was to get the US to react. Having American troops killing Muslims in Muslim countries is the best recruiting tool if you are looking to attact people to extremist causes.

So that explains how they plan on getting new recruits-- by having us kill other Muslims in order to incite their hate. And we're supposed to believe they care about other Muslims?? As I said, all they care about is their extremist view of Islam, and what you've posted does nothing to refute what I've said. In fact, it actually confirms it.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: Do you honestly think that Iceland and New Zealand have the same relationship with the U.S. that Canada does, and vice versa?

You mentioned that if you're part of the West, then you are a target. I showed two of many countries who are part of West that are not targets because of their disassociation from the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

First of all, how do you know that they aren't a target? Secondly, as I already pointed out, they do not have the same association with the U.S. that Canada does, so if it really is only the U.S. that they are angry at, as you seem to believe, you're still going to be a target because of your association with us. Pulling out of Afghanistan isn't going to change that. You have close ties to us, and have benefited from those close ties. You think they don't realize that?

QUOTE: They "calculated" to kill whoever they could. They didn't attack a symbol, they attacked people, or they would have attacked when the "symbol" had the fewest people in it instead of during business hours. But I'm curious. Those planes they used to attack the symbol, were they merely symbols too? Did they not "calculate" to kill the people on the planes?

It doesn't matter how you want to phrase it. The end result is that, it's wrong and counterproductive to attack a country because a few Canadians were amongst the innocent people killed at WTC.

You were the one who said Canadians weren't "targeted" and that it was the WTC that was targeted; that they attacked a "symbol." I pointed out the flaws in that theory while raising another question in response to what you had posted. I see you have no answer to my question, and the rest of your response has nothing to do with my post.

Their target was United States as the WTC is in NY and NY is in the United States. Their target was not Canada.

So as long as the target wasn't Canada, you have no reason to be in the fight.

Thanks, neighbor.

[eyeball]

Happens anytime I see the word 'Zionist'.

Or whenever you think you see it.

What part? Eyeball's indefatigable support of various anti-Western aspects of Iranian government both today and in the past combined with a general conspircy-theory-like attitude toward the culture and civilization I call my own make him pretty much an excellent candidate for immediate Iranian citizenship.

What support?

What conspircy? I'd say the hypocrisy of the west and its most obsequios sycophants is quite readily apparent. Its not like you're hiding your feelings of contempt and superiority.

[ReeferMadness]

I wasn't talking about those who hate us after 9-11; I was talking about those who hated us enough to carry out 9-11. Those who have issued a jihad against the West.

Oh. So do you think this is the first time the American military has bombed some third world country? This has never happened before?

Do a little research. Read anything by Chomsky (who once said "If the rules of Nuremburg were applied, every post WWII president would have been hanged"). Roughly two dozen countries have been bombed and/or invaded since WWII. Worldwide, how many people do you suppose have had a family member, close relative or friend killed or maimed by American soldiers? And most of the rest of the third world have had their affairs interfered with in other ways (e.g. support for coups, support for dictators). That's particularly true in the middle east because of all the oil. And people tend to forget this but it was the middle east, not Afghanistan, where the bombers originated.

In fairness, I should point out that all industrialized countries and major military powers have engaged in some of the same activities. But you guys are way in front of everyone else. Which is why you are target numero uno.

So that explains how they plan on getting new recruits-- by having us kill other Muslims in order to incite their hate. And we're supposed to believe they care about other Muslims?? As I said, all they care about is their extremist view of Islam, and what you've posted does nothing to refute what I've said. In fact, it actually confirms it.

No, I don't think you're getting it.

Islam, like any religion or philosophy, is going to have a small number of fanatics. Normally, those fanatics are marginalized and can't do much. However, under harsh conditions like repression, war, famine or extreme poverty, these fanatics start to attract followers. (Incidentally, it was these fanatics that Reagan aided and abetted back when the great bogeyman was communism. Now, some of the same people are part of the new bogeyman, terrorism). By attacking countries, you're doing 2 things:

1. helping create the conditions that turn people into fanatics
   
2. giving these people reasons to hate you and giving their leaders a bogeyman of their own on which to blame all of their problems.
   

So, your current actions in Iraq and our current actions in Afghanistan are helping to create the conditions for future 9/11's.

[Oleg Bach]

To late now - if there were but 2% called terrorists...it must now be up to 60% potential terrorists...especially after the way the offensive Americans handled the 9 11 crisis...They though their actions and retort only made the monster grow bigger _ I suppose that is what they wanted. Great profits for some with terrorism. I can not help but wonder --- Is all of Islam stark raving mad or did we make them more mad? There must be a reason why they are so pissed off at the west ---and it is not us that they hate - they hate our leaders who are pirates...meanwhile the common guy gets caught in the crossfire. It would be nice if those on both sides of this war on terrors WHO are responsible for the continued offense and defence. took responsiblity for their actions and did their own dirty work...for instance - lets suit up Dick Cheney and the rest of the old boys and send THEM to fight it out in Afghanistan and bring all the innocent troops home - that would be fair.

