NationStates Jolt Archive

I find it interesting how many opinions I see about the event's of 9/11 and thought it'd be interesting to see the level of knowledge here on the subject.

The 9/11 attacks on the US were rationalized by the attackers primarily and most directly by which of these?

edit ; and the correct answer is....

In 1996, Bin Laden issued his first fatwa which called for "American soldiers to get out of Saudi Arabia".[58] A second fatwa, issued by bin Laden in 1998, "directed his followers to kill Americans anywhere".In the fatwa, bin Laden outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks


So, congratulations to everyone who answered 'Saudi Arabia' which was the primary motive of BL. Anyone who answered Israel gets half-credit. Everyone else gets an 'F'. Please spend more time reading up on your history and less on your propoganda.

For those who answered zionist or government conspiracy - please don your tin-foil hats and read here;
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

The terrorists were driven by a fervent, all-consuming loathing of our freedoms and a wish to impose Islamo-fascist rule on the entire world.

1) US involvement with Israel.
2) US presence in Iraq.
3) US presence in Saudi Arabia.
4) US presence in Afganistan.
4) US freedoms and liberties incompatibility with Islam.
5) Saddam Hussein attacking his enemy.
6) Jewish operatives framing arab radicals.
7) Us politicians attempting to manipulate US citizens.

You can't chalk this up to one thing. The attacks of 9/11 were due to a great number of things, including the first four.

This should be a funny thread. I can't wait until people like Cornlieu, who once called the concept of "blowback" worse than holocaust denial, show up.

2) US presence in Iraq.
4) US presence in Afganistan.

Wasn't that after 9/11?

Besides, what do you need a poll for? Watch the Bin-Laden first set of tapes. He's pretty much telling you.

You can't say that it was all their fault. We've been screwing with them for too long, and we kinda did see this coming, just like Pearl Harbor. We screw with countries and people, and then think they won't hit us back? Well, both times they have, and if we do it again, it's just going to be worse. "Islamo-fascist rule on the entire world."-That sounds like something George Bush would say.

2) US presence in Iraq.
4) US presence in Afganistan.
Wasn't that after 9/11?

Besides, what do you need a poll for? Watch the Bin-Laden first set of tapes. He's pretty much telling you.


No, it was before, during, and after.

It was "d4 J000ze!"

Wasn't that after 9/11?

Besides, what do you need a poll for? Watch the Bin-Laden first set of tapes. He's pretty much telling you.

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the abolition of the Caliphate in 1918?

-That sounds like something George Bush would say.

Why not just write "That sounds stupid"?

"-That sounds like something George Bush would say."

Why not just write "That sounds stupid"?


I wanted him to figure out what I am saying, due to the fact that he has the same mindset as George W Bush, he probably wouldn't.

Interesting. I voted before I read the op. I believe the answer to the question in op would be "US involvement with Israel" or "US presence in Saudi Arabia". Obviously, it couldn't be a protest against US presence in Afghanistan or Iraq, since we didn't have one.

But the real answer is the last one. Islam, as a religion, is quite compatible with the modern world. Islam, as a worldview, is not, and this is the core of current extemism.

But the real answer is the last one. Islam, as a religion, is quite compatible with the modern world. Islam, as a worldview, is not, and this is the core of current extemism.


Not all islamic people are extremists, and to say or imply that is ignorant.

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the abolition of the Caliphate in 1918?

What?

"The collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the abolition of the Caliphate in 1918?"


What?



AKA world war one.

Not all islamic people are extremists, and to say or imply that is ignorant.

Nor did I. The vast majority of Muslims obey the strictures of their religion and interact with modernity quite well, seeing no conflict between the two.

It is those who see Islam as the be all and end all of all things, whose worldview consists solely of Islam, that are the problem.

AKA world war one.

I know when and how it happened, but I don't know how is it related to what I said.

Nor did I. The vast majority of Muslims obey the strictures of their religion and interact with modernity quite well, seeing no conflict between the two.

It is those who see Islam as the be all and end all of all things, whose worldview consists solely of Islam, that are the problem.


Sorry for incorrectly analyzing what you said, my fault.


Yes, I agree with what you're saying. It's logical, and backed up by history.

