Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001

[CitizenX]

Argus there is great quote that I think applies to you and a few other people that don't want to understand the truth.

All truth passes through three stages

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as self-evident

So keep thinking that it's just a bunch of religious nutbars that hate your freedom, until you get to the third stage.

I love this video

Edited September 14, 2011 by CitizenX

[Guest Derek L]

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.

With arm chair quarterbacking, I was referring to comments made about the military. They don’t make government policy, or act as law enforcement....any fingers pointed at them, are unfair.

[Guest Derek L]

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."

Mostly if we invited the Muslims here to protect us from our neighbours.

[Guest Derek L]

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?

Chechnya isn't that big a fan of the Russians......

[Moonlight Graham]

In this dog-eat-dog world, I have no problem with the concept, whoever attacks others should also be attacked.

Or what would you expect, hugs?

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".

[maple_leafs182]

Western armed forces, from time to time, found it necessary to protect the property interests of the companies that developed the oil and engaged in other commercial activities. Also to protect their prosperity, which depended upon oil developed not by the camel-driving princes, but by Westerners.

This exercise in property protection somehow validates violent attacks on Western interests, people who have nothing to do with military efforts in the Ummah? Somehow there's a bit of a disconnect.

The role of the military should not be to be the strong arm for corporations, the military should be for national defense only.

You act like the Actions that America has taken were for the greater good of everybody, you do realize hundreds of thousands of people have died because of this. What if a country invaded Canada for our oil, what if they started killing innocent civilians, how would you feel? What if a foreign country took out our government and installed their own government, how would you feel?

[Moonlight Graham]

Really? Then what does that make the rest of you?

The archbishops/cardinals that turn a blind eye?

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

No, more like the family member of a molested child who shoots a clergyman or whatnot for it. Neither side is in the right.

[Guest Derek L]

The role of the military should not be to be the strong arm for corporations, the military should be for national defense only.

You act like the Actions that America has taken were for the greater good of everybody, you do realize hundreds of thousands of people have died because of this. What if a country invaded Canada for our oil, what if they started killing innocent civilians, how would you feel? What if a foreign country took out our government and installed their own government, how would you feel?

I thought a few pages back, you suggested that we have that coming? Change of heart?

[maple_leafs182]

Well if you guys thought I was being irrational before, you may want to throw me into the loony bin after what I have to say here...Let's try listening to what the people who attacked America had to say about the reasons why they attacked America. I know what your thinking, that is the stupidest idea ever but I thought since we live in such a stupid world that I might as well throw the idea out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiKyWJRRjnU

[Guest Derek L]

Well if you guys thought I was being irrational before, you may want to throw me into the loony bin after what I have to say here...Let's try listening to what the people who attacked America had to say about the reasons why they attacked America. I know what your thinking, that is the stupidest idea ever but I thought since we live in such a stupid world that I might as well throw the idea out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiKyWJRRjnU

Do you also have a neat video like that, from the Norwegian fellow that wasted all those children from a few months back?

[maple_leafs182]

Do you also have a neat video like that, from the Norwegian fellow that wasted all those children from a few months back?

Are you serious?

[Guest Derek L]

Are you serious?

Yup.......Breivik wasn't a fan of Muslims.....In fairness, shouldn’t we hear both perspectives?

[Sir Bandelot]

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".

A lot of people had to suffer and die for Gandhi, regardless of his doctrine. There's the belief in ideals, and there's the reality we have to face. We believe something, but others may disagree. They won't let you get away with your beliefs.

Personally I hate warfare, but I understand peoples anger and their reaction when they see innocent people killed. Family, neighbours, citizens. They want to fight back, to make the aggressor stop.

If you have ever dealt with a bully, you will know there is no way you can ever tell them "ok, you win..." The only way to stop a bully is to fight them, or else concede that you will always be oppressed by them. You, and your family. Your children.

[eyeball]

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

No, but evangelically preaching democracy to the planet while servicing the needs of several of it's dictators does.

[eyeball]

It's bullshit, actually. It's a narrow minded belief that democracies should ignore any nation which violates human rights...

