September 11, 2001 – Thoughts on an Anniversary

[scribblet]

September 11, 2001 – Thoughts on an Anniversary

This is the sixth anniversary of the senseless slaughter of civilian perpetrated on citizens of the United States, Great Britain, Canada and other countries, in the name of religious and political fanaticism, by rabid followers of a false G-d. The attacks came on a brilliantly clear day, and had the force and directness of a clean, harsh and hot wind from the Arabian deserts; our way of life could not stand, because of the softness, decadence and freedom it afforded. The West’s way of life, providing for material prosperity, relative freedom for all citizens, regardless of race or religion, and unfettered speech is not consistent with the needs of a religion based on submission by most of their citizens, and dhimmitude for “other peoples of the book”.

And those views are the views of a true liberal; peace, equality and freedom should, and must rule.

Excellent post JBG

[Leafless]

Careful there, I doubt Allah sanctions terrorism.

And Blackdog, man did you drink some bad coffee today? Ive never seen you so aggressive to attack a poster. Regardless of what you believe about him do we need to decend to the level of personal attacks? That goes for both of you.

Is there not a direct relationship between terrorist killer morons and Allah?

[Leafless]

Tell you what, then: why don't you work on bringing this Allah character to justice.

Only after you ask the terrorist killer morons where we can find Allah.

[Guest American Woman]

(Black Dog @ Sep 12 2007, 01:15 AM) If by loss of innocence, you mean the loss of the illusion of invincibility, you're bang on. Americans for one day got to experience what life is like in most of the rest of the world. And they still won't shut up about it.

This remark was totally uncalled for.

And yet it is so true.

Really? If it's so true, I trust you'll have no problem linking to a poll that shows that Americans did indeed think the U.S. was invincible prior to 9-11. And since a terrorist attack of this magnitude happens in "most of the rest of the world," I trust you won't have a problem providing me with a list of nations that have experienced similar attacks; and since it was "for one day" for us, I'd like a list of multiple acts of terrorism that "most countries in the world" have experienced. But of course we all know that Canada wouldn't be on that list of "most nations in the world." So here's a word of advice: until YOU experience it, perhaps you have no right to sit in judgement of those who have; perhaps you should lose the 'holier than thou' attitude. But let me guess. Canada doesn't have to worry about that, right? Because you all are so nice. Talk about "illusions."

[Guest American Woman]

AW

First, the title of the thread is "September 11, 2001 – Thoughts on an Anniversary." Well, those are my thoughts. Americans tend to act as though 9-11 was Teh Worst Atrocity Evah. It is nowhere close.

So your "thoughts" are that Americans thought the U.S. was invincible before 9-11. So do you honestly believe your thoughts make it so? And perhaps it wouldn't hurt to say that this is merely your thought, instead of stating it as if it were a fact.

And fyi, no one I know thinks 9-11 was "Teh Worst Atrocity Evah." (I can't even begin to image what you're trying to relay with that accent or whatever it is, because I can only interpret it as utter stupidity). Secondly, it's your thought that most of the world, on more numerous occassions, has lived with terrorist attacks of the magnitude of 9-11? Again, it would be appreciated it you would state it as such so it's not being read as if you are presenting a fact.

But speaking of "not shutting up" about something, seems to me you turned the LaPine murders into a yearly Rememberance Day. Perhaps you all should just shut up about those murders.

One final thing. Read my response to Coot since it's directed at you, too.

Edited September 12, 2007 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

Really? If it's so true, I trust you'll have no problem linking to a poll that shows that Americans did indeed think the U.S. was invincible prior to 9-11

Did you miss the word “illusion” above?

And since a terrorist attack of this magnitude happens in "most of the rest of the world," I trust you won't have a problem providing me with a list of nations that have experienced similar attacks; and since it was "for one day" for us, I'd like a list of multiple acts of terrorism that "most countries in the world" have experienced.

Note I didn’t say terrorist attack, specifically. I was referring to the terror and prospect of sudden death which all too many people in the world live with each and every day. Like, say, in Iraq.

But of course we all know that Canada wouldn't be on that list of "most nations in the world." So here's a word of advice: until YOU experience it, perhaps you have no right to sit in judgement of those who have; perhaps you should lose the 'holier than thou' attitude.

How far are you willing to go with that logic? I mean, how close does one have to be to this event to have an opinion on it and on the reaction to it? Does one actually have to have had to survive it? Lose a loved one? See it on T.V?