The terrorists were driven by a fervent, all-consuming loathing of our freedoms and a wish to impose Islamo-fascist rule on the entire world.

lol, it's almost like he's quoting out of the Bumper Book of Right-Wing Sterotypes.

For the subject at hand, I'd go with 3) US presence in Saudi Arabia as the main cause seeing as that was the first incident that lead to the formation of Al-Qaeda, and to a lesser extent 1) US involvement with Israel.

What?
In one of the messages released shortly after the attacks in September of 2001 Mr. Bin Laden made explicit reference to the crimes that were committed "eighty years ago" and rectifying them. To a short-term-memory Westerner that's liable to go straight over our heads, but to a Sunni Muslim, they're going to know precisely what he's talking about, and the perceived embarrassment that it brought.

He's referring to the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire at the hands of the western powers at Versailles, and the replacement of the pre-existing government with that of the secular Kemal Attaturk, who abolished the Caliphate.

In one of the messages released shortly after the attacks in September of 2001 Mr. Bin Laden made explicit reference to the crimes that were committed "eighty years ago" and rectifying them. To a short-term-memory Westerner that's liable to go straight over our heads, but to a Sunni Muslim, they're going to know precisely what he's talking about, and the perceived embarrassment that it brought.

Ah! I thought your reply was to my question "Wasn't it after 9/11?", and completely forgot about the tapes. That's why I was confused.

Well, if he stated that himself as a reason, then it's also a reason.

Ah! I thought your reply was to my question "Wasn't it after 9/11?", and completely forgot about the tapes. That's why I was confused.

Well, if he stated that himself as a reason, then it's also a reason.

Ah, quite, quite.

Would you like a spot o' tea ol' chap? :D

The terrorists were driven by a fervent, all-consuming loathing of our freedoms and a wish to impose Islamo-fascist rule on the entire world.

Basically yes.

Wow, I smell another thread takeover by anti-US NSG trolls. I think that its because they hate us because we have the freedom to do what we want, and they can't. Besides, usually the people you help during brutal occupations help you out, not blow up buildings, citizens and soldiers.

Wow, I smell another thread takeover by anti-US NSG trolls. I think that its because they hate us because we have the freedom to do what we want, and they can't. Besides, usually the people you help during brutal occupations help you out, not blow up buildings, citizens and soldiers.

That's a completely unfair statement, especially since you cannot say with absolute certainty where the people who express disdain for US ideals and policy live.
Sorry for OT post

The terrorists were driven by a fervent, all-consuming loathing of our freedoms and a wish to impose Islamo-fascist rule on the entire world.

true

Basically yes.

I think that its because they hate us because we have the freedom to do what we want, and they can't.

true

So all the justifications they claimed are all just to cover some infantile feelings of jealousy or hatred for our freedoms? Does that honestly make sense to you?

I think Mr. err excuse me, Mrs. Garrison hit the nail on the head in giving the reasons why they hate us.


1. No sex, which wouldn't be as bad as it is if there wasn't a prohibition on #2.
2. No masturbation, makes it worse
3. sand is everywhere

Wow, I smell another thread takeover by anti-US NSG trolls. I think that its because they hate us because we have the freedom to do what we want, and they can't. Besides, usually the people you help during brutal occupations help you out, not blow up buildings, citizens and soldiers.

Since when is invading and brutally occupying helping out?

So all the justifications they claimed are all just to cover some infantile feelings of jealousy or hatred for our freedoms? Does that honestly make sense to you?

The leaders of the movement feel compelled to fabricate some cloak of credibility with which to disguise their fiendish motives, be it diaphanous and gossamer as it may. Their repugnant rationale must be obscured beneath a façade of logic. Nonetheless, the reasons stated by the leaders of this horrendous organization are but a smokescreen that is meant to delude complacent, idealistic liberals such as yourself and to make you empathize with their zealous, fanatical cause.

So all the justifications they claimed are all just to cover some infantile feelings of jealousy or hatred for our freedoms? Does that honestly make sense to you?

I don't think it is so much of a jealousy.