As opposed to your enlightened belief that we should support them?

As I recall you also believe we should ignore pedophilia and support the priests that practice it. Notice how their victims want the Pope himself charged with crimes against humanity these days, like he was some common President of a super-power or something.

The gall of some people eh?

[bloodyminded]

Do you also have a neat video like that, from the Norwegian fellow that wasted all those children from a few months back?

There were several posters here on this board who felt quite positive about the misunderstood little fellow's awesome "Manifesto," as you may or may not remember.

Yup.......Breivik wasn't a fan of Muslims.....In fairness, shouldn’t we hear both perspectives?

We have.

I don't see why we can't think both fanatics have serious problems with their methods to cleanse the world of Evil.

Edited September 14, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

When we think of awful and murderous crimes like 9/11 in the context of geopolitics, there are a lot of sobering facts to consider. Here's an excerpt from a recent piece by Noam Chomsky.

The notion that 9/11 changed the world is widely held, understandably. The events of that day certainly had major consequences, domestic and international. One was to lead President Bush to re-declare Ronald Reagans war on terrorismthe first one has been effectively disappeared, to borrow the phrase of our favorite Latin American killers and torturers, presumably because the consequences do not fit well with preferred self images. Another consequence was the invasion of Afghanistan, then Iraq, and more recently military interventions in several other countries in the region and regular threats of an attack on Iran (all options are open, in the standard phrase). The costs, in every dimension, have been enormous. That suggests a rather obvious question, not asked for the first time: was there an alternative?

A number of analysts have observed that bin Laden won major successes in his war against the United States. He repeatedly asserted that the only way to drive the U.S. from the Muslim world and defeat its satraps was by drawing Americans into a series of small but expensive wars that would ultimately bankrupt them, the journalist Eric Margolis writes.

The United States, first under George W. Bush and then Barack Obama, rushed right into bin Ladens trap. . . . Grotesquely overblown military outlays and debt addiction . . . . may be the most pernicious legacy of the man who thought he could defeat the United States.

A report from the Costs of War project at Brown Universitys Watson Institute for International Studies estimates that the final bill will be $3.24 trillion. Quite an impressive achievement by bin Laden.

That Washington was intent on rushing into bin Ladens trap was evident at once. Michael Scheuer, the senior CIA analyst responsible for tracking bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, writes, Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. The al Qaeda leader, Scheuer continues, is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world.

And, as Scheuer explains, bin Laden largely succeeded: U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it is fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Ladens only indispensable ally. And arguably remains so, even after his death.

There is good reason to believe that the jihadi movement could have been split and undermined after the 9/11 attack, which was criticized harshly within the movement. Furthermore, the crime against humanity, as it was rightly called, could have been approached as a crime, with an international operation to apprehend the likely suspects. That was recognized in the immediate aftermath of the attack, but no such idea was even considered by decision-makers in government. It seems no thought was given to the Talibans tentative offerhow serious an offer, we cannot knowto present the al Qaeda leaders for a judicial proceeding.

At the time, I quoted Robert Fisks conclusion that the horrendous crime of 9/11 was committed with wickedness and awesome crueltyan accurate judgment. The crimes could have been even worse. Suppose that Flight 93, downed by courageous passengers in Pennsylvania, had bombed the White House, killing the president. Suppose that the perpetrators of the crime planned to, and did, impose a military dictatorship that killed thousands and tortured tens of thousands. Suppose the new dictatorship established, with the support of the criminals, an international terror center that helped impose similar torture-and-terror states elsewhere, and, as icing on the cake, brought in a team of economistscall them the Kandahar boyswho quickly drove the economy into one of the worst depressions in its history. That, plainly, would have been a lot worse than 9/11.

As we all should know, this is not a thought experiment. It happened. I am, of course, referring to what in Latin America is often called the first 9/11: September 11, 1973, when the United States succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile with a military coup that placed General Pinochets ghastly regime in office. The dictatorship then installed the Chicago Boyseconomists trained at the University of Chicagoto reshape Chiles economy. Consider the economic destruction, the torture and kidnappings, and multiply the numbers killed by 25 to yield per capita equivalents, and you will see just how much more devastating the first 9/11 was.

The goal of the overthrow, in the words of the Nixon administration, was to kill the virus that might encourage all those foreigners [who] are out to screw usscrew us by trying to take over their own resources and more generally to pursue a policy of independent development along lines disliked by Washington. In the background was the conclusion of Nixons National Security Council that if the United States could not control Latin America, it could not expect to achieve a successful order elsewhere in the world. Washingtons credibility would be undermined, as Henry Kissinger put it.

The first 9/11, unlike the second, did not change the world. It was nothing of very great consequence, Kissinger assured his boss a few days later. And judging by how it figures in conventional history, his words can hardly be faulted, though the survivors may see the matter differently.

These events of little consequence were not limited to the military coup that destroyed Chilean democracy and set in motion the horror story that followed. As already discussed, the first 9/11 was just one act in the drama that began in 1962 when Kennedy shifted the mission of the Latin American militaries to internal security. The shattering aftermath is also of little consequence, the familiar pattern when history is guarded by responsible intellectuals.

It seems to be close to a historical universal that conformist intellectuals, the ones who support official aims and ignore or rationalize official crimes, are honored and privileged in their own societies, and the value-oriented punished in one or another way. The pattern goes back to the earliest records. It was the man accused of corrupting the youth of Athens who drank the hemlock, much as Dreyfusards were accused of corrupting souls, and, in due course, society as a whole and the value-oriented intellectuals of the 1960s were charged with interference with indoctrination of the young.

In the Hebrew scriptures there are figures who by contemporary standards are dissident intellectuals, called prophets in the English translation. They bitterly angered the establishment with their critical geopolitical analysis, their condemnation of the crimes of the powerful, their calls for justice and concern for the poor and suffering. King Ahab, the most evil of the kings, denounced the Prophet Elijah as a hater of Israel, the first self-hating Jew or anti-American in the modern counterparts. The prophets were treated harshly, unlike the flatterers at the court, who were later condemned as false prophets. The pattern is understandable. It would be surprising if it were otherwise.

As for the responsibility of intellectuals, there does not seem to me to be much to say beyond some simple truths. Intellectuals are typically privilegedmerely an observation about usage of the term. Privilege yields opportunity, and opportunity confers responsibilities. An individual then has choices.

http://www.zcommunications.org/using-privilege-to-challenge-the-state-by-noam-chomsky

Edited September 14, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

"Privilege yields opportunity, and opportunity confers responsibilities. An individual then has choices."

That also relates to how I feel about the United States, or all entities who hold power over others. We all have a certain amount of responsibility and choice, and we all have to face the consequences of our decisions, both good and bad.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't see why we can't think both fanatics have serious problems with their methods to cleanse the world of Evil.

Agreed 100%

[GostHacked]

Yup.......Breivik wasn't a fan of Muslims.....In fairness, shouldn’t we hear both perspectives?

If a guy really hates Muslims, why would he gun down white children?

[Sir Bandelot]

If a guy really hates Muslims, why would he gun down white children?

I believe the reasoning was, they are the children of Liberals who among other things allow Muslim immigration.

[GostHacked]

I believe the reasoning was, they are the children of Liberals who among other things allow Muslim immigration.

I think you are correct here as well.

[Argus]

Argus there is great quote that I think applies to you and a few other people that don't want to understand the truth.

Your truth, which most everybody with more than half a brain rejects. Thanks anyway. I'll cling to facts and logic.

[Argus]

Chechnya isn't that big a fan of the Russians......

Hardly surprising, but do we see Russia being attacked throughout the world like the Americans have? Nope. Not even a single instance of a Russian plane hijacked or embassy or warship attacked, or citizen killed in response to its brutality against the Muslims of Chechnya - except within Russia by Chechnyans, of course.

[Argus]

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".

The cost of letting them win is a hell of a lot higher than constant warfare.