But let me guess. Canada doesn't have to worry about that, right? Because you all are so nice. Talk about "illusions."

Well, if putting words in people’s mouths makes you feel better, g’ahead.

But speaking of "not shutting up" about something, seems to me you turned the LaPine murders into a yearly Rememberance Day. Perhaps you all should just shut up about those murders.

When someone starts using the occasion of the Montreal massacre or any other tragic event as a platform from which to launch a call for war and slaughter (as the o.p. does), let me know.

Leafless:

Is there not a direct relationship between terrorist killer morons and Allah?

Always good for a laugh, you are. I really doubt Allah is actually issuing orders from his secure, undisclosed location.

[bush_cheney2004]

... But of course we all know that Canada wouldn't be on that list of "most nations in the world." So here's a word of advice: until YOU experience it, perhaps you have no right to sit in judgement of those who have; perhaps you should lose the 'holier than thou' attitude. But let me guess. Canada doesn't have to worry about that, right? Because you all are so nice. Talk about "illusions."

Forgive them, for they know not what they do say. A small minority that is....so insulated from the risk by self proclaimed superiority and sanctimony, that they even spit upon their countrymen/women serving in Afghanistan. By any objective measure, Canada has been there where it counts when they have the resources, and sometimes even when they don't.

The heckling parasites will always remain attached to the host, despite their lofty objections.

Do Americans whine incessantly about 9/11? Perhaps, but they sure didn't mind it when we "whined" about Pearl Harbor.

[jbg]

Deleted. Understand Coot had accidentally made a double post.

Edited September 13, 2007 by jbg

[jbg]

This remark was totally uncalled for.

And yet it is so true.

Really? If it's so true, I trust you'll have no problem linking to a poll that shows that Americans did indeed think the U.S. was invincible prior to 9-11. And since a terrorist attack of this magnitude happens in "most of the rest of the world," I trust you won't have a problem providing me with a list of nations that have experienced similar attacks; and since it was "for one day" for us, I'd like a list of multiple acts of terrorism that "most countries in the world" have experienced.

What she means is that the rest of the world is, to her, like Dharfur or Beirut, and that New Yorkers should suffer the same way. New Yorkers, and Western Hemisphere denizens generally, have built a civil, free society. Other countries should strive to improve, not bring us down to their level. What makes that remark "uncalled for" is that it advocates the opposite, the rubble-ization of the world.

[jbg]

But speaking of "not shutting up" about something, seems to me you turned the LaPine murders into a yearly Rememberance Day. Perhaps you all should just shut up about those murders.

Black Dog does not remind us that the Lapine murders were yet another Muslim atrocity.

[AngusThermopyle]

This is the sixth anniversary of the senseless slaughter of civilian perpetrated on citizens of the United States, Great Britain, Canada and other countries,

Empty rhetoric.

It was not senseless, it was very well executed and served a very distinct purpose.

Whether the purpose was to solidify support amongst sympathetic believers of the Islamic cause, or to solidify support amongst the more non-believing and more war like; it served its purpose.

We now find ourselves enmeshed in a situation not of our making or our desire, just one imposed upon us by the vagueries of circumstance and powerfull men. However, right or wrong me must stand firm, we can not allow ourselves to be swayed by the common purile desire to capitulate that so many have today. Capitulation leads to oblivion, it has been shown time and time again by History.

So we must make our choice, do we surrender to the shot fired across our bows, or do we respond twice in measure? For myself I choose the second option. Personally I say screw the bastards who want to kill and subdue us North Americans, if they want some agro they can damn well have it in spades.

The falling of the towers was effective to say the least but I think the response will shock those who orchestrated it. I don't think they realize what they've done; or perhaps they do. Non-the-less the proverbial sleeping giant has been awakened once more. This time however it consists of the most powerfull nation in the world Allied with the nation that has always provided the most skilled and ferocious fighting men.

God help the bastards who kicked this into high gear, I most certainly wont, unless I get to help them on their way to hell.

Sorry about the dramatic tone to this post, I just feel very strongly about this subject.

[Guest American Woman]

Really? If it's so true, I trust you'll have no problem linking to a poll that shows that Americans did indeed think the U.S. was invincible prior to 9-11

Did you miss the word “illusion” above?

You said Americans thought the U.S. was invincible prior to 9-11. You also said this was an illusion, that America wasn't invincible despite Americans thinking it was. So no, I didn't miss it, and I repeat. Can you link to some proof that Americans believed the U.S. was invincible prior to the terrorist attacks? Obviously you can't, and rather than admit it, you're trying to muddy the waters going on about your claim that our so-called belief was an illusion.