I think the reason they hate us is that we won't submit to them and convert to Islam. It is in that way that our freedoms come into play. Look at the protests over the Mohammed cartoons. They wanted us to submit to their religious rules of censorship and we wouldn't. Compare that to the response (or lack of) when South Park had Jesus take a dump on the American flag. Matt Stone and Trey Parker proved their point very well.

Israel. This was determined by our own CIA and from what Osama bin Laden (among other terrorists) has said himself. Iran is even pissy at us (along with most of the world...) about Israel as well.

To everyone who put our "incompatibilities" is an idiot.

U.S. interventionist policies that the Arab world didn't like including, but not limited to:

1) 1953 Iran coup and the Shah
2) Consistent and massive military aid to Israel
3) Any/all times we've had troops in Saudi Arabia (bin Ladin's made this clear numerous times)
4) Consistent and massive military aid to Turkey's military secular regime
5) Our veto power in the Security Council; and how we use it in accordance to the Arab world
6) U.S. endorsement of the secular Ba'ath Party and Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war.
7) Clinton-U.N. sanctions on Iraqi citizens (strengthened Hussein...killed citizens)

IDF, FAG, Questers, United Human Countiers and Rogue Protoss can all be dismissed as raving, irrational, bigoted islamophobes who, if the times were just a little different, would be hating Jews instead of Muslims. (Muslims: The New Jews.)

Israel. This was determined by our own CIA and from what Osama bin Laden (among other terrorists) has said himself. Iran is even pissy at us (along with most of the world...) about Israel as well.

To everyone who put our "incompatibilities" is an idiot.

Disregarding the overarching structure of the motivations of Al Qaeda, the initiating incident was the deployment of Coalition forces in Saudi Arabia in 1991 is what Bin Laden himself says what gave birth to the organization, and that the foibles of US policy regarding Israel are only tertiary measures.

IDF, FAG, Questers, United Human Countiers and Rogue Protoss can all be dismissed as raving, irrational, bigoted islamophobes who, if the times were just a little different, would be hating Jews instead of Muslims. (Muslims: The New Jews.)

If you want to insult me, then you have to prove it douche.

I brought up a very valid point that radical Islam wants us to live under Sharia.

You are such a fool. Why would I be hating Jews when I myself and a Jew? Go get yourself a clue and back up your fucking flaming arguments. When I call OD, UB, and AP anti-semites I have fucking proof. You just lump random posters into a pile and call them racist because you disagree with them.

If you want to insult me, then you have to prove it douche.

I brought up a very valid point that radical Islam wants us to live under Sharia.

You didn't bring up any valid points. "They" (you didn't even specify "radical," not that that's very specific either) "want us all to submit to Islam11!1!!11!!" Yeah, brilliant. Like I couldn't have gotten that talking line from Stormfront.

...islamophobes who, if the times were just a little different, would be hating Jews instead of Muslims. (Muslims: The New Jews.)

I happen to support the state of Israel and harbor no prejudice against Jews. Sadly, the same does not apply to you; indeed, you may have a latent resentment of Jews which manifests itself through your rabidly pro-terrorist and anti-Semitic stances in the Middle East.

You didn't bring up any valid points. "They" (you didn't even specify "radical," not that that's very specific either) "want us all to submit to Islam11!1!!11!!" Yeah, brilliant. Like I couldn't have gotten that talking line from Stormfront.

They should automatically refer to radicals as we are talking about those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. You need reading comprehension skills.

Now provide proof or apologize to me.

Don't even try to imply that I would visit stormfront. I am a Jew and you are a moron.

Considering our presence in Iraq was 0, I will go with presence in Iraq.

If you want to insult me, then you have to prove it douche.

Actually, when insulting, proof has very little to do with it because to "prove" something means only to convince another person of its veracity. You'll never be convinced that you're anything less than a noble crusader for purity and justice and that your bigotry is extremely rational.

Much like I'll never be convinced that I'm a douche.


You are such a fool. Why would I be hating Jews when I myself and a Jew?

"I'm not a racist, I have black friends!"

Go get yourself a clue and back up your fucking flaming arguments. When I call OD, UB, and AP anti-semites I have fucking proof. You just lump random posters into a pile and call them racist because you disagree with them.

Yeah I just lump "random" posters. They all just "randomly" happen to be making stupid, bigoted generalizations about the Evil Islam (tm). What a coinkydink. I suppose next you'll think I'm one of "them."