[Guest American Woman]

In fairness, I should point out that all industrialized countries and major military powers have engaged in some of the same activities. But you guys are way in front of everyone else. Which is why you are target numero uno.

Until you added this, I thought I was going to have to open your eyes to the reality of the world. But if you want to use the past tense, as in "have engaged," you're way off base saying the U.S. is "way in front of everyone else."

Furthermore, it seems as if countries act in relation to their power, so perhaps we are doing more of it at this time than others, although it would take a lot of research that I'm not willing to do to find out. I'll just say this: what we've done we've done for money and Canada was right there benefiting from it, because if you don't think you've benefited from living next door to one of the richest countries, think again. And not once has Canada taken a moral look at how we got where we are before 'doing business' with us. So your hands, by association, are just as dirty as ours.

As for why we are "numero uno," take out the strongest and the weaker become easier to target. I think bin Laden et al is playing all of you who think you'll be 'safe' if you stop supporting us in Afghanistan like a violin. You yourself recognize how he's doing it to other Muslims, yet you seem to be blind where you are concerned.

No, I don't think you're getting it.

I "get it" just fine. It's you who doesn't seem to get it. I was talking about the leaders of this jihad, and they aren't angry because we bombed some Muslims that they couldn't care less about. They don't like our power, our culture. Take a look at what some of the Islamic immigrants living in Canada have said about Canada, and then tell me that they hate your culture because some poor Muslim was killed by "the West." I repeat. The only Muslims the leaders of this jihad against the West care about are the ones who share their extremist views.

Furthermore, there are plenty of Muslims who can see that; who can see that the Taliban and al Qaeda aren't 'friends of Muslims.' Whether you choose to believe it or not, some support the West and what we have done/are doing for them and hope that things change as a result of this war.

Islam, like any religion or philosophy, is going to have a small number of fanatics. Normally, those fanatics are marginalized and can't do much. However, under harsh conditions like repression, war, famine or extreme poverty, these fanatics start to attract followers.

I already knew that. As I said, I do "get it." I do get what you and others are claiming, but it has nothing to do with the origin of the Jihad, and that's what my comment was in regards to.

By attacking countries, you're doing 2 things:

1. helping create the conditions that turn people into fanatics
   
2. giving these people reasons to hate you and giving their leaders a bogeyman of their own on which to blame all of their problems.
   

I'll try to get past all the "bogeyman" talk without rolling my eyes and add that "giving these people a reason to hate us" means they didn't hate us prior to 9-11, which was my original point. Furthermore, if the leaders of this Jihad are willing to sacrifice Muslims in order to gain support for their cause, what else do you think they might be capable of doing/willing to do?

If you think these people pose no threat, think again. If you think they pose no threat to Canada, think again. If you think they pose no threat to any Western nation not involved in Afghanistan, think again.

So, your current actions in Iraq and our current actions in Afghanistan are helping to create the conditions for future 9/11's.

Yet we had 9-11 BEFORE Afghanistan and Iraq, so there was already a threat of "future" attack, even without our actions in Iraq and our actions in Afghanistan

Methinks you are the one who doesn't "get it."

As a side note, some might find this article interesting: Al-Qaida showing smaller presence in Afghanistan

[ReeferMadness]

Until you added this, I thought I was going to have to open your eyes to the reality of the world. But if you want to use the past tense, as in "have engaged," you're way off base saying the U.S. is "way in front of everyone else."

Have engaged. Are engaged. Will continue to be engaged. None of this started yesterday and it won't end tomorrow. But the US is far and away the worst offender. Bar none.

Furthermore, it seems as if countries act in relation to their power, so perhaps we are doing more of it at this time than others, although it would take a lot of research that I'm not willing to do to find out. I'll just say this: what we've done we've done for money and Canada was right there benefiting from it, because if you don't think you've benefited from living next door to one of the richest countries, think again. And not once has Canada taken a moral look at how we got where we are before 'doing business' with us. So your hands, by association, are just as dirty as ours.

The first part is a cop-out. The US spends a grotesque amount of money on your military (calling it "defense" spending is truly Orwellian in nature). If you think that having a $600 billion dollar defense budget entitles you to attack twice as many countries as a $300 billion dollar defense budget, well, what can I say to that.

WRT your comments on Canada, I think that's a little weak. I suppose theoretically Canada could take a strong moral stand and impose a blanket trade ban on you and everyone else who exercise a dirty foreign policy. I wonder how many days it would take for the hawks down there to come up with a pretext to invade us. No doubt it would be for our own good and you'd just be "bringing democracy" to Canada.

