Big Guy Posted September 11, 2015 Report Posted September 11, 2015 It has been 14 years ago to-day that extremists staged a very successful suicide attack against the USA by flying commercial airplanes into some towers in New York. http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/11/us/september-11-anniversary/index.html There is nothing "happy" about 3,000 innocents being killed. The only positive thing about Sept 11, 2001 was the state of the world at that time. Iraq and Iran were at each others throats and maintaining a balance of power between each. Every few years they would attack each other, kill hundreds of thousands of each other military and than take as break for a few years. Muammar Gaddafi was firmly in control of Libya, Hussein was in control of Iraq. Iran was a stable country. Assad was in control of Syria, Yemen was stable with a large USA port located there. Turkey was dealing with a few problems with the Kurds but was a staunch ally of the West. Afghanistan was just shaking off the Soviet occupation and the Taliban was starting to take charge. Then the 9/11 attack took place and Bush took charge. Bin Laden was targeted as the leader of the 9/11 attack and the USA went after him. Laden was located in Afghanistan. Bush demanded that the Taliban turn Laden over to the USA. The Taliban stated they would turn Bin Laden over to a third party (Saudi Arabia was assumed to be that third party). http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 But Bush wanted revenge, not negotiation, and invaded Afghanistan. The rest is history. Millions of refugees are streaming into Europe (and soon North America), Iraq is a failed state, Yemen is a failed state, Libya is a failed state, Syria is being ripped apart, the Taliban are in negotiations to get involved in a new Afghanistan government, extremist groups are trying to carve up the Middle East. Iran is the emerging power in the region and Western influence has greatly decreased. Bin Laden used 19 extremist suicide bombers to thumb his nose at America. The West fell for the trap and released the extremist genie from the Middle East bottle. Bin Laden must be spinning and laughing in his watery grave. We just do not seem to learn and understand. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
BC_chick Posted September 11, 2015 Report Posted September 11, 2015 What exactly is 'nonsense' in that post? A little elaboration would be tremendous. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) What exactly is 'nonsense' in that post? A little elaboration would be tremendous. The 'nonsense' part would be that the "extremist genie" was released AFTER the 9/11 attacks and invasion of Afghanistan, when clearly there were many attacks prior to this. The World Trade Center was attacked with a truck bomb in 1993, and many other attacks were planned or executed around the world prior to September 2001. After 9/11, some cynical New Yorkers famously said, "They finally got it right". Edited September 11, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted September 11, 2015 Report Posted September 11, 2015 Bin Laden used 19 extremist suicide bombers to thumb his nose at America. The West fell for the trap and released the extremist genie from the Middle East bottle. Bin Laden must be spinning and laughing in his watery grave. We just do not seem to learn and understand. the "genie out of the bottle"? That would be the culture of fear that Bush/Cheney/NeoCons released! Per former U.S. National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski: Terrorized by War on Terror The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us. The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants. But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war." . Quote
BC_chick Posted September 11, 2015 Report Posted September 11, 2015 The 'nonsense' part would be that the "extremist genie" was released AFTER the 9/11 attacks and invasion of Afghanistan, when clearly there were many attacks prior to this. The World Trade Center was attacked with a truck bomb in 1993, and many other attacks were planned or executed around the world prior to September 2001. After 9/11, some cynical New Yorkers famously said, "They finally got it right". Oh good, at least you tried making an argument unlike Shady. However, the scale of attacks before and after the invasion of Iraq are nothing alike. Furthermore, Big Guy also discussed the ensuing instability in the region which is unlike anything pre-Iraq invasion. That remains to be disputed. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Posted September 11, 2015 Oh good, at least you tried making an argument unlike Shady. However, the scale of attacks before and after the invasion of Iraq are nothing alike. It's not an argument...it is historical fact. Iraq was attacked/invaded long before 9/11 as a consequence of the Gulf War in 1991, the very same war and infidel occupation of holy lands that allegedly sparked extremist attacks in the first place. Furthermore, Big Guy also discussed the ensuing instability in the region which is unlike anything pre-Iraq invasion. That remains to be disputed. The region already had plenty of instability before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Big Guy Posted September 11, 2015 Author Report Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) So the world is a safer place after Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Edited September 11, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 11, 2015 Report Posted September 11, 2015 No, the world will only be a safer place after PM Trudeau gives all the terrorists nice warm Canadian blankets. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonlight Graham Posted September 11, 2015 Report Posted September 11, 2015 The West's foreign intervention in the middle east since WWI has been an epic disaster. Their intervention in the ME since 9/11 has arguably been the worst since they carved up ME borders after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When has the ME been more unstable? When have Islamist extremists had more presence, influence, and power in the region? Seems like when the West intervenes in the ME it's like they're trying to put out a grease fire by dumping water on it. We try to put out one fire and create 3 more. So much of our (and their) blood and treasure wasted for next to nothing. Honestly at this point maybe we should just leave the ME entirely and let the fire burn itself out. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
ReeferMadness Posted September 11, 2015 Report Posted September 11, 2015 Bin Laden used 19 extremist suicide bombers to thumb his nose at America. The West fell for the trap and released the extremist genie from the Middle East bottle. Bin Laden must be spinning and laughing in his watery grave. That's assuming bin Laden was actually behind 911. That's never been proven in any court. It's just been alleged. By the same people who alleged that Iraq had WMD's. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted September 11, 2015 Report Posted September 11, 2015 The West's foreign intervention in the middle east since WWI has been an epic disaster. Their intervention in the ME since 9/11 has arguably been the worst since they carved up ME borders after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When has the ME been more unstable? When have Islamist extremists had more presence, influence, and power in the region? Seems like when the West intervenes in the ME it's like they're trying to put out a grease fire by dumping water on it. We try to put out one fire and create 3 more. So much of our (and their) blood and treasure wasted for next to nothing. Honestly at this point maybe we should just leave the ME entirely and let the fire burn itself out. It's mostly their blood and mostly their treasure. And mostly our fault. Across history, the countries that have been subjected to direct invasion, imperialism, colonialism and neo colonialism have, unsurprisingly, turned into basket cases. The mess that is the middle east is mostly a creation of western powers. So, when Harper points to poor, desperate, brown people and subtly (or not so subtly) says we should be afraid of them, it makes me angry. Who should be afraid of whom? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Big Guy Posted September 12, 2015 Author Report Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) I have no intention of trying to convince anybody of anything. I am stating what I surmise from world events. If one compares the Middle East of the year 2,000 with the Middle East of to-day one may perceive a difference between those two comparison points. If one looks at the events initiated by the West during that period then one might see much intervention in the balance of power in the Middle East. If one can surmise that the events initiated by the West on the changes in the Middle East from 2,000 till to-day, one might assume that this involvement had something to do with the current situation. If you feel the West is not the major cause of de-stabilisation in the Middle East and has made a world a more dangerous place then we have been reading very different newspapers and media than which I read. But, we all get paid the same for our opinions. Edited September 12, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted September 12, 2015 Report Posted September 12, 2015 Oh good, at least you tried making an argument unlike Shady. However, the scale of attacks before and after the invasion of Iraq are nothing alike. Furthermore, Big Guy also discussed the ensuing instability in the region which is unlike anything pre-Iraq invasion. That remains to be disputed. The mistake is in presuming that absent the US response there would not have been any instability. Much of the instability in the middle east today is due to the Arab Spring. It, or something like it would have happened eventually, and will happen again. Too many corrupt and incompetent regimes in that part of the world. And there's only so long they can go on blaming all their national problems on the Jews and expect their people to buy it. To suggest 9/11 was responsible for Khadaffy being booted from power is a hell of a stretch. And Iraq was in constant turmoil well before then, with Hussien holding down a majority population of Shias with just his Suunis, while fighting off the kurds in the north. The only point of his post was, as it usually is, to blame everything on the Americans while completely exempting any of the brown people (who, being brown, can't be held responsible for their actions the way we would if they were white) from any blame. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jbg Posted September 12, 2015 Report Posted September 12, 2015 Complete and utter nonsense. The guy's got a 42C fever. Give him a break. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