I'm still awaiting your apology Trotsia

IDF, FAG, Questers, United Human Countiers and Rogue Protoss can all be dismissed as raving, irrational, bigoted islamophobes who, if the times were just a little different, would be hating Jews instead of Muslims. (Muslims: The New Jews.)

You can't dismiss someone in an open forum, whether you agree with them or not.

Actually, when insulting, proof has very little to do with it because to "prove" something means only to convince another person of its veracity. You'll never be convinced that you're anything less than a noble crusader for purity and justice and that your bigotry is extremely rational.

Much like I'll never be convinced that I'm a douche.

I am not anti-Islam. I have never called for the destruction of Islam and have Muslim friends.

I don't have problems with Islam the religion. I do however have problems with the political movements that are based on pushing the personal religious views of some onto others. This is no different than not liking other missionaries.



"I'm not a racist, I have black friends!"
You're just a damn fool.



Yeah I just lump "random" posters. They all just "randomly" happen to be making stupid, bigoted generalizations about the Evil Islam (tm). What a coinkydink. I suppose next you'll think I'm one of "them."

Go use the search function and find one post where I call all of Islam evil.

Go ahead and prove your accusations or you can take them and shove them up your ass.

I don't think it is so much of a jealousy.

I think the reason they hate us is that we won't submit to them and convert to Islam. It is in that way that our freedoms come into play. Look at the protests over the Mohammed cartoons. They wanted us to submit to their religious rules of censorship and we wouldn't. Compare that to the response (or lack of) when South Park had Jesus take a dump on the American flag. Matt Stone and Trey Parker proved their point very well.

Don't you think that Western (especially American) intervention in the Middle East probably has a great deal to do with it as well? Specifically US support and aid given to authoritarian regimes throughout the region such as Saudi Arabia, the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein, etc.

You can't dismiss someone in an open forum, whether you agree with them or not.

Just ignore him, he has decided to be a tard and make baseless accusations with no fucking proof.

They should automatically refer to radicals as we are talking about those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. You need reading comprehension skills.

Yeah let's see that "automatic" reference to "radicals."

"I think the reason they hate us is that we won't submit to them and convert to Islam. It is in that way that our freedoms come into play. Look at the protests over the Mohammed cartoons. They wanted us to submit to their religious rules of censorship and we wouldn't. Compare that to the response (or lack of) when South Park had Jesus take a dump on the American flag. Matt Stone and Trey Parker proved their point very well."

Funny, I didn't even see the word "radical" mentioned, nor 9/11. Just a lot of shit about "they." If someone was talking about Jews like you talk about Muslims, you'd scream anti-Semite faster than shit starts smelling.


Now provide proof or apologize to me.

Ooh, is that an ultimatum? Sorry, I don't accept ultimatums. Perhaps you could come back at a hypothetical future date when I do.

Don't even try to imply that I would visit stormfront. I am a Jew and you are a moron.

Well that was a rational argument. I should surely apologize for ever implying you were irrational.

Now let's look at some of the trolls you're agreeing with, IDF.

I happen to support the state of Israel and harbor no prejudice against Jews. Sadly, the same does not apply to you; indeed, you may have a latent resentment of Jews which manifests itself through your rabidly pro-terrorist and anti-Semitic stances in the Middle East.

Doesn't hate Muslims = pro-terrorist = anti-Semitic = hate Jews

I love it.

You can't dismiss someone in an open forum, whether you agree with them or not.

Sure you can. I didn't mean "dismiss" like, "go home."

Don't you think that Western (especially American) intervention in the Middle East probably has a great deal to do with it as well? Specifically US support and aid given to authoritarian regimes throughout the region such as Saudi Arabia, the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein, etc.
It is a part of the equation (likely the reason the more highly educated use for their motivation) but the lesser educated people are more likely to be drawn in by religious arguments.

snip

This thread is about radicals. It shouldn't even have to be mentioned that I am talking about them.

I am not agreeing with F&G. I'm just asking you to prove your points when you attack me.

Now go and prove your point.

Otherwise you can fuck off.

Or you could be nice, admit you were wrong and apologize to me. I don't expect you to have the courage to do so though.

