Well now, Ron Paul even agrees on the reason for 911!

cybercoma · January 3, 2012

Blame the US - get flack.

Praise the US - get flack.

Ah flack it all.

What's the definition of a troll? It's best to ignore "the sound and the fury."

cybercoma · January 3, 2012

At the end of the day, you think the US had it coming, whatever tap dance or disclaimer you throw in. And I am not interested in trying to convince you otherwise, but I will always point out fallacy when I see it, and they most certainly did not have 9/11 coming. Push back for foreign affairs is one thing, and during the cold War they and Russia were quite busy countering each others moves, and rightly so on the part of the US. Push back was Cuba's missile crisis, not a crazed plot to fly airliners into sky-scrapers.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up slavery, witch hunts and such. These are not foreign affairs either, and just about any culture has a few such items to be embarrassed of. At any rate, carry on, I won't bother to discuss this further, your's is a popular view among some that since it occurred there must have been a good reason for it. I, on the other hand, understand that sometimes shit just happens.

I think you're mistaking "they had it coming" as "they deserved it." I believe in this context, what he's trying to say is that it was a probabilistic risk, not that they deserved it.

dre · January 3, 2012

No kidding, even when you're perfectly willing to share the blame it's freakin' hopeless.

Yeah well, thats what you get for debating people whos sole reason for being here, is to carry on this bizzaro US vs Canada theme. Just move on and dont waste your time. They will derail EVERY thread if you help them do it.

Edited January 3, 2012 by dre

dre · January 3, 2012

I think you're mistaking "they had it coming" as "they deserved it." I believe in this context, what he's trying to say is that it was a probabilistic risk, not that they deserved it.

Well "they had it coming" is a really bad choice of words too. Even though its pretty uncontraversial at this point that some US policies were a contributing factor to the emergence of this organization and its alignment against the US/West the people who are responsible for those policies were pretty much un-touched by 911. They're still perfect happy and safe.

Not ONE of the people who got killed on 911 has anything to do any of those policies, as near as I can tell. So the people who may have "had it coming" quite simply are not the people who were in those planes or in those towers.

Besides that, its inflamatory language that doesnt seem contstructive to me.

bush_cheney2004 · January 4, 2012

...Do you understand why I choose to expand my spatial horizon farther than my border?

Yes, like another member now long gone, you are the noble and uber-moral man without a country. You are smugly superior to stupid nationalists such as I. Yet you still bemoan fishery management by a...nation state or province.

bush_cheney2004 · January 4, 2012

Not ONE of the people who got killed on 911 has anything to do any of those policies, as near as I can tell....

Huh? At least try to be consistent with the cock-eyed story....ever heard of The Pentagon? It was attacked with a Boeing 757 on 9/11.

Besides that, its inflamatory language that doesnt seem contstructive to me.

Come now, no need to be sensitive about such things. I favor the naked and unabashed anti-American sentiments expressed by such members and vitriol, even though you say it only exists in my mind. LOL!

sharkman · January 4, 2012

I think you're mistaking "they had it coming" as "they deserved it." I believe in this context, what he's trying to say is that it was a probabilistic risk, not that they deserved it.

Well, I attempted to concur with the idea that there could be blow back. But the reason the US was targeted was that they are the Great Satan. And I suspect that any empire would be considered as such by religious fanatic extremists of the day. The only difference is that today's whackjob has many easily accessible options with modern technology to blow up people. Airliners, for instance.

eyeball · January 4, 2012

I've never bothered with the ignore feature but I guess there's a first time for everything.

Here goes.

Moonlight Graham · January 4, 2012

Well, I attempted to concur with the idea that there could be blow back. But the reason the US was targeted was that they are the Great Satan.

Yes, but there are reasons why they are considered "the Great Satan". US foreign policy in the middle east is a big one. For Bin Laden, one of his primary beefs was that the US established military bases during the 1991 Gulf War (with Saudi permission, whom he also considers an enemy) in the Land of the Two Holy Places, ie: Mecca & Medina in Saudi Arabia, the two holiest sites of Islam.

From wikipedia: "Bin Laden's 1996 fatwā is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places". It is a long piece, and complains of American activities in numerous countries. It was faxed to supporters across the world."