GostHacked Posted September 12, 2015 Report Posted September 12, 2015 The mistake is in presuming that absent the US response there would not have been any instability. Much of the instability in the middle east today is due to the Arab Spring. If we left them alone, and they still became unstable, then that would be an indication that they are not up to the task of being civilized or wanting progression and we would not be to blame. The Arab Spring was not genuine in the sense that we think it's pissed off Arabs wanting a better life. I sense foreign influence there as well in order to help bring about change without putting soldiers on the ground (instead drones are used). But the invasion in 1991 did not solve anything, and the 2006 invasion did not solve anything, and now that western soldiers are going back in small numbers tells me .. here we go again! Quote
Argus Posted September 12, 2015 Report Posted September 12, 2015 The West's foreign intervention in the middle east since WWI has been an epic disaster. This once again presumes that had the Ottomans been replaced by... what exactly, something other than Western control, everything would have been sweetness, light and brotherhood in that region. That ignores reality and history. Once the empire was dissolved and if power had devolved onto local groups, then absent any external interference there would inevitably have been full scale war for power and position among them. You think the hatreds between the various religious and tribal groups are new? They're centuries old. The Ottomans kept a lid on them the same way Tito kept a lid on the mess in Yugoslavia. As soon as he was out of the picture the place fell apart, just as Iraq would have the moment Hussein died, one way or another. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Big Guy Posted September 12, 2015 Author Report Posted September 12, 2015 The guy's got a 42C fever. Give him a break. Interesting and disappointing. I thought that jbg had some interesting views to add so I did read and respond to his/her views at times but :"The guy's got a 42C fever. Give him a break." Wow! Sorry jbg, you are now relegated to the pouting adolescent division in my book. I am really surprised by such an inane response. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted September 12, 2015 Report Posted September 12, 2015 If you feel the West is not the major cause of de-stabilisation in the Middle East and has made a world a more dangerous place then we have been reading very different newspapers and media than which I read. Having seen the kinds of places you try to post as cites, like RT, I can CERTAINLY believe that! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Moonlight Graham Posted September 12, 2015 Report Posted September 12, 2015 This once again presumes that had the Ottomans been replaced by... what exactly, something other than Western control, everything would have been sweetness, light and brotherhood in that region. That ignores reality and history. Once the empire was dissolved and if power had devolved onto local groups, then absent any external interference there would inevitably have been full scale war for power and position among them. You think the hatreds between the various religious and tribal groups are new? They're centuries old. The Ottomans kept a lid on them the same way Tito kept a lid on the mess in Yugoslavia. As soon as he was out of the picture the place fell apart, just as Iraq would have the moment Hussein died, one way or another. The borders in the ME after WWI were drawn in the same disastrous manner the borders in Africa were drawn up by European powers: with absolutely no regard for the internal cultural differences of different groups of people. In both places, the borders are artificial imperial constructs that have contributed to much civil war. You don't find that amount of civil war in the rest of Asia where European imperialism didn't affect it as much. At least India and Pakistan had the sense to separate from each other shortly after independence. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
eyeball Posted September 12, 2015 Report Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) This once again presumes that had the Ottomans been replaced by... what exactly, something other than Western control, everything would have been sweetness, light and brotherhood in that region. We should have replaced the disgraceful methods the west used to control things with something far far more principled, ethical and moral. This once again presumes we ever a capacity for this to start with. Edited September 12, 2015 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted September 12, 2015 Report Posted September 12, 2015 The borders in the ME after WWI were drawn in the same disastrous manner the borders in Africa were drawn up by European powers: with absolutely no regard for the internal cultural differences of different groups of people. I think they drew them with a Machiavellian sociopathic desire for civil division and endless conflict. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 12, 2015 Report Posted September 12, 2015 I think they drew them with a Machiavellian sociopathic desire for civil division and endless conflict. Well, it worked so well in North America...just ask First Nations ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted September 12, 2015 Report Posted September 12, 2015 Well, it worked so well in North America...just ask First Nations ! It sure did. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.