Considering our presence in Iraq was 0, I will go with presence in Iraq.

Unless you count the no-fly zones.

Sure you can. I didn't mean "dismiss" like, "go home."

I know, but you decided that their opinions are irrelevant.

Actually, when insulting, proof has very little to do with it because to "prove" something means only to convince another person of its veracity. You'll never be convinced that you're anything less than a noble crusader for purity and justice and that your bigotry is extremely rational.

Proving something implies formulating a thesis and then proceeding to support it with evidence. The basis of a proof is the rational interpretation of data, which one uses to arrive at a conclusion. Contrary to your belief, proofs are not founded upon wildly emotional non sequiturs and ample invective. Proofs are constructed from objective fact; what you say is simply subjective supposition. As such, your rants lack any validity whatsoever.

"I'm not a racist, I have black friends!"

It is exceedingly rare for one to be prejudiced against one's own religious, cultural, racial, or ethnic group; this is not analogous to viewing a racial group as generally inferior yet still retaining some friends from that racial group. You are comparing "apples" to "oranges" here in order to detract attention from your obvious oversight in accusing a Jew of being an anti-Semite.

Yeah I just lump "random" posters. They all just "randomly" happen to be making stupid, bigoted generalizations about the Evil Islam (tm). What a coinkydink. I suppose next you'll think I'm one of "them."

Although your criteria for lumping such posters together are not "random" per se, they are so utterly divorced from reality so as to appear "random." Your basis for classifying people as "racist" is that they despise terrorism -- unfortunately for you, this categorization is deeply flawed.

none of the above, i'd have said.

It is a part of the equation (likely the reason the more highly educated use for their motivation) but the lesser educated people are more likely to be drawn in by religious arguments.

True, but I think it's been reasonably well established that those who were behind and conducted 9-11 were educated individuals.

This thread is about radicals. It shouldn't even have to be mentioned that I am talking about them.

This thread was about 9/11. And, ever since you and your kind started popping up with this Muslim hating, it's been about how "they" are, why "they hate us." Ridiculous generalizations which - again - if were made about Jews you'd be screaming "anti-Semite."

But it's OK if they're only Muslims.


I am not agreeing with F&G. I'm just asking you to prove your points when you attack me.


I believe I already have.

Plus, your obvious anger is clear support of my position. I mean really look.


Otherwise you can fuck off.

That sounds like a pro-terrorist, anti-semitic viewpoint to me.

snip

It isn't my fault you are a fool and can't make the simple analysis that since this thread is about the radicals who committed 9/11, my comments were about them.

You need to go and learn reading comprehension. It might make you less of a tool when you throw around baseless accusations with no evidence.

Now I'm still awaiting your apology.

Go ahead use the search function. Try and find one post I made in my 9700+ posts where I bash all Muslims.

You are comparing "apples" to "oranges" here in order to detract attention from your obvious oversight in accusing a Jew of being an anti-Semite.




Just wanted to clarify that he wasn't actually saying that. Throughout history countries have had favorites (to hate). He was saying that he was hating the favorite of the current time (Islam/Muslims), whether or not that is true he isn't actually calling IDF an anti-Semite.

True, but I think it's been reasonably well established that those who were behind and conducted 9-11 were educated individuals.

Most were. I believe a few of them (those who didn't have flight training and were pretty much working in the cabins) weren't as well educated as someone like Atta.

Now let's look at some of the trolls you're agreeing with, IDF.

This is further evidence of your exceedingly narrow mentality -- you lump IDF together with me despite the fact that he did not agree with my posts. Of course, even had he done so, your statement would be invalided due to its intrinsically fallacious nature: if X shares trait Z in common with Y, who is bad, it does not follow that trait Z is necessarily bad.

Doesn't hate Muslims = pro-terrorist = anti-Semitic = hate Jews

I was referring to your support for the heinous actions of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah (which, incidentally, is an anti-Semitic organization).

Proving something implies formulating a thesis and then proceeding to support it with evidence. The basis of a proof is the rational interpretation of data, which one uses to arrive at a conclusion.

Proof is subjective: it depends completely on the ability and willingness of persons to accept something as "proof." You can say you've "proved" something all day long; if no one agrees with you you've only proved something to yourself. You get a cookie.

