NationStates Jolt Archive

as has often been stated, the primary reason for islamic terrorism is US foreign policy. in other words, the killing is justified because of the US/UK actions in afganistan/iraq. my question is, could we have avoided 9/11 if the US/UK had brought their troops back from afganistan and iraq earlier?

as has often been stated, the primary reason for islamic terrorism is US foreign policy. in other words, the killing is justified because of the US/UK actions in afganistan/iraq. my question is, could we have avoided 9/11 if the US/UK had brought their troops back from afganistan and iraq earlier?

?WTF?:confused:

the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were after Sept 11

poll coming

this oughta be interesting...

?WTF?:confused:

I hope this is a joke.........or satire........:confused:

Yay revisionist history!

I thought for a minute I'd fallen through a dimensional rift or something.

I remember my first beer!

this oughta be interesting...

it really won't.

the logic is irrefutable. i expect to see lots of convoluted explanations tho'.

this oughta be interesting...

heh heh heh

<insert needless front page spam here>

my job is done

Well, seeing as how those events occured after 9/11 I think it would have been impossible to avert it by doing them unless both the US/UK and Al-Qaeda were capable of time travel, and that would raise more questions than it solves.

The only way 9/11 would have been prevented is if we either caught the terrorists before the attack or we were also a Islamic theocracy..the first didn't happen and there's no way in hell we would want or allow the second one.

what happened on 11/9/2003+:confused:

am I missing something here…oh wait this must be about that 9/11 movie well no I don’t think anything could of stopped that being made it was inevitable like having unprotected sex with a hooker from Thailand will get you a nasty STI

Linear time is boring anyway. Let's mix things up a little bit!

Why didn't King Arthur take a more active role in European affairs? He could have stopped Hitler's rise to power before Israel invaded egypt! Poor Pharoah! :(

it really won't.

the logic is irrefutable. i expect to see lots of convoluted explanations tho'.

can you refute the fact that UK and US soldiers were not in Afghanistan nor in Iraq before 9/11?

Of course. The invasion of Iraq collapsed the temporal rifts that would have allowed us to travel back in time to avert the 9/11 attacks and simultaneously cure cancer and AIDS and stop world hunger. Thanks a lot, Bush.

Linear time is boring anyway. Let's mix things up a little bit!

Why didn't King Arthur take a more active role in European affairs? He could have stopped Hitler's rise to power before Israel invaded egypt! Poor Pharoah! :(that would've been an interesting fight!

Of course. The invasion of Iraq collapsed the temporal rifts that would have allowed us to travel back in time to avert the 9/11 attacks and simultaneously cure cancer and AIDS and stop world hunger. Thanks a lot, Bush.

Yeah, thanks. after all, that's what Enron and Martha Stewart were using... good thing he stopped it before they got more money!

Your attempt at disproving the idea that foreign troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is increasing terrorist activity fails, because you've commited the most henious and bumchummied crime of constructing a straw man. You deserve no cookie.

that would've been an interesting fight!

King Arthur vs. Hitler? Oh definitely. But I fear the winner might be too weakened to fend off Ghengis Khan. :(

King Arthur vs. Hitler? Oh definitely. But I fear the winner might be too weakened to fend off Ghengis Khan. :(

Ghengis Khan is too preoccupied with Charlamagne to offer any serious threat to King Arthur or Hitler

Ghengis Khan is too preoccupied with Charlamagne to offer any serious threat to King Arthur or Hitler

Charlamagne was assimilated by the Borg. Don't you keep up with current events?!? :rolleyes:

Charlamagne was assimilated by the Borg. Don't you keep up with current events?!? :rolleyes:

really?, next they will be saying Pluto isnt a planet :rolleyes:

Ghengis Khan is too preoccupied with Charlamagne to offer any serious threat to King Arthur or Hitler

really? I would've thought Ghengis would be too busy trying to invade Japan.

can you refute the fact that UK and US soldiers were not in Afghanistan nor in Iraq before 9/11?

no

Charlamagne was assimilated by the Borg. Don't you keep up with current events?!? :rolleyes:

No, no. That was Charles Xavier, who gave them his incredible telepathic abilities so they could take control of the Death Star and destroy the Dalek fleet. Duh.

no

so how can withdrawing troops we didn't have in either Iraq or Afghanistan prevent Al Qaida from attacking the WTC?

No, no. That was Charles Xavier, who gave them his incredible telepathic abilities so they could take control of the Death Star and destroy the Dalek fleet. Duh.