Note I didn’t say terrorist attack, specifically. I was referring to the terror and prospect of sudden death which all too many people in the world live with each and every day. Like, say, in Iraq.

This is exactly what you said: "Americans for one day got to experience what life is like in most of the rest of the world." So if you're not talking about terrorist attacks specifically, even though that's what America "experienced" specifically, perhaps you could elaborate more; and you could start by, say, giving more than one example. It shouldn't be too difficult since "most of the world" lives under this "terror" and "prospect of sudden death" of which you speak.

But of course we all know that Canada wouldn't be on that list of "most nations in the world." So here's a word of advice: until YOU experience it, perhaps you have no right to sit in judgement of those who have; perhaps you should lose the 'holier than thou' attitude.

How far are you willing to go with that logic? I mean, how close does one have to be to this event to have an opinion on it and on the reaction to it? Does one actually have to have had to survive it? Lose a loved one? See it on T.V?

You can't be serious. One has to actually EXPERIENCE it to know what it would feel like; to know how you would react, because that's what we're talking about. Like you said, Americans "got to experience" it. So let's not play games here. I'm not talking about watching something happen to someone else on television. I'm talking about your nation, your loved ones, being under attack and how you would react if that had happened. You might want to hold off judging others until you've had a similar experience.

Well, if putting words in people’s mouths makes you feel better, g’ahead.

No, it doesn't make me feel any better, but that's not what I was going for-- and I got exactly what I was going for. See, I did to you exactly what you did to Americans when you said we all thought America was invincible prior to 9-11. I figured you would recognize it for what it is when the tables turned and projecting thoughts/feelings was directed at you; and of course you did.

When someone starts using the occasion of the Montreal massacre or any other tragic event as a platform from which to launch a call for war and slaughter (as the o.p. does), let me know.

Ummmm. The comment you made, on the day of our rememberance was that "Americans won't shut up about it." Now you're coming back with talk about starting a war, which is quite different from talking (ie: not shutting up) about 9-11. So could you possibly stick to the subject?

So once again, YOU remember your massacre. We remember ours. Once again, your comment was uncalled for.

And as I said, until you live the same experience (ie: not watch it happen to another nation on television), you might want to keep your arrogance and 'holier than thou' attitude in check.

Edited September 13, 2007 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

Forgive them, for they know not what they do say. A small minority that is....so insulated from the risk by self proclaimed superiority and sanctimony, that they even spit upon their countrymen/women serving in Afghanistan. By any objective measure, Canada has been there where it counts when they have the resources, and sometimes even when they don't.

The heckling parasites will always remain attached to the host, despite their lofty objections.

Do Americans whine incessantly about 9/11? Perhaps, but they sure didn't mind it when we "whined" about Pearl Harbor.

That's decent, but you neglected to work in something about Canadians bombing Kosovo or Clinton's policies vis Iraq. C-

What she means is that the rest of the world is, to her, like Dharfur or Beirut, and that New Yorkers should suffer the same way.

There’s nothing in my comment from which one could draw such a conclusion.

New Yorkers, and Western Hemisphere denizens generally, have built a civil, free society. Other countries should strive to improve, not bring us down to their level.

No doubt. But that’s not the issue.

What makes that remark "uncalled for" is that it advocates the opposite, the rubble-ization of the world.

See, now you're just projecting.

Black Dog does not remind us that the Lapine murders were yet another Muslim atrocity.

Probably because they weren’t, anymore than the Columbine shootings were a Christian atrocity. Lépine was a psychopath. I must say, it’s fascinating to watch you cast aside or ignore facts that don’t fit your predjudices. A true Solipsist, you are inventing your own reality.

AW:

You said Americans thought the U.S. was invincible prior to 9-11. You also said this was an illusion, that America wasn't invincible despite Americans thinking it was. So no, I didn't miss it, and I repeat. Can you link to some proof that Americans believed the U.S. was invincible prior to the terrorist attacks? Obviously you can't, and rather than admit it, you're trying to muddy the waters going on about your claim that our so-called belief was an illusion.

Mindless pedantry. Do you have an actual argument, or are you just here to pick nits?

This is exactly what you said: "Americans for one day got to experience what life is like in most of the rest of the world." So if you're not talking about terrorist attacks specifically, even though that's what America "experienced" specifically, perhaps you could elaborate more; and you could start by, say, giving more than one example. It shouldn't be too difficult since "most of the world" lives under this "terror" and "prospect of sudden death" of which you speak.