Contrary to your belief, proofs are not founded upon wildly emotional non sequiturs and ample invective.

I see, so you will have no problems supporting the premise that I'm anti-semitic with something other than your emotive language and your internet trolling.

Right? Right.


It is exceedingly rare for one to be prejudiced against one's own religious, cultural, racial, or ethnic group; this is not analogous to viewing a racial group as generally inferior yet still retaining some friends from that racial group. You are comparing "apples" to "oranges" here in order to detract attention from your obvious oversight in accusing a Jew of being an anti-Semite.

You're quite funny. When did I say IDF is an anti-Semite?

Your basis for classifying people as "racist" is that they despise terrorism

Unfortunately for you, this is completely false.

1. I didn't classify you as "racist."

2. I did however classify you and IDF as the bigoted trash you are.

3. Not for despising "terrorism," but Islam. I know you would love to have others accept your conclusion - ooh sorry, your Proof - that they are the same thing, but that's not going to happen.

OK, now it's your turn. You troll, someone will be baited. Repeat as necessary.

Most were. I believe a few of them (those who didn't have flight training and were pretty much working in the cabins) weren't as well educated as someone like Atta.

My understanding is that those individuals were there to act as muscle for the operation. The organizers (in the larger sense) and leaders on the scene were largely well educated.

Also, here's what the Wiki says on the subject. Of course, it's the Wiki, with all that entails, but I think it's a pretty realistic assessment, at least more so than "simple hatred of our freedoms".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11#Motive

This is further evidence of your exceedingly narrow mentality -- you lump IDF together with me despite the fact that he did not agree with my posts. Of course, even had he done so, your statement would be invalided due to its intrinsically fallacious nature: if X shares trait Z in common with Y, who is bad, it does not follow that trait Z is necessarily bad.

I lumped you together based on your anti-Islamic stance. Since you both share such a stance, that's enough to classify you two together. Do try to keep up.


I was referring to your support for the heinous actions of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah (which, incidentally, is an anti-Semitic organization).

You were therefore referring to nothing more than your own silly delusions. I suppose your silly delusions are the rational data upon which objective proof is made?

My understanding is that those individuals were there to act as muscle for the operation. The organizers (in the larger sense) and leaders on the scene were largely well educated.

Also, here's what the Wiki says on the subject. Of course, it's the Wiki, with all that entails, but I think it's a pretty realistic assessment, at least more so than "simple hatred of our freedoms".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11#Motive

I would never imply it was as simple as hating us for our freedoms.

I would however make the case that our freedoms make us incompatible with the rules that radicals want to impose on everyone. Our freedoms make us incompatible with any fundamentalists who want to impose their rules on us.

I lumped you together based on your anti-Islamic stance. Since you both share such a stance, that's enough to classify you two together. Do try to keep up.




Prove it. You flamed me and I want proof. Otherwise you can apologize and go on your way.

Proof is subjective: it depends completely on the ability and willingness of persons to accept something as "proof."

On the contrary: it is objective, as its validity is not dependent on whether or not others agree with it. For instance, I'm willing to wager that the vast majority of people cannot comprehend the proof for Fermat's last theorem; nonetheless, it is deemed to be correct, as it conforms to various axioms and relies solely on facts and established mathematical rules rather than opinion. To prove your assertions, you must substantiate them with objective evidence (ie, quotes) and then relate this to your general thesis.

I see, so you will have no problems supporting the premise that I'm anti-semitic with something other than your emotive language and your internet trolling.

No: that inference, although not logically rigorous, is based on circumstantial evidence, such as your support for vehemently anti-Jewish groups.

You're quite funny. When did I say IDF is an anti-Semite?

You stated that, had the times been a little different, IDF "would be hating Jews instead of Muslims." This implies that he has an innate character trait that would manifest itself as anti-Semitism under different conditions. However, I do acknowledge that you did not label him an anti-Semite in this day and age; instead, you skilfully employed circumlocution to state everything but that.

I would never imply it was as simple as hating us for our freedoms.

I would however make the case that our freedoms make us incompatible with the rules that radicals want to impose on everyone. Our freedoms make us incompatible with any fundamentalists who want to impose their rules on us.