As for why we are "numero uno," take out the strongest and the weaker become easier to target. I think bin Laden et al is playing all of you who think you'll be 'safe' if you stop supporting us in Afghanistan like a violin. You yourself recognize how he's doing it to other Muslims, yet you seem to be blind where you are concerned.

You're worried bin Laden is going to "take you out"? Maybe the US needs to pump up its "defence" budget.

Yes bid Laden is quite an enigma. Here's a guy who may or may not have kidney disease, may or may not have diabetes, may or may not have a heart condition, may or may not be dead. And he may or may not have been behind 9/11. Do you know that on the FBI's 10 most wanted list, he is wanted for embassy bombings, not 9/11? Why would that be? And how is it that a multi-trillion dollar military machine with eyes in the sky couldn't find one skinny Arab? In the aftermath of 9/11, the Afghan government offered to extradite bin Laden to a neutral country for a trial. Wouldn't it have been better for Bush to take him up on it? And the video of him bragging about it. Very convenient that it just happens to show up.

More later.

[bush_cheney2004]

....WRT your comments on Canada, I think that's a little weak. I suppose theoretically Canada could take a strong moral stand and impose a blanket trade ban on you and everyone else who exercise a dirty foreign policy. I wonder how many days it would take for the hawks down there to come up with a pretext to invade us. No doubt it would be for our own good and you'd just be "bringing democracy" to Canada.

That's the weakest cop-out of all, because Canada has voluntarily supported and benefited from the very same US policies while providing the uranium that made US and UK nuclear weapons possible, to war materials for Vietnam (including napalm and defoliants), all the way to LAV III's / Stryker assault vehicles coming out of Ontario today, and lots more in between. Since WW2 always seems to be the popular demarcation (wink wink, because Canada was jolly well saving the Empire), we can still count Korea, Gulf War I, Balkans/Bosnia/Kosovo, Haiti, and Afghanistan for that strong "moral stand". I am always amazed at the cognitive dissonance routinely on display in this forum.

So please put a "blanket trade ban" on the United States and "everyone else" just to reinforce an already overblown sanctimony and righteousness. We can always use a good laugh.

Edited October 7, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Have engaged. Are engaged. Will continue to be engaged. None of this started yesterday and it won't end tomorrow. But the US is far and away the worst offender. Bar none.

If you truly believe that, I suggest you take a course in World History.

The first part is a cop-out. The US spends a grotesque amount of money on your military (calling it "defense" spending is truly Orwellian in nature). If you think that having a $600 billion dollar defense budget entitles you to attack twice as many countries as a $300 billion dollar defense budget, well, what can I say to that.

Who said anything about "entitlement?" You think countries who do what we do but on a lesser scale are entitled to do what they do/have done? All I'm saying is that countries tend to act in proportion to their power. Maybe that's escaped you, but that doesn't make it any less true.

WRT your comments on Canada, I think that's a little weak. I suppose theoretically Canada could take a strong moral stand and impose a blanket trade ban on you and everyone else who exercise a dirty foreign policy. I wonder how many days it would take for the hawks down there to come up with a pretext to invade us. No doubt it would be for our own good and you'd just be "bringing democracy" to Canada.

It's not weak at all. It's the truth, and the truth, apparently, hurts. Canada could take a moral stand, as you said, but then Canada would suffer monetarily. As I pointed out, Canada has benefited from being our neighbor, and that being the case, I doubt we'd need to attack you if you were to impose a blanket trade ban on us and everyone else who "exercises a dirty foreign policy." For one thing, you'd have to put a ban on yourself. For another, Canadians would lose so much money that they'd create enough of an uproar that we'd just have to sit back and watch Canada as we know it self-destruct.

You're worried bin Laden is going to "take you out"? Maybe the US needs to pump up its "defence" budget.

Did I say I was worried about that?

Yes bid Laden is quite an enigma. Here's a guy who may or may not have kidney disease, may or may not have diabetes, may or may not have a heart condition, may or may not be dead. And he may or may not have been behind 9/11. Do you know that on the FBI's 10 most wanted list, he is wanted for embassy bombings, not 9/11? Why would that be? And how is it that a multi-trillion dollar military machine with eyes in the sky couldn't find one skinny Arab? In the aftermath of 9/11, the Afghan government offered to extradite bin Laden to a neutral country for a trial. Wouldn't it have been better for Bush to take him up on it? And the video of him bragging about it. Very convenient that it just happens to show up.

Do you know what it means when I say "bin Laden et al?" Because it means is that I'm not talking about bin Laden per se, but him and/or his ilk. So you really went off on a tangent there for nothing, since it wasn't relevant to what I actually said.

More later.

I can't wait.

Edited October 7, 2009 by American Woman