Again, what’re you really trying to accomplish here? Obviously, large parts of the world are far more dangerous places than the U.S. before or after 9-11. That shouldn’t be a controversial statement.

You can't be serious. One has to actually EXPERIENCE it to know what it would feel like; to know how you would react, because that's what we're talking about. Like you said, Americans "got to experience" it. So let's not play games here. I'm not talking about watching something happen to someone else on television. I'm talking about your nation, your loved ones, being under attack and how you would react if that had happened. You might want to hold off judging others until you've had a similar experience.

Well, by your logic, the vast majority of Americans didn’t experience 9-11 either.

No, it doesn't make me feel any better, but that's not what I was going for-- and I got exactly what I was going for. See, I did to you exactly what you did to Americans when you said we all thought America was invincible prior to 9-11. I figured you would recognize it for what it is when the tables turned and projecting thoughts/feelings was directed at you; and of course you did.

Uh, okay. Whatever.

Ummmm. The comment you made, on the day of our rememberance was that "Americans won't shut up about it." Now you're coming back with talk about starting a war, which is quite different from talking (ie: not shutting up) about 9-11. So could you possibly stick to the subject?

So once again, YOU remember your massacre. We remember ours. Once again, your comment was uncalled for.

Fine, forget the war. Even then, I’d be far more willing to concede the point if the volume and scope of the remembrance for the Montreal massacre or, say, the Air India bombing (until 9-11, the biggest terrorist attack on North American soil) was anything remotely like that given to 9-11. Obviously there’s issue of scale, but it’s more than that. I’m not about to begrudge anyone a time of reflection or mourning. But the o.p. was using 9-11 as a political tool, a platform from which to spout his revenge fantasies. Nor is he unique in that regard. 9-11 has become a rhetorical cudgel. And frankly, it’s tiresome.

And as I said, until you live the same experience (ie: not watch it happen to another nation on television), you might want to keep your arrogance and 'holier than thou' attitude in check.

Well I, guess until you live the same experience of having to put up with people (again, mostly people who have as much connection to the actual event as I do) going on and on about 9-11, you might want to keep your outrage in check.

[White Doors]

uhhh...the Air India jet crashed off Lockerbie Scotland..

and you know they have had inquiries and royal commissions on it right?

[JB Globe]

our way of life could not stand, because of the softness, decadence and freedom it afforded.

It's unbelievable that in 2007 there are still people who believe 9/11 happened because OBL hates freedom. OBL doesn't care about the internal affairs of individual nations, if he did, Sweden and Switzerland would have gotten hit a long time ago for their freedoms.

Fact is the main targets of Al-Qaeda are nations that have all had foreign military presence in what OBL considers his backyard (Mid East and Afghanistan) OR are Muslim-majority nations whose leaders cooperate with these same nations.

The West’s way of life, providing for material prosperity, relative freedom for all citizens, regardless of race or religion, and unfettered speech is not consistent with the needs of a religion based on submission by most of their citizens, and dhimmitude for “other peoples of the book”.

Oh God, I really had hopped you learned your lesson from your last post - STOP MAKING SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT TOPICS YOU HAVEN'T STUDIED. I asked you in my last post if you really think that people who've studied Islam and global politics can't spot an amateur immediately when they pose as an expert on a topic like this?

Now to deal with your assertion that Islam is in itself incompatible with the things you described . . .

To date, the best analysis of the diverse opinions of the world's Muslims has been the Pew Global Attitudes Project: http://pewglobal.org/

One study on Islam, Modernity & Terrorism found that most Muslims, don't even think that there even is a conflict between Islam and modernity. (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=833) Meaning that modernity and Islam have been integrating in their communities for quite some time, and that the two, in their eyes, aren't in opposition to each other. This would go against your statement (that wasn't backed up with any evidence, mind you) that Islam is in opposition to modernity. What's more, in nations where people did perceive there to be a conflict, the majority of people sided with the Modernizers versus the Fundamentalists. Again, this demonstrates that there are more Muslims who are for Modern Reform than there are who are fundamentalists, which is your (uninformed) belief.

As for the examples you mentioned as being incompatible with Islam, it's very easy to point out examples of Muslim-majority nations which contradict this - I'd also like to point out that there are many, many non-muslim nations which don't have many of the things you mention here as well . . .

material prosperity - We only need to look at the Gulf States to see this isn't true, you could through in Malaysia, Turkey as well.