I never said you did, nor did I intendto imply such. I was referring to certain other posters in this thread.

I'll certainly agree that Western civil liberties are at odds with radicals such as Al Qaeda, but I don't think that forcing us to live under their rules is a goal that they honestly hope to achieve. I think their statements to the effect of wanting us to convert are merely rhetoric meant for a Middle Eastern audience.

Oi, all of you (IDF, Greater Trostia, etc.) need to calm down a bit and review the psychological characteristics of a debate. Instead of trying to convince each other, or at least to explain your views, you begin and end your sentences with insults, thus pushing each other to the corner, where reason loses its meaning and you no longer care about the actual discussion.

Greater Trostia, even if you think they (and I hope this time 'they' is obvious) are racists or anything like that, claiming to the forum that they can be dismissed, will not make them listen to you and in fact will make them ignore what you say without readin it at all.

IDF, cursing will not make you more correct.

I like good debates.

I suspect it was in response to the whole US prescence in the Middle East, rather than any one incident of place. Though you'd have to ask the people who planned it to know for sure.

A refusal to implement the Roman method of foreign policy. You just kill your potential enemies as soon as they make a threat, not after they blow up embassies and buildings.

A refusal to implement the Roman method of foreign policy. You just kill your potential enemies as soon as they make a threat, not after they blow up embassies and buildings.

So Osama Bin Laden attacked America because America didn't kill him?


:confused:

No, but if bin Laden and those like him were hunted down by the CIA as soon as they made a threat and killed, then 9/11 doesn't happen.

You cut the head off the snake. Dictatorships are not hard to topple. If they assassinated Castro in 1959, instead of these ridiculous sanctions, then the communist state is no longer a threat.

If they had simply assassinated Saddam, Ho Chi Minh, Khomeini and on down the line to Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-Il today. Assassinations, not sanctions and war. It's not like it would be hard for the CIA or another covert body to organize assassinations and save us all this trouble if they were given the orders. Realist solutions to these problems. Not UN corruption and timidity.

US interference in Middle Eastern affairs.

On the contrary: it is objective, as its validity is not dependent on whether or not others agree with it. For instance, I'm willing to wager that the vast majority of people cannot comprehend the proof for Fermat's last theorem; nonetheless, it is deemed to be correct

Being correct is not the same as having proved something. You need an "audience" to prove something to, and that audience has to say, "Ah! I agree" for it to have been proved to them. I am not talking about mathematical proof, because when IDF asks for me to "prove" to him what I said on this thread he is not asking a question that can be answered mathematically.

To prove your assertions, you must substantiate them with objective evidence (ie, quotes) and then relate this to your general thesis.

And, if IDF doesn't accept this then it is not proven (to him). Hence all he did by demanding that I "prove" something was set up a deliberately intractable problem, hoping I'd knock my head on the ground in a vain attempt to make him accept something he refuses to accept.

No: that inference, although not logically rigorous, is based on circumstantial evidence, such as your support for vehemently anti-Jewish groups.

Ah, so you're saying I support terrorism and anti-semitism... because I support anti-Jewish groups.

Nice circular argument. Damn straight it's not logically rigorous; like a lot of things you type it's based solely on your desire to provoke a response.


You stated that, had the times been a little different, IDF "would be hating Jews instead of Muslims." This implies that he has an innate character trait that would manifest itself as anti-Semitism under different conditions. However, I do acknowledge that you did not label him an anti-Semite in this day and age; instead, you skilfully employed circumlocution to state everything but that.

Circumlocution? No, it was the whole *point.* I realize IDF is not a Jew-hater if he is a Jew. But a Muslim-hater is not that different. You find an ethnic/religious group and you hate them.

IDF is upset because this is true and he doesn't like sharing anything in common with those he hates, but he does - the hate itself. He hates Muslims the way some people hate Jews; that was my point, not that he actually hates Jews.

No, but if bin Laden and those like him were hunted down by the CIA as soon as they made a threat and killed, then 9/11 doesn't happen.

You cut the head off the snake. Dictatorships are not hard to topple. If they assassinated Castro in 1959, instead of these ridiculous sanctions, then the communist state is no longer a threat.