Let's just agree to disagree. As Ron Paul says, the reasons for 9/11 are well documented. People have either done the reading (Paul) or haven't (Rudy Guliani).

Edited January 4, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

sharkman · January 4, 2012

Yes, we can agree to disagree, if only because you don't see the red flag in your wikipedia quote. Other attacks will come, and those with your mindset will say the US still had it coming I suppose, just as they think that Osama had sound reasoning and wasn't so much a whackjob as he was simply misunderstood. The Great Satan gently weeps. :rolleyes:

Edited January 4, 2012 by sharkman

Shady · January 4, 2012

Yes, but there are reasons why they are considered "the Great Satan". US foreign policy in the middle east is a big one. For Bin Laden, one of his primary beefs was that the US established military bases during the 1991 Gulf War (with Saudi permission, whom he also considers an enemy) in the Land of the Two Holy Places, ie: Mecca & Medina in Saudi Arabia, the two holiest sites of Islam.

From wikipedia: "Bin Laden's 1996 fatwā is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places". It is a long piece, and complains of American activities in numerous countries. It was faxed to supporters across the world."

Let's just agree to disagree. As Ron Paul says, the reasons for 9/11 are well documented. People have either done the reading (Paul) or haven't (Rudy Guliani).

But they weren't occupying any so-called holy places. Anyways, do you listen and acquiesce to nut-job Christians that attack abortion clinics or doctors? If not, why not? Why are their reasons not valid, but other terrorist's are?

sharkman · January 4, 2012

Yeah, they weren't occupying, that was my red flag. So Osama should have been attacking the government of Saudi Arabia for letting the Great Satan on their land instead of attacking the Great Satan. Although I guess he could have attacked them both, at least that would have been consistant. Maybe they both had it coming!

bud · January 4, 2012

nut-jobs who attack abortion clinics are not occupied and bombed by abortion doctors. your comparison is stupid.

not sure why you guys are unable to admit that america's policy in the middle east, which includes its military bases, its support for israel and its supports for many dictators is the biggest reason why these extremist groups are being created.

what do you think the surviving members of families of the many innocent civilians who were bombed and killed feel about the u.s.? what about the iranians who understand that if u.s. had not interfered when mossadegh became prime minister, they could be living in a democratic society?

these people don't just get up one day and decide that they will randomly pick a country and call it 'great satan'.

bush_cheney2004 · January 4, 2012

.... Anyways, do you listen and acquiesce to nut-job Christians that attack abortion clinics or doctors? If not, why not? Why are their reasons not valid, but other terrorist's are?

That is a very good question, further challenging such pretzel logic. It is one thing to disagree with American foreign policy, but quite another to kill thousands of people from several nations because "they had it coming" or "deserved it".

sharkman · January 4, 2012

nut-jobs who attack abortion clinics are not occupied and bombed by abortion doctors. your comparison is stupid.

not sure why you guys are unable to admit that america's policy in the middle east, which includes its military bases, its support for israel and its supports for many dictators is the biggest reason why these extremist groups are being created.

what do you think the surviving members of families of the many innocent civilians who were bombed and killed feel about the u.s.? what about the iranians who understand that if u.s. had not interfered when mossadegh became prime minister, they could be living in a democratic society?

these people don't just get up one day and decide that they will randomly pick a country and call it 'great satan'.

Yeah, I know, Osama and his rabid followers who are willing to blow themselves up and think women shouldn't drive or work or show skin are completely reasonable people. Try again.

Shady · January 4, 2012

nut-jobs who attack abortion clinics are not occupied and bombed by abortion doctors. your comparison is stupid.

My comparison is perfectly apt. You're just unable to answer a very reasonable question. Why do you choose to conform to the demands of some terrorists, but not others?

bush_cheney2004 · January 4, 2012

....not sure why you guys are unable to admit that america's policy in the middle east, which includes its military bases, its support for israel and its supports for many dictators is the biggest reason why these extremist groups are being created.

Still waiting for extremist attacks from Germany, Japan, South Korea, Chile, and Guam!

Shady · January 4, 2012

My comparison is perfectly apt. You're just unable to answer a very reasonable question. Why do you choose to conform to the demands of some terrorists, but not others?

Oh, and Bud, why does a terrorist (Bin Laden) have the right to dictate terms of international diplomacy to a recognized national government (Saudi Arabia)?