Relative Freedom for all citizens - See, Indonesia, Malaysia, Senegal, Turkey,

Death was mandated for people refusing to submit, and who had the temerity to assert the right to enter into commercial and military relationships involving presence in Daar Islam, or to promote and protect the existence of non-Islamic countries in regions close to the ummah.

Well, we know this isn't true, because again - there isn't a nation in Europe who doesn't do business with the Mid-East because of the oil and money flowing through the region. However, the only nations which have been attacked to date are nations which, as I've said before, have military presence in what OBL considers his backyard. They also happen to be nations which are currently (and in the past), propping up repressive regimes which are friendly to their economic interests.

Initially and long-term, the West’s reaction was mixed.

President Bush rashly referred to Islam as a “religion of peace”, which most assuredly it is not.

Well of course it isn't, but then again neither are most of the world's religions.

Correctly, the U.S. and other allied countries invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, with a goal towards clarifying the relationship between the West and Islamic lands. That relationship ought to be based upon equality mutual respect for each other’s interests. Clearly, that is not the basis of the relationship, where planes smash into buildings . . .

There aren't too many people left who still claim that invading and occupying Iraq was a good move - and with good reason.

Your statement that the relationship between the West and "Islamic lands" (as if you can toss all muslim-majority nations in the same box, which is like saying Hungary, Peru, and Ghana are one-in-the-same) should be based on mutual respect, and that it was "them" (aka - Muslims) who upset this relationship when 9/11 happened is ridiculously ignorant of world history.

Again, I have to question whether you just don't know what you're talking about or you're deliberately leaving out a lot of information which you know contradicts your statement (in which case, you're being completely dishonest in your arguement).

Since the beginnings of modernity, nearly every Muslim nation on earth was occupied by a European colonial power - this Imperialism was the anti-thesis of mutual respect, and if you study Muslim nations where there is antithesis towards certain Western powers you'll see that each nation had a terrible experience under colonialism or had a Western power interfere in their nation post-independence.

The vast majority of these greviences have never been resolved, and in fact many of the inequalities in terms of trade and political pressure are still there and thus why there is still lingering animosity.

I shouldn't have to tell you the history of US involvement in Iran - you should know already that the US overthrew a democratically elected but socialist leader who wanted to nationalize the oil-industry, and replaced him with a dictator who was hated by the public and loved by Western leaders.

You should know, that the US has been interfering in Egyptian politics in much the same way for half a century - supporting forces which are Western-friendly yet anti-democratic. I can go on with the list but I think I've proved my point - that the relationship wasn't equal on September 10th, as you seem to suggest.

Muslims’ attempts to equate those attacks with collateral damage inflicted in the course of wars not aimed by the West at civilians, and/or off-course and non-deadly events such as Abu Ghraib are fatuous at best.

Listen, if you're going to make the claim that "Muslims" believe something, such as the notion that 9/11 was just payback for Western wars and interventions in Muslim-majority nations, you're going to have to back it up with some facts. You can't claim 1.5 billion people believe something and expect anyone to believe it without showing us some data. Either refine your statement and be more specific, or don't make it at all.

This is completely lazy and amateurish, and is no worse than someone coming on here and claiming "all Jews want to rule the world"

In the West, newspapers and politicians seek the easy course; withdrawal (of volunteer troops) from Iraq, appeasement of Muslim interests, etc. Footbaths designed to facilitate prayer are being installed at universities

Well, I'm not sure what the hell the Iraq conflict has to do with civil rights concerns in the US, unless of course you're the type of person which views a health sciences student who happens to be Muslim and a US citizen as one-in-the-same as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Which is of course, what you seem to be suggesting here and in other posts as well.

The West needs to understand what is at stake, and push back. That way, Muslims, Christians and Jews can live in peace, cognizant of the boundaries, and what happens when those are transgressed.

Of course, what you mean by "pushing back" is actually curtailing the civil liberties of Muslim citizens of Western nations, and invading and occupying Muslim-majority nations as a means of "teaching them a lesson" - we've seen in the past 6 years how effective that strategy has been - Al Qaeda is as strong as ever and Iraq (just one nation of 26 million) is a complete mess.

Since you tend to be extremely vague with these statements (which I believe is due to your lack of knowledge on the subject), I have to make assumptions, so please feel free to correct me on this.

If you think that’s bad, ask the Japanese whether life was better under Tojo and dictatorship than it is now. Did we win their “hearts and minds” by appeasement. Oops, I forgot, we dropped the ultimate weapon on them.

Targeting civilians with weapons of mass destruction is probably the antithesis of appeasement. Again, you're being vague here and not saying if you believe that WMDs are the answer or not.

As for post-war Japan - life didn't look so good until the breakout of the Korean War. Unlike the other former Axis powers the US didn't apply a Marshall-Plan program to rebuild Japan - the Korean War meant that Japan would become the biggest supplier of materials and equipment to the war effort, which kick-started it's economy.

The Muslims can learn to be a constructive, contributing part of this world. They do not have to limit their contributions to rapine, death and destruction, in search of domination.

This is an outright racist statement. You're claiming that Muslims in general are "limited" in how they express themselves to "rapine, death and destruction, in search of domination" - I'm going to give you a chance to revise this statement. If this in fact what you truly believe and you see no problem with it, than I'm going to have to view you as an outright racist much in the same way I would view a Neo-Nazi who made a sweeping generalizations about Jews "wanting to dominate the world for their wicked money-hungry ideology"

And those views are the views of a true liberal; peace, equality and freedom should, and must rule.

I find it disgusting that you chose this statement to follow an outright, racist statement. Again, I'm giving you a chance to clarify yourself here.

[JB Globe]

We have similar wants and desires but the difference is, we have the hope of making a better future for ourselves while you do not. Well, if your mission is successful i can guarantee you two things will happen, You will be dead or in a prison somewhere where nobody will ever see or hear from you again, and you will piss of a nation of over 300 million people with the capability of destroying your small nation off the face of the earth 10000x over. So please, wake this sleeping giant up and it will be men and women like me who have served this nation that will kick down your door and kill your sons when they try to suicide bomb are troops. I offer your family no mercy. The same that your actions did to my people.

This reads like a repeat of many of the highly emotional pro-war rants before the Iraq invasion - what part of that debacle makes you think that invading and occupying nations which harbour minorities of people who engage in terrorism against the US is a good idea?

How has the Iraq invasion overall helped the US' ability to protect itself against terrorism?

Also, I don't believe it's even logically possible for a democracy that claims to stand for human rights to out-terrorize terrorists - I mean, their acts of inhumanity define them - they're terrorists, that's what they do. The minute America decides to go on a campaign targeting civilians and occupying every nation that goes against its authority is the minute it stops being the "City on a Hill" and the great defender of democracy and human rights. After-all, there's nothing democratic about occupation.

The main reason I disagree with your proposal for a global war is that I think it would do nothing but stretch US power thinly over a wide area, destroy the US economy, and do nothing but increase support for radical Islamic movements and terrorism with this "with us or against us" approach.

To the Imams and financial backers and dictators who squash people under your thumbs, bleed any ounce of hope or chance at a fair life for those you rule or bully, and sponsor terrorism of any shade, anywhere in the world. May i meet you in a dark corner because your death will be brutal beyond all reckoning. I will send you to whatever god you wish to see but a shadow of your human form. May death find you quickly.

While you claim to be against dictators in Muslim nations, you also seem to be unaware that the US has supported such dictators in the past and is continuing to support them. The Shah in Iran is a past example - Mubarak in Egypt is a current example.

It's no wonder than in each of these cases - the actions of these dictators has lead to increased support for Islamic groups which have been the most active political groups fighting for democracy.

To those in my country who seek to find a middle ground with religious fanatics and terrorist, that time has passed.

There are other alternatives to a global war that don't include finding a middle ground with terrorists.

YOu may shake your fist at me and call me warmonger or whatever belief you have. Meanwhile, Ill do my duty and stand a post. This promise I give to you, as long is there is breath in my body and a heart in my chest. I will do everything in my power to not let it be your children being abused by religious fanatics.

What sorts of things do you do to make this a reality?

[Black Dog]

uhhh...the Air India jet crashed off Lockerbie Scotland..

and you know they have had inquiries and royal commissions on it right?

Boy if you're going to attempt to correct someone, get your own facts straight. Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie on December 21, 1988. Air India Flight 182 was destroyed on June 23, 1985. But to your point, the Air India bombing was plotted here. Though the crime itself occurred over the ocean, the bomb was planted here. The victims were primarily Canadians. Again, until 9-11 it was the worst single act of terrorism in North America.