If they had simply assassinated Saddam, Ho Chi Minh, Khomeini and on down the line to Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-Il today. Assassinations, not sanctions and war. It's not like it would be hard for the CIA or another covert body to organize assassinations and save us all this trouble if they were given the orders. Realist solutions to these problems. Not UN corruption and timidity.

Except if you instantly resort to violence when dealing with other nations you'll eventaully piss off too many countries and find yourself on the wrong end of a new world war.

Except if you instantly resort to violence when dealing with other nations you'll eventaully piss off too many countries and find yourself on the wrong end of a new world war.

World Wars are so 20th century. The world is far to globalized for there to be a World War.

Ah hello. Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.

I find the last option to be incredibly false and misleading:
US freedoms and liberties incompatibility with Islam.

There are about 3-4 million Muslims living in the US, peacefully practicing their beliefs alongside their responsibilities and freedoms as citizens of the United States. There is no conflict whatsoever, anyone trying to convince you otherwise has ulterior motives against Muslims and Islam.

With who exactly? Who in Europe for instance is going to declare war on the United States under any circumstance other than direct invasion?

Are you talking about Russia and China? You think they are going to go into a nuclear war because of Hugo Chavez? Please. Only Islamic terrorists are stupid enough to use nuclear weapons in this day and age. Which is why they need to be hunted down killed by EVERYONE, not appeased.

All this talk about US business in the Middle East. We should do business with whoever we want, wherever we want, for whatever we want and make no apologies about it. It's nothing short of surrender to hurt our own economy and stop doing business to make the local terrorists happy. No nation should be asked to do that.

Interesting. I voted before I read the op. I believe the answer to the question in op would be "US involvement with Israel" or "US presence in Saudi Arabia". Obviously, it couldn't be a protest against US presence in Afghanistan or Iraq, since we didn't have one.

But the real answer is the last one. Islam, as a religion, is quite compatible with the modern world. Islam, as a worldview, is not, and this is the core of current extemism.

We have had a presance in Iraq since the first Gulf War. It was continually bombed for over decade. I'm not sure about Afghanistan though.

I think it is a combination of reasons, mainly from our presence in Saudi Arabia .

Anti-aircraft guns were bombed continually after they fired on our pilots for over 12 years. Every single shot being an act of war and complete justification for any invasion, as was any one of the million other violations to the 1991 treaties that Iraq committed. I just love it when they talk about an illegal war, when any one single infraction of the 1991 treaty made it completely legal.

Now don't get me wrong, I didn't believe it was the right decision when 3/4 of the public did, but I'm not going to call it illegal because of that. Anybody that doesn't acknowledge that Iraq violated the treaties it's signed a million times over is beyond contempt.

We have had a presance in Iraq since the first Gulf War. It was continually bombed for over decade.

Wtf? I don't recall such a thing. Can you give a link (or several links, even better) to confirm this claim?

He's talking about the no fly zone that was established so that Saddam couldn't gas the Kurds or bomb the Shiites and his other enemies anymore.

US/UK pilots were fired upon by the Iraqis for over 12 years. Every single shot, I repeat was an act of war.

Which *most* directly rationalized the 9/11 attacks? U.S. presence in Afghanistan. There are other things there, of course, that also had to do with it, but of those options that's the biggest.

Interesting. I voted before I read the op. I believe the answer to the question in op would be "US involvement with Israel" or "US presence in Saudi Arabia". Obviously, it couldn't be a protest against US presence in Afghanistan or Iraq, since we didn't have one.At that specific time, we didn't. Earlier, we did.

Wtf? I don't recall such a thing. Can you give a link (or several links, even better) to confirm this claim?

Sure. I just did a search in google and typed "iraq no fly zone after gulf war" and got 836,000 results. I'm not going through all of them, lol.

http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/120402_nofly_zones_over_iraq.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,907023,00.html

Which *most* directly rationalized the 9/11 attacks? U.S. presence in Afghanistan. There are other things there, of course, that also had to do with it, but of those options that's the biggest.

At that specific time, we didn't. Earlier, we did.

That is true, but it seems pretty stupid to protest our presence in a place we'd already left.

As to the no-fly zones, the aircraