September 11, 2001 – Thoughts on an Anniversary

[bush_cheney2004]

True, but many said the US oil embargo of Japan had something to do with it.

Absolutely true....the US was squeezing Japan and its interests like a pimple.

We don't claim to be killing them for their good. Only that idiot General Westmoreland said something like that, 40 years ago. What we're saying is that things that are being done for the benefit of Iraqis overall do involve some casualties.

Big difference.

Agreed...the US as a matter of policy does not purposely target civilians. It does engage and kill the enemy, and his means to resist. This often entails civilian casualties. However, advancements in smart bomb technology and target validation practices have mitigated the slaughter of old.

[Black Dog]

jbg:

All that the Muslims have to do to avoid that war is to call off theirs. If they fight the war in such a way as to make the fighters indistinguishable from ordinary people, what choice is left?

So much wrong...

First "the Muslims" are not at war with us. There's 1.2 billion of 'em, the majorit of which lack the means or inclination to go to war with the west.

Second, you're not talking about targeting fighters and incidentally causing civilian deaths. When you invoke Hiroshima, you're talking about deliberatly targeting civilians. That's a response that is totally out of proportion to the actual threat.

If it's us or them, I choose us. You?

I choose to reject false dichotomies.

[Guest American Woman]

True, but many said the US oil embargo of Japan had something to do with it.

Yet we didn't attack until Pearl Harbor was attacked, even though there was already a major war going on. The circumstances were completely different from attacking a nation that had not attacked us.

We don't claim to be killing them for their good. Only that idiot General Westmoreland said something like that, 40 years ago. What we're saying is that things that are being done for the benefit of Iraqis overall do involve some casualties.

Big difference.

So if "things that are being done for the benefit of Iraqis overall do involve some casualties," that would be saying we are killing them for their good, and we've already agreed that we aren't doing it for their benefit, but for ours.

[jbg]

First "the Muslims" are not at war with us. There's 1.2 billion of 'em, the majorit of which lack the means or inclination to go to war with the west.

Why not find out what the madrassas are teaching.

Second, you're not talking about targeting fighters and incidentally causing civilian deaths. When you invoke Hiroshima, you're talking about deliberatly targeting civilians. That's a response that is totally out of proportion to the actual threat.

I choose to reject false dichotomies.

I don't consider the actual threat small, given the number of cells that are busted before a catastrophe. Can anyone say the "Toronto 17"?

[Black Dog]

Why not find out what the madrassas are teaching.

They can spout inflammatory anti-west teachings until they turn blue in the face. It won't shift the balance of political, economic and military power. You yourself are among those who scoff at the world's Muslims and their ability to be productive: if they can't get their collective shit together in nearly any aspect of their societies, how in god's name d'ya expect them to have the wherewithal to conquer us?

I don't consider the actual threat small, given the number of cells that are busted before a catastrophe. Can anyone say the "Toronto 17"?

Well, you of all people have to consider the threat large or else you'd have a hard time convincing even yourself that you aren't a paranoid loon jumping at shadows. But the existence of terrorist cells (accepting that the Toronto 17 were an actual terrorist operation and not a CSIS/RCMP pet project) doesn’t mean there’s an actual existential threat.

[jbg]

Well, you of all people have to consider the threat large or else you'd have a hard time convincing even yourself that you aren't a paranoid loon jumping at shadows. But the existence of terrorist cells (accepting that the Toronto 17 were an actual terrorist operation and not a CSIS/RCMP pet project) doesn’t mean there’s an actual existential threat.

It would have been to someone at the CBC building.

[Black Dog]

It would have been to someone at the CBC building.

That's not your argument. Your claim is that radical Islam poses a fundamental threat to our society and way of life. Cigarette smoking also kills individuals, but no one would consider my Marlboros a threat to democracy and western values.

Edited September 21, 2007 by Black Dog

[JB Globe]

See the problem with you is, you let the government handle what is ultimately your responsibility. Justice for a loved one who is killed at the hands of another is my responsibility. Sure, Ill let them try and handle it the civilized way but if the man or woman gets off on a technicality but is guilty as sin (Ex. OJ Simpson)

So why bother having a legal system in the first place?

If a person is not satisfied with the results of a fraud case against you, can they go ahead and rob your house in an act of vigalante justice?

Sometimes technicalities mean the difference between a killer's sentance and freedom, and sometimes they're what prevent an innocent person from being charged with a crime.

Not sure what this has to do with most of my post, considering I only used this as an example, the rest had something to do with terrorism, I believe

[jbg]

So why bother having a legal system in the first place?

If a person is not satisfied with the results of a fraud case against you, can they go ahead and rob your house in an act of vigalante justice?

Sometimes technicalities mean the difference between a killer's sentance and freedom, and sometimes they're what prevent an innocent person from being charged with a crime.

Not sure what this has to do with most of my post, considering I only used this as an example, the rest had something to do with terrorism, I believe

This is one of the rare times I agree with you. And I don't think OJ was guilty, as sin or otherwise.

[jbg]

American Woman, you're right. Apparently, though, former Prime Minister Chretien agreed with Black Dog on this (link). Excerpts:

"It's always the problem when you read history -- everybody doesn't know when to stop. There's a moment when you have to stop, there's a moment when you are very powerful..."

"I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relations to the poor world..."

"And necessarily, we're looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more...."

"I told them: When you are powerful like you are, you guys, it's the time to be nice..."

"And it is one of the problems -- you cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation of the others.

"And that is what the Western world -- not only the Americans but the Western world -- has to realize."

The remarks of the Right Honorable Jean Chretien are as immortal as they're horrid (link).

[Guest Manny]

The remarks of the Right Honorable Jean Chretien are as immortal as they're horrid (link).

Please explain why you object to them.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, you're right. Apparently, though, former Prime Minister Chretien agreed with Black Dog on this (link).

What Black Dog said and what Chretien said are two different things. To paraphrase what I already said in the other thread:

I don't agree with Chretien; I don't think the hijackers/al Qaeda care about the poor at all (I've seen no proof of this), but he's not just referring to the U.S. in his observations, but rather the whole western world. He speaks of how 9-11 made him reflect on some of the things he mentioned, so I don't see his words as "horrid;" more as reflection and introspection. He did get a lot of flack for his comments, and in response, he clearly said that he didn't blame the U.S. for the attacks, so I'll give him that.

"Indeed, the forceful action Canada has taken, shoulder to shoulder with the United States, to track down and bring to justice those behind the attacks is unequivocal proof of the views of the prime minister, the government and the people of Canada as to who is responsible for Sept. 11" .... link

And this is true. He, as the PM of Canada, was right there in solidarity with us on 9-11 and in Afghanistan. We couldn't have asked for a better neighbor than Canada that day, or following.

[GostHacked]

Might be a good time to mention what Iran did for the USA right after 9/11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/07/world/main4508360.shtml

(CBS/AP) Iran rounded up hundreds of Arabs to help the United States counter al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attack after they crossed the border from Afghanistan, a former Bush administration official said Tuesday. Many were expelled, Hillary Mann Leverett said, and the Iranians made copies of almost 300 of their passports.

The copies were sent to Kofi Annan, then the secretary-general of the United Nations, who passed them to the United States, and U.S. interrogators were given a chance by Iran to question some of the detainees, Leverett said in an Associated Press interview.

Leverett, a Middle East expert who was a career U.S. Foreign Service officer, said she negotiated with Iran for the Bush administration in the 2001-3 period, and Iran sought a broader relationship with the United States. "They thought they had been helpful on al Qaeda, and they were," she said.

For one thing, she said, Iran denied sanctuary to suspected al Qaeda operatives.

[Guest Manny]

Might be a good time to mention what Iran did for the USA right after 9/11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/07/world/main4508360.shtml

Wow, good information. I didn't know this. I doubt there will be a positive response, from the slavering jawed compatriots...

[jbg]

Wow, good information. I didn't know this. I doubt there will be a positive response, from the slavering jawed compatriots...

That's so nice that Iran "expelled" rather than turned over to the West those creeps they rounded up.

And this is true. He, as the PM of Canada, was right there in solidarity with us on 9-11 and in Afghanistan. We couldn't have asked for a better neighbor than Canada that day, or following.

I quoted the part of your remarks I agree with. Since around the time of their independence the U.S. could not ask for a better neighbor. I do, however, feel that Chretien's remarks were a soft-spoken attack on the U.S. In the guise of being "reflective" he is saying, basically, that being successful is wrong. It it not, however the fault of any of the West (yes, AW you're right, the remarks were directed at the West) that most Islamic countries are failed states.

[GostHacked]

That's so nice that Iran "expelled" rather than turned over to the West those creeps they rounded up.

As an aside, how many has the USA let go from Gitmo?

[eyeball]

Might be a good time to mention what Iran did for the USA right after 9/11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/07/world/main4508360.shtml

Iran denied sanctuary to suspected al Qaeda operatives.

I'm reminded of all the Arabs the USA flew back to Saudi Arabia immediately after 9/11. Quite the contrast.

[Guest American Woman]

Might be a good time to mention what Iran did for the USA right after 9/11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/07/world/main4508360.shtml

Why? You think the past 10 years mean nothing?

I'm reminded of all the Arabs the USA flew back to Saudi Arabia immediately after 9/11. Quite the contrast.

What are you saying - that the U.S. shouldn't have flown back the Saudis? That because the Saudis that Iran turned over were suspect and/or guilty, that all Saudis were - and the U.S. shouldn't have flown them back? Or are you saying that the Saudis that Iran turned over were all innocent, therefore 'bad Iran?'

I'm not following your line of thought.

As an aside, how many has the USA let go from Gitmo?

Let me see if I'm following your line of thought - because Iran dealt with suspects after 9-11 for the U.S., the U.S. was supposed to let suspects go from Gitmo?

Perhaps you could explain so that makes sense?

[jbg]

As an aside, how many has the USA let go from Gitmo?

Honestly I don't know.

[GostHacked]

Honestly I don't know.

Well some of them have been captured more than once.

[eyeball]

I'm not following your line of thought.

Probably because you've always got so many other's on the go but in that spirit try following this one.

Imagine the uproar if Bin Laden family members had been allowed to fly out of the country immediately following 9/11 on a Democrat's watch instead of George W. Bush's.

Compared to the Bin Laden's, Iran's suspects were so run-of-the-mill as to barely rate a mention - which probably explains why they're only surfacing now after all this time.

[olp1fan]

yeah even when Bin Laden was suspected to be behind 9/11 they still let his family members go

The Bush family and the Bin Ladens dealt with each other quite a bit in business but apparently that is a "conspiracy theory" and not true

[DogOnPorch]

I'm pretty sure you did 9-11.

[eyeball]

I'm pretty sure you did 9-11.

This thread is about thoughts not brain farts.

[DogOnPorch]

This thread is about thoughts not brain farts.

Sure thing, Mr Conspiracy.