Also, can I declare war on the Canadian government for allowing the Chinese to have an embassy here? Just wondering.

sharkman · January 4, 2012

it must be a difficult position to hold when you break it down like this. Most people that feel the US had it coming really can't justify why past a certain point, and it's revealed for what it was, plain old anti-American sentiment. Which is just another form of racism.

bud · January 4, 2012

Yeah, I know, Osama and his rabid followers who are willing to blow themselves up and think women shouldn't drive or work or show skin are completely reasonable people. Try again.

there is a common theme in the middle east in regards to what the majority think which is they acknowledge and despise america's meddling. this negative feeling towards america has created extremist groups like al quaeda whose tactics are not accepted by majority despite sharing the negative feelings towards 'the great satan'.

kind of like how someone in the west who is against al quaeda but does not agree with the tactics used by the u.s. government which has left thousands of innocent civilians in the middle east dead.

eyeball · January 4, 2012

it must be a difficult position to hold when you break it down like this. Most people that feel the US had it coming really can't justify why past a certain point, and it's revealed for what it was, plain old anti-American sentiment. Which is just another form of racism.

That's why it's more appropriate to simply say the west has it coming. I mean, whether you were active in the crime or not is pretty moot. Just standing by and watching the spectacle of a democracy supporting a dictator is kinda like saying nothing when you come across a priest with a kid bent over a pew.

Moonlight Graham · January 4, 2012

Yeah, they weren't occupying, that was my red flag. So Osama should have been attacking the government of Saudi Arabia for letting the Great Satan on their land instead of attacking the Great Satan. Although I guess he could have attacked them both, at least that would have been consistant. Maybe they both had it coming!

Yes, "occupy" seems an inaccurate term. Also, bin Laden was enemies with the Saudi government. They exiled him. He also had big plans following 9/11 to wage war against and topple the Saudi regime, and many al-Qaeda attacks occurred in S.A. with this goal: http://www.twq.com/08spring/docs/08spring_riedel.pdf

You don't seem to understand my viewpoint, so debating with you is frustrating.

My argument in brief: I don't condone the attacks, and the victims didn't deserve their fate (though someone more heartless than me could argue some killed in the Pentagon "deserved" it). I think bin Laden et al. were/are religious nutjobs. They're obviously very intelligent, but their specific religious ideology is illogical and immoral. At the same time, the US & the West were asking for trouble...and they got it. In other words, they had it coming. That doesn't mean they deserved it, it means they were asking for it.

Also, just because they are religious fanatics doesn't automatically mean their beefs with US foreign policy are illogical, which seems to be your argument. If ie: your innocent family was killed in an airstrike by a foreign country, you probably also wouldn't be sympathetic that is was "just collateral damage", and you'd probably be PO'd too.

The question shouldn't be "why did 9/11 happen?", but rather "why did it take this long to occur?". Again, I'm not saying I condone it, I'm saying I understand why it could happen. I'm sympathetic to some of their grievances, but completely disagree with their murderous tactics. Maybe if they copied Gandhi's satyagraha tactics of non-violent disobedience they could have got further and with much less blood on both sides. Same goes with the Palestinians.

Shady · January 4, 2012

That's why it's more appropriate to simply say the west has it coming.ew.

Whether you say America or the west. It's still complete nonsense.

bush_cheney2004 · January 4, 2012

... In other words, they had it coming. That doesn't mean they deserved it, it means they were asking for it.

Frankly, that's even dumber than "they deserved it". How did they explicitly ask for it....did they call from their WTC offices like ordering a pizza? "Hello...Osama...hi...we'll take two Boeing 767-200's with extra meat...thanks!"

Edited January 4, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

Shady · January 4, 2012

Frankly, that's even dumber than "they deserved it". How did they explicitly ask for it....did they call from their WTC offices like ordering a pizza? "Hello...Osama...hi...we'll take two Boeing 767-200's with extra meat...thanks!"

Yeah, I don't get that either. How does somebody have something coming, but not deserve it? Although they still haven't explained why we're suppose to conform to the demands of certain terrorists, but not others, and why certain terrorists have legitimacy in demanding certain policy changes from recognized national government. Like why does Osama Bin Laden have authority to tell the Saudi Government what to do? I don't get it.