[White Doors]

Boy if you're going to attempt to correct someone, get your own facts straight. Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie on December 21, 1988. Air India Flight 182 was destroyed on June 23, 1985. But to your point, the Air India bombing was plotted here. Though the crime itself occurred over the ocean, the bomb was planted here. The victims were primarily Canadians. Again, until 9-11 it was the worst single act of terrorism in North America.

oops. got the flight wrong. Anyways, your point is and was moot. The Air India bombing has been in the news ever since it happened.

One significant difference though, it was against people and an issue that was indian of origin. ie: these terrorists were not attacking strictly Canadian actions wether or not the victims had a Canadian passport wasn't really the point. It was Sikh terrorists 'fighting' for a homeland in India lashing out at Indian nationals here in Canada.

It was not directed to the country they moved to, it was directed at the country they came from.

I'm sure even you can pick up that significant difference.

Edited September 13, 2007 by White Doors

[Guest American Woman]

Well I, guess until you live the same experience of having to put up with people (again, mostly people who have as much connection to the actual event as I do) going on and on about 9-11, you might want to keep your outrage in check.

Scrolling through this thread from the bottom up, I can't get past the last line of your post.

You poor baby! I can't believe you have to put up with people going on and on about 9-11. It just doesn't get any more terrible than that. Let me guess. They hold you captive and force you to listen. And of course that is every bit as horrible as living through an attack against your nation. Shame on me for being angry at your insensitive, arrogant attitude/remarks.

And yeah, you have as much "connection" to 9-11, an attack against America, as Americans do.

[Black Dog]

oops. got the flight wrong. Anyways, your point is and was moot. The Air India bombing has been in the news ever since it happened.

It's been in the news mainly because of the ongoing investigation and commissins you mentioned, as well as the controversy surounding them.

One significant difference though, it was against people and an issue that was indian of origin. ie: these terrorists were not attacking strictly Canadian actions wether or not the victims had a Canadian passport wasn't really the point. It was Sikh terrorists 'fighting' for a homeland in India lashing out at Indian nationals here in Canada.

It was not directed to the country they moved to, it was directed at the country they came from.

I'm sure even you can pick up that significant difference.

For the purposes of this discussion, the difference you cite is irrelevant. Th eonly reason Air India was brought up was that it is an example of a national tragedy.

You poor baby! I can't believe you have to put up with people going on and on about 9-11. It just doesn't get any more terrible than that. Let me guess. They hold you captive and force you to listen. And of course that is every bit as horrible as living through an attack against your nation. Shame on me for being angry at your insensitive, arrogant attitude/remarks.

I don't really give a rat's fanny if you're angry or if my remarks offend you. I'm certainly not going to start treating 9-11 as a sacred cow. Too bad. So sad.

And yeah, you have as much "connection" to 9-11, an attack against America, as Americans do

If the o.p and his ilk are to be believed, 9-11 was an attack on the entire west. If you don't ascribe to that view, then what of the Canadians who died that day and the repurcssions that day has had on this country? That is all, of course, if one believes one must have personal experience with a subject to form an opinion on it. That's quite obviously not the case; if it were, this discussion board wouldn't hae much to discuss.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The minute America decides to go on a campaign targeting civilians and occupying every nation that goes against its authority is the minute it stops being the "City on a Hill" and the great defender of democracy and human rights. After-all, there's nothing democratic about occupation.

This is a false premise....America has never been the great defender of "democracy".....it has been the great defender of its own economic and geo-political interests. The history of America laughs at any such notion, and it isn't required to live up to anybody else's expectations otherwise.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't really give a rat's fanny if you're angry or if my remarks offend you. I'm certainly not going to start treating 9-11 as a sacred cow. Too bad. So sad.

Of course not. Why would you refrain from making crass remarks on the day of our anniversary?-- Our Rememberance Day? That would take class.

But because I'm a nice person, here's a tip. If you don't like listening to all those Americans who refuse to "shut up" about 9-11, then don't listen to them. That's how easy it would be to put an end your terrible ordeal.

[moderateamericain]

This reads like a repeat of many of the highly emotional pro-war rants before the Iraq invasion - what part of that debacle makes you think that invading and occupying nations which harbour minorities of people who engage in terrorism against the US is a good idea?

I never said it was a good idea, But ill be damned if those troops over there are gonna die for no reason.

How has the Iraq invasion overall helped the US' ability to protect itself against terrorism?

Gave a place for terrorist to fire on US citizens outside of the US and gave us a chance to Kill as many extremist as we can.

Also, I don't believe it's even logically possible for a democracy that claims to stand for human rights to out-terrorize terrorists - I mean, their acts of inhumanity define them - they're terrorists, that's what they do. The minute America decides to go on a campaign targeting civilians and occupying every nation that goes against its authority is the minute it stops being the "City on a Hill" and the great defender of democracy and human rights. After-all, there's nothing democratic about occupation.