Okay, now you're just talking crazy. :p

Your attempt at disproving the idea that foreign troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is increasing terrorist activity fails, because you've commited the most henious and bumchummied crime of constructing a straw man. You deserve no cookie.

why do I think you are from glasgow?

No, no. That was Charles Xavier, who gave them his incredible telepathic abilities so they could take control of the Death Star and destroy the Dalek fleet. Duh.

but wasn't the Dalek Fleet destroyed by Captn Tylor and the crew of the Soyokaze?

why do I think you are from glasgow?

I am.

really?, next they will be saying Pluto isnt a planet :rolleyes:

There's a planet called Pluto? :confused:

No, no. That was Charles Xavier, who gave them his incredible telepathic abilities so they could take control of the Death Star and destroy the Dalek fleet. Duh.

I thought that Phoenix was the one that destroyed the Dalek fleet. I'm so confused.

There's a planet called Pluto? :confused:
It has a friend planet called Mickey. He's going out with Minnie.

so how can withdrawing troops we didn't have in either Iraq or Afghanistan prevent Al Qaida from attacking the WTC?

are you saying there was no justification for 9/11?

It has a friend planet called Mickey. He's going out with Minnie.

Does Jesus know?

Does Jesus know?
He does, but he's still refusing to talk to Mickey after the beer on the yacht incident.

He does, but he's still refusing to talk to Mickey after the beer on the yacht incident.

Rooney, Rourke or Mouse?

I'm so confused. :(

are you saying there was no justification for 9/11?

that's exactly what he's saying. Religious extremism and hatred of the US do not justify mass murder. Nothing justifies mass-murder. (plz do not try and call war mass-murder there's a difference)

Rooney, Rourke or Mouse?

I'm so confused. :(
Mouse.

Apparently he's just trashed Roland Rats joint as well, so there could be fireworks soon.

Rooney, Rourke or Mouse?

I'm so confused. :(

that was easy to accomplish...

I am.

that must be why i think it then.

(unless this is some scottish ploy).

are you saying there was no justification for 9/11?Do fanatics need reason to carry out their missions of Hate?

Perhaps it was that they were told that they would be serviced by 74 virgins in Martydom Heaven...

Perhaps they felt that Western Culture was corrupt and decidant so all people in the Western civilizations need to be killed...

Perhaps they felt they are fighting a war declared centuries ago by their prophet...


But I just think that they are just Fucking crazy and are Pissed that the people in the western world are living in ways they cannot.

that was easy to accomplish...

This is my first temporal anomaly. If you discount the Jesus wedgie incident.

as has often been stated, the primary reason for islamic terrorism is US foreign policy.

As far as attacks on the US are concerned, yes, it's a major influence.

in other words, the killing is justified

"One reason for the terrorism is US foreign policy" is not the same thing as "US foreign policy justifies the terrorism." They are completely different statements.

because of the US/UK actions in afganistan/iraq.

You are changing your original statement (pretty much the only thing reasonably accurate in your entire post) to justify your straw man. The "US/UK actions in afghanistan/iraq" are not the only aspects of "US foreign policy" in the Middle East during, say, the past four or five decades.

my question is, could we have avoided 9/11 if the US/UK had brought their troops back from afganistan and iraq earlier?

A ridiculous question ensuing from a ridiculous line of reasoning on your part, not on the part of those you are criticizing.

I thought that Phoenix was the one that destroyed the Dalek fleet. I'm so confused.

That was a different time. But it wasn't actually Phoenix, it was an energy duplicate created by Stalin.

As far as attacks on the US are concerned, yes, it's a major influence.


maybe you could explain that further.

maybe you could explain that further.

The terrorists tend to be fairly explicit in their justifications. The Iraq sanctions, US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for repressive Arab regimes, US support for Israel, etc. all make their contribution. They enhance the appeal of Islamic fundamentalism, which portrays itself as the only way out.

I hate Time Travel...

The terrorists tend to be fairly explicit in their justifications. The Iraq sanctions, US troops in Saudi Arabia, US support for repressive Arab regimes, US support for Israel, etc. all make their contribution. They enhance the appeal of Islamic fundamentalism, which portrays itself as the only way out.

but they wanted the sanctions on iraq. also, those sanctions were UN mandated. why not attack the UN?

and why not attack saudi? not the US? the second the saudis asked for us bases to be withdrawn, they were withdrawn.

the most oppressive regime in the NE I can think of in recent history was the taliban, and that was supported by pakistan, not the US.

so they are not explicit at all, are they?

as has often been stated, the primary reason for islamic terrorism is US foreign policy. in other words, the killing is justified because of the US/UK actions in afganistan/iraq. my question is, could we have avoided 9/11 if the US/UK had brought their troops back from afganistan and iraq earlier?
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/all.gif

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/oeh.gif

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/blbl.gif

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/klavier.gifhttp://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/dance.gif

but they wanted the sanctions on iraq.

They didn't like Saddam Hussein, but they weren't too keen on Arab children dying.

also, those sanctions were UN mandated. why not attack the UN?

Because they were smart enough to see who was behind them.

and why not attack saudi? not the US? the second the saudis asked for us bases to be withdrawn, they were withdrawn.

They have. They do not like Saudi Arabia's government at all. I would guess, though, that to launch a 9/11 style attack on Saudi Arabia would have too much collateral damage for their tastes; killing Sunni Arab Muslims is just not the same thing to them as killing US citizens.

the most oppressive regime in the NE I can think of in recent history was the taliban, and that was supported by pakistan, not the US.

That was an Islamic fundamentalist regime that more or less enjoyed their support.

I hate Time Travel...

It's happened on Jolt of late.

They have. They do not like Saudi Arabia's government at all. I would guess, though, that to launch a 9/11 style attack on Saudi Arabia would have too much collateral damage for their tastes; killing Sunni Arab Muslims is just not the same thing to them as killing US citizens.


And why is that?

And why is that?

Because they are the type of people who think we aren't as good as them and that it is thus alright to kill us:confused: I'm why do you think its not like anyone has tried to paint these guys as balanced or anything.

Your all wrong..the Daleks were destroyed when the FSM battled them to save Spaghettionia.

perhaps you were maybe thinking of the Kosovo issues during the clinton admin and a few things happened in afgahnistan. but other then that the US was mostly out of the middle east.

Iraq and the modern afgahn missions were after 9/11.

I think the answer is Thirteen.

If this is supposed to open some magic line of logic to me, it's not working, so I'm treating it as spam.

Your all wrong..the Daleks were destroyed when the FSM battled them to save Spaghettionia.

the FSM and Spaghettionia were devoured by Unicon and Galactus... it was so touching when Galactus offered Uni the last meatball moon.

This is the best jock thread ever!

Because they are the type of people who think we aren't as good as them and that it is thus alright to kill us:confused: I'm why do you think its not like anyone has tried to paint these guys as balanced or anything.

no, I want to know what it will take to stop them attacking us.

no, I want to know what it will take to stop them attacking us.

as long as we exist and as long as they exist: they will always dislike us. they are taught this at a young age and are brought up hearing of the evils of the west.

so the answer to your question is: they will never stop attacking us (well maybe we can completely destroy them to a point where there is no more "them". but this is often frowned upon by many many people, and for some reason always gets compared to something some guy tried to do back in the 40's)

no, I want to know what it will take to stop them attacking us.

when either they or the whole of western civilization no longer exsists.

what surprises me is that people actually voted in the poll.

and the spam. actually, i'm not suprised about that. at all.

when either they or the whole of western civilization no longer exsists.

so what do you suggest then?

i don't want to spend the rest of my life freaked out about this.

so what do you suggest then?

i don't want to spend the rest of my life freaked out about this.
what can I suggest?

join the army and fight them?

Join Islam and fight them?

Join those radical groups and fight along side them?

or just be a little more vigilant, be a little more smarter in what you say and do, and pay a little more attention to your surroundings.

I honestly suggest the last one.

so what do you suggest then?

i don't want to spend the rest of my life freaked out about this.

How bout you just get on with your life?

Sure, why not.

We could if we defy everything we know about casuality.

but they wanted the sanctions on iraq. also, those sanctions were UN mandated. why not attack the UN?

and why not attack saudi? not the US? the second the saudis asked for us bases to be withdrawn, they were withdrawn.

the most oppressive regime in the NE I can think of in recent history was the taliban, and that was supported by pakistan, not the US.

so they are not explicit at all, are they?
THE TALIBAN WERE PUT IN POWER BY THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE THEY OPPOSED THE SOVIET UNION, LIKE WE DID. SIMPLE AS THAT.

