Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001

[CitizenX]

The September 11 attacks have caused major changes on US foreign policy. The Bush administration tried to use the terrorist attack as a pretext for war in Iraq. Now many say that spreading its human and material resources in foreign adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is facing much more dangerous threats than before 9/11.- RTAmerica

[bush_cheney2004]

The September 11 attacks have caused major changes on US foreign policy. The Bush administration tried to use the terrorist attack as a pretext for war in Iraq.

No...the Bush administration used WMD as a pretext for war in Iraq...and the US Congress agreed.

Now many say that spreading its human and material resources in foreign adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is facing much more dangerous threats than before 9/11.- RTAmerica

That's OK...your empire's world wars for God and King wasted a lot more.

[CitizenX]

That's OK...your empire's world wars for God and King wasted a lot more.

That's OK ???? , and what empire the Canadian Empire??? Nice try at misdirection did you learn that from Bush?

[eyeball]

That's great, but doesn't explain the lack of terrorists from Grenada, Chile, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba, Honduras, Colombia, etc.

Apparently people from these places aren't as big on vengeance as some from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan etc etc are.

[Guest American Woman]

Quote: That they had it coming........so does Canada have it coming too?

If we are attacked then we shouldn't be shocked.

I wouldn't be shocked at all, but it sure doesn't mean that I think you have it coming. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Do you see the difference between 'not being shocked' and 'having it coming?' They are two very different things.

[dre]

I wouldn't be shocked at all, but it sure doesn't mean that I think you have it coming. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Do you see the difference between 'not being shocked' and 'having it coming?' They are two very different things.

Acknowledging that 911 was in part "blowback" doesnt mean anyone "had it coming" either.

[Guest American Woman]

Acknowledging that 911 was in part "blowback" doesnt mean anyone "had it coming" either.

Saying "they had it coming" does mean "they had it coming." That's the comment and the response to the comment I was referring to.

[jbg]

Remember the planes slammed into the buildings before the underwear on the head. It's not justification, but an explanation, not that it is right or anything.

I realize the timing issue. I was using a particularly disgusting example of Western behavior to illustrate my point.

[jbg]

No...the Bush administration used WMD as a pretext for war in Iraq...and the US Congress agreed.

More accurately , Iraq boasted of having them, and kept threatening to "go nuclear". Apparently Bush and Congress believed the "mouse that roared".

Apparently people from these places aren't as big on vengeance as some from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan etc etc are.

Don't we learn in pre-school that vengeance may have some severely negative consequences? Edited September 13, 2011 by jbg

[eyeball]

Don't we learn in pre-school that vengeance may have some severely negative consequences?

Yes - leading me ask what the hell were you thinking when abusing, torturing and provoking people who've learned it brings divine rewards?

[bush_cheney2004]

That's OK ???? , and what empire the Canadian Empire??? Nice try at misdirection did you learn that from Bush?

No...I learned it from Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The Americans are always damned if they do and damned if they don't based on comments from the peanut gallery...so the US may as well do as it damn well pleases until there is a good reason not to.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes - leading me ask what the hell were you thinking when abusing, torturing and provoking people who've learned it brings divine rewards?

So it wasn't American foreign policy per se, as there are numerous global examples that did not result in "blowback" or terror attacks. No samurai warriors from a nuked Japan, or skinhead impalers from a bombed out Germany, or poison laced bananas from Central America, or suicidal miners from Chile, or exploding cigars from Cuba, or dirty bombs from the former Soviet Union. Wait...we did get one half-ass car bomber from Canada!

[Moonlight Graham]

You want to know what sickening really is? It's when the greatest Shining Beacon of democracy and freedom on the planet maintains a harem of dictators and despots. You're like a Pope and his network of pedophiles. You're not just some run of the mill moral authority turned hypocrite.

That's a pretty darn good analogy.

[Guest American Woman]

eyeball, on 13 September 2011 - 12:39 PM, said: You want to know what sickening really is? It's when the greatest Shining Beacon of democracy and freedom on the planet maintains a harem of dictators and despots. You're like a Pope and his network of pedophiles. You're not just some run of the mill moral authority turned hypocrite.

That's a pretty darn good analogy.

Really? Then what does that make the rest of you? The part of the "network" that knows what's going on, turns a blind eye, and recruits pedophiles? So as not to upset or diminish your world?

And what does that make the terrorists - the poor, defenseless children at the mercy of a pedophile?

Edited September 13, 2011 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Really? Then what does that make the rest of you? The part of the "network" that knows what's going on, turns a blind eye, and recruits pedophiles? So as not to upset or diminish your world?

I'd rather be the Pope than a Canadian pedophile in my "network"! That kinda explains what Paul Martin was doing in Ghaddafi's tent.

[Guest American Woman]

I'd rather be the Pope than a Canadian pedophile in my "network"! That kinda explains what Paul Martin was doing in Ghaddafi's tent.

At least we're not "run of the mill."

[Argus]

So please...you tell me why these people attacked your country, and please don't say they hate your freedom.

Because they're barbarians and religious fanatics?

[Guest American Woman]

So please...you tell me why these people attacked your country, and please don't say they hate your freedom.

Please, you tell me. Do you think every time someone, a nation, is attacked, there's a legitimate reason? That the person, country, being attacked is to blame?

[Argus]

It's just sick when remembrance turns into some nationalistic celebration

You mean like Remembrance Day?

What's even more disgusting is this constant notion that the US was this good little country that never did anything wrong to any other nation, and thus it was attacked purely out of some irrational, religious-fueled hatred. Baloney. Terrorism is the natural result of empire. Hijackings, bombings, shootings, labor violence, etc. doesn't just grow out of nowhere. If you want to end terrorism then stop terrorizing.