By that logic we shouldnt have occupied Germany after world war 2 either?

The main reason I disagree with your proposal for a global war is that I think it would do nothing but stretch US power thinly over a wide area, destroy the US economy, and do nothing but increase support for radical Islamic movements and terrorism with this "with us or against us" approach.

While you claim to be against dictators in Muslim nations, you also seem to be unaware that the US has supported such dictators in the past and is continuing to support them. The Shah in Iran is a past example - Mubarak in Egypt is a current example.

Because past presidential cabinets have supported Dictators makes me a hypocrite for disliking them how?

It's no wonder than in each of these cases - the actions of these dictators has lead to increased support for Islamic groups which have been the most active political groups fighting for democracy.

There are other alternatives to a global war that don't include finding a middle ground with terrorists.

What sorts of things do you do to make this a reality? I already have served my country and I will continue to vote for presidential candidates that will not suffer terrorism, I already have made 2 trips to Iraq training and setting up Communication equipment. (ex. Sat phones) What have you done for your country? On top of that if the unthinkable happens and Islam is spread into the USA, I will be the first to take up arms against it.

As far as it being emotional your god damn right it is. I usually take in personally when people try to kill me, or my Marine brother, or my friends and family. If you don't thats okay, go hide in a hole if you like, ill be there to protect you.

Edited September 14, 2007 by moderateamericain

[Guest American Woman]

As far as it being emotional your god damn right it is. I usually take in personally when people try to kill me, or my Marine brother, or my friends and family.

It's a totally weird feeling being out of the country and knowing you could run into people who wouldn't hesitate to kill you simply because you are an American. It's a very emotional feeling. There's no denying that.

[jbg]

Fact is the main targets of Al-Qaeda are nations that have all had foreign military presence in what OBL considers his backyard (Mid East and Afghanistan) OR are Muslim-majority nations whose leaders cooperate with these same nations.

****

However, the only nations which have been attacked to date are nations which, as I've said before, have military presence in what OBL considers his backyard. They also happen to be nations which are currently (and in the past), propping up repressive regimes which are friendly to their economic interests.

Let's say I "consider" Canada my backyard and disagree with PM Harper's decision on something. Does that give me the right to sacrifice the lives of 19 people I can brainwash in order to slaughter Canadians in large numbers and at random?

Relative Freedom for all citizens - See, Indonesia, Malaysia, Senegal, Turkey,

I've talked to both residents of and refugees from Malaysia as well as people who recently have lived in Singapore. Christians in Malaysia are subject to humiliating restrictions. In addition there have been sporadic anti-Christian "riots" fueled by the government. Indonesia has more or less tolerated the Bali attacks by releasing, long before service of sentence, the perpetrators.

Since the beginnings of modernity, nearly every Muslim nation on earth was occupied by a European colonial power - this Imperialism was the anti-thesis of mutual respect, and if you study Muslim nations where there is antithesis towards certain Western powers you'll see that each nation had a terrible experience under colonialism or had a Western power interfere in their nation post-independence.

The vast majority of these greviences have never been resolved, and in fact many of the inequalities in terms of trade and political pressure are still there and thus why there is still lingering animosity.

What about the lingering "animosity" of Jews for the Holocaust? Do you see us strapping bombs onto our children or crashing planes into buildings?

I shouldn't have to tell you the history of US involvement in Iran - you should know already that the US overthrew a democratically elected but socialist leader who wanted to nationalize the oil-industry, and replaced him with a dictator who was hated by the public and loved by Western leaders.

That was a seizure of private property and should have drawn a like reaction in late 1960's early 1970's. We wouldn't be dealing with "OPEC" if we had.

You should know, that the US has been interfering in Egyptian politics in much the same way for half a century - supporting forces which are Western-friendly yet anti-democratic. I can go on with the list but I think I've proved my point - that the relationship wasn't equal on September 10th, as you seem to suggest.

The West should lie down and acquiesce to the formation of dangerous governments throughout the world? Really?

As for post-war Japan - life didn't look so good until the breakout of the Korean War. Unlike the other former Axis powers the US didn't apply a Marshall-Plan program to rebuild Japan - the Korean War meant that Japan would become the biggest supplier of materials and equipment to the war effort, which kick-started it's economy.

And the Japanese took advantage of it rather than playing "victim".