THE TALIBAN WERE PUT IN POWER BY THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE THEY OPPOSED THE SOVIET UNION, LIKE WE DID. SIMPLE AS THAT.
Quoted, because it can't be said often enough!!! Maybe, one day, it might sink in. :headbang:

I don't think it was as direct as that. The Taliban rose to power because of a series of events that were caused by the US funding of certain groups, but it wasn't a direct funding of the Taliban.

THE TALIBAN WERE PUT IN POWER BY THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE THEY OPPOSED THE SOVIET UNION, LIKE WE DID. SIMPLE AS THAT.

NO THEY WEREN'T. SEE MY CAPS LOCK KEY DOESN'T WORK EITHER. I GRANT YOU WE SHOULD NOT HAVE FUNDED THEM AT ONE POINT, AND I THINK JAMES CALLAGHAN POINTED THAT OUT TO JAMES CARTER, EVEN THOUGH JAMES CARTER SPENT THE WEEKEND BITCHING ABOUT TONY BLAIR.

PAKISTAN PUT THEM IN POWER THO'.

This thread wins all thread rewards, ever, simply because due to its own time travel, this thread has always existed.

And you guys are all forgetting about the Cylons.

as has often been stated, the primary reason for islamic terrorism is US foreign policy. in other words, the killing is justified because of the US/UK actions in afganistan/iraq. my question is, could we have avoided 9/11 if the US/UK had brought their troops back from afganistan and iraq earlier?

You confuse me.

No, it would not have been avoided. 9/11 was launched without any so-called "US oppression". They have a good memory-they will continue to kill us and bomb us until we surrender or die. Thats why we have to hunt them down and kill them, no matter how dirty or bloody it may be.

Hopefully my kids won't have to fight in the GWOT because I will have, and that by then it will be done, and we will be the Victor.

Hopefully my kids won't have to fight in the GWOT because I will have, and that by then it will be done, and we will be the Victor.

Oh do go fight this GWOT dealie soon, now won't you? And don't forget to write. Other people.

Bye-bye Victor.

Oh do go fight this GWOT dealie soon, now won't you? And don't forget to write. Other people.

Bye-bye Victor.

that's 'cos you don't ever leave where you live.

for the rest of us, it's the bitch from hell.

sure, it's fine to say just 'deal with it', or 'that's the price you pay these days', but i remember when flying was actually fun. people would see you off at the gate, and people would be there at the gate to meet you.

it was a travel adventure, not an exercise in terror.

not these days tho'. and why did it change? mostly because of US/UK foreign policy in iraq/afaganistan. that's what i heard on the news last week.

that's 'cos you don't ever leave where you live.

for the rest of us, it's the bitch from hell.

sure, it's fine to say just 'deal with it', or 'that's the price you pay these days', but i remember when flying was actually fun. people would see you off at the gate, and people would be there at the gate to meet you.

it was a travel adventure, not an exercise in terror.

not these days tho'. and why did it change? mostly because of US/UK foreign policy in iraq/afaganistan. that's what i heard on the news last week.
considering Flight is the one of two ways to get from Island to Island (not to mention to get out of this State itself) you do get used to the restrictions and whatnot.

as for Why it changed? it changed because a small group of Dickheads felt that slamming several tons of alluminum and innocent people into buildings is the ONLY WAY to change policies of other countries.

and the reason it gets tighter is because you have other DICKHEADS who constantly try to bypass the system for no other reason than to say "hey, GW... your Security Sucks"

and did this news source also claim that if the UK/US pulled their troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then the attacks on the WTC would not have happened?

considering Flight is the one of two ways to get from Island to Island (not to mention to get out of this State itself) you do get used to the restrictions and whatnot.

as for Why it changed? it changed because a small group of Dickheads felt that slamming several tons of alluminum and innocent people into buildings is the ONLY WAY to change policies of other countries.

and the reason it gets tighter is because you have other DICKHEADS who constantly try to bypass the system for no other reason than to say "hey, GW... your Security Sucks"

and did this news source also claim that if the UK/US pulled their troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then the attacks on the WTC would not have happened?


i fly a lot. and yes, i get used to it, but i resent it. i would like an easy way out. which is why i am asking.

the news source was quite clear. it was an interview with two british muslims. nice boys, law abiding and shit, they said that it is only fair that civilians in the US/UK are targets as long as the US/UK are in iraq and afganistan.

No, no. That was Charles Xavier, who gave them his incredible telepathic abilities so they could take control of the Death Star and destroy the Dalek fleet. Duh.actually Xavier tough he was destroying the Dalek.. Xavier was under Steven Spielberg's spell.. the Death star was shooting for da Hezbollah leader home.. and the fourth planet is just collateral.
:D :D


We Got Death Star !!!
We Got Death Star !!!
We Got Death Star !!!
They will Join US or Die!

Charlamagne was assimilated by the Borg. Don't you keep up with current events?!? :rolleyes:yeah well the Borg had to sell him to Chelsea.. they made an offer you just cant refuse.

i fly a lot. and yes, i get used to it, but i resent it. i would like an easy way out. which is why i am asking.the Easy way out is to just accept it. that's it. done.

the news source was quite clear. it was an interview with two british muslims. nice boys, law abiding and shit, they said that it is only fair that civilians in the US/UK are targets as long as the US/UK are in iraq and afganistan.the US (can't say for the UK) were targets long before Iraq and Afghanistan. USS Cole... various places frequented by US troops in other countries... before 9/11, US citilzens as well as places frequented by US Military Personnel were bombed at least once a year. we were targets long before 9/11. US hostages were taken frequently in Iran and other M-E countries by both Goverment Agencies as well as fanatical groups decades before 9/11.

Isn't there a spam forum for this trashy graffiti shit?

Isn't there a spam forum for this trashy graffiti shit?

yes. but it was full of your thoughts. so here it stays. es kann nicht ander etc.

that's 'cos you don't ever leave where you live.

for the rest of us, it's the bitch from hell.

sure, it's fine to say just 'deal with it', or 'that's the price you pay these days', but i remember when flying was actually fun. people would see you off at the gate, and people would be there at the gate to meet you.

it was a travel adventure, not an exercise in terror.

not these days tho'. and why did it change? mostly because of US/UK foreign policy in iraq/afaganistan. that's what i heard on the news last week.
If you think airport security will ever go back to the way it is you are wrong. Now that it happened once, they aren't going to take a second chance.

If you think airport security will ever go back to the way it is you are wrong. Now that it happened once, they aren't going to take a second chance.

well it could. once we identify why people just want to kill several hundred people in the air and eliminate that problem, the we don't have to worry anymore.

well it could. once we identify why people just want to kill several hundred people in the air and eliminate that problem, the we don't have to worry anymore.

and if that reason was because you did not convert to Islam and are not living under Shia(?) law.

would you do that just so that you don't have to worry about not flying any more?

oh and realize that there are many factions within the Muslim communities... so joining the wrong one can still have you killed...

well it could. once we identify why people just want to kill several hundred people in the air and eliminate that problem, the we don't have to worry anymore.
There will always be a threat to homeland security. No matter what. They were only looking for a reason to make it tighter because they would have lost business if they did it without a reason. Now we have the added memories of 9/11 so if they did slacken it again, and someone highjacked a plane they would be brought into question.

Business is about public relations, that is 90% of business. Why do you think nintendo has such a strong hold on the game industry? It's because everyone remembers Nintendo back when they were fresh, not the recycled crap of now. More children recognize Ronald McDonald then the president, McDonalds caters to the family. This causes children to remember this when they grow older. That is why they are a worldwide organization.

Now that this one bad experience caused such a loss, the airlines don't want to risk a total loss of business because because they slackened up.

Linear time is boring anyway. Let's mix things up a little bit!

Why didn't King Arthur take a more active role in European affairs? He could have stopped Hitler's rise to power before Israel invaded egypt! Poor Pharoah! :(

History is so sequential. I like your idea.

as has often been stated, the primary reason for islamic terrorism is US foreign policy. in other words, the killing is justified because of the US/UK actions in afganistan/iraq. my question is, could we have avoided 9/11 if the US/UK had brought their troops back from afganistan and iraq earlier?

If I remember correctly, bin laden did indeed state that the infidels' prescense in the mid east was infuriating, but he was referring to places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, we weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan at the time. BTW, the Saudis asked us to be there, but I guess bin laden probably doesn't like the House of Saud too much anyway.

I guess bin laden probably doesn't like the House of Saud.then again.. who likes corrupted Dictators??

then again.. who likes corrupted Dictators??

No one likes them per se, but sometimes we need them.

Let's say the Saudis hosted free elections right now. What kind of government do you think they would elect?

Not one very friendly to the West, to say the least.

Not one very friendly to the West, to say the least.

So? I didn't know servility was a prerequisite for decent governance.