So the Japanese Red Army was punishing the Japanese people for their violent terrorist behaviour around the world, is that what you're saying? The Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway was because Japan was persecuting people? The Red Brigades were killing people in Italy, and the Baader Meinhoff gang were murdering people in Germany due to those government's violent attacks on... uhm, someone? The FLQ murdered a British diplomat because why again? Britain was persecuting the Quebecois? And all those Australians murdered in the Bali bombing, that was because Australia was persecuting Indonesians?

Most acts of "terrorism" are, in some ways, acts of self-defense or at least acts of trying to take back what was stolen from the "terrorists".

So when that Somalian guy bashed into the house of the cartoonist in Denmark with an axe, intending to kill him he was just trying to take back, uh, what? Theo Van Gogh was murdered in the Netherlands by a Muslim fanatic because the Muslim fanatic was trying to take back... what, the film he didn't like? And the attacks on Mumbai by Muslim fanatics, what was it they were trying to take back?

I'm not trying to belittle the deaths that happened on 9/11, but people need to understand why those attacks happened in the first place (outrage at US support for Israel

So you're saying the U.S. doesn't have the right to support one side in a conflict? A lot of countries support the other side. Why isn't there terrorism against them? And by what means do nations have the freedom to support and associate with international nations guided by what religious fanatics might approve of or not approve of?

and hated Arab regimes as well as the spread of global capitalism)

The Russians support hated Arab regimes. So do the Chinese. So do the British and French and Germans and Italians. As for the spread of capitalism. What's wrong with that? It's a hell of a lot better than the spread of Islam. At least people are generally enriched by Capitalism, while they are generally impoverished, both economically and intellectually, by the spread of Islam.

and take responsibility to prevent the US government and the corporations that control it from committing more atrocities that are much worse.

So supporting a country some people don't like, and spreading capitalism constitute atrocities?

[Argus]

I also was watching all the docs on TV this weekend, the one thing I hadn’t know was that they had video footage of one of the hick jack teams going through security……..The guard checked him with the wand, but missed, and was visible in the footage, was what looked to be a knife in his back pocket…………it’s really easy to armchair quarterback after the fact

Noticing that someone failed to do their job isn't armchair quarterbacking. It was pointed out in the 9/11 commission that 15 of the terrorists involved had mistakes or lacked documentation on their visa requests which should have seen those visas rejected. The State Department processed them all and let them in. Clearly not much effort was put into making sure visas weren't granted to those who shouldn't have had them.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Argus

[Argus]

I am not saying they should, I am saying that if we continue to go on killing people and messing with the politics of other countries then we should expect hatred in return and the possibility of violent retaliation.

China has been doing that for decades, and is doing it more and more every year, and nobody has bombed any Chinese embassies.

[Argus]

The attacks are definately a classic example of BLOWBACK.

What apparently outraged bin laden the most was the presence of unclean infidels on holy Saudi Arabian land. Ie, there were American troops on bases there with the permission of Saudi authorities. He found that presence an outrage.

I wonder how you'd feel if someone here decided the presence of Muslims was an outrage, and started killing thousands of them. Would you shake your head and say "Well, that Blowback's a bitch. They shouldn't have gone where they weren't wanted."

[Argus]

Apparently people from these places aren't as big on vengeance as some from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan etc etc are.

What you mean is that they're not wacked out religious nutbars.

[Guest American Woman]

What apparently outraged bin laden the most was the presence of unclean infidels on holy Saudi Arabian land. Ie, there were American troops on bases there with the permission of Saudi authorities. He found that presence an outrage.

I wonder how you'd feel if someone here decided the presence of Muslims was an outrage, and started killing thousands of them. Would you shake your head and say "Well, that Blowback's a bitch. They shouldn't have gone where they weren't wanted."

You have said exactly what I think every time I hear the reference to "blowback" re: 9-11, as if blowback in itself somehow legitimizes the feelings of the terrorists - and the resulting action (ie: we had it coming, shouldn't have been shocked, should have expected it). Breivik's killing spree also fits the definition of blowback. Many things do. It means nothing other than what we knew all along - people sometimes do terrible things in response to actions they don't like.

Saudi Arabia even kicked bin Laden out, but we're supposed to have appeased him??

Edited September 14, 2011 by American Woman

[Argus]

That's a pretty darn good analogy.

It's bullshit, actually. It's a narrow minded belief that democracies should ignore any nation which violates human rights, don't deal with them, don't trade with them, pretend they're not even on the planet. But that's basically the entire world. So we're supposed to ignore them all, and oh by the way, just do without the natural resources. Leave all that to the Chinese and Russians, who of course, are great respecters of human rights.

If the US didn't support Saudi Arabia, do you actually think it would become some sort of shining example of freedom? And oh by the way, has anyone noticed that most Muslim dictators are not exactly friendly with the US? The US wasn't supporting Libya nearly as much as China and France. So why don't they get attacked? The Russians are supporting Syria and threatening to veto any sanctions at the UN. Where are the angry mobs of Muslims eager to kill Russians? The Chinese are big supporters of Sudan. Why doesn't the Muslim world care about that?

I've seen nothing to indicate the Muslim mob even thinks about Russia or China, or, for that matter, India, regardless of its endless battle with Pakistan. Nobody is trying to kidnap or murder Russians or Chinese abroad, and their behaviour is generally a lot worse and less principled than American behaviour.

And oh, by the way, Nelson Mandela was a big supporter of Libya's dicator. Does that mean Mandela should be killed by Muslim terrorists, and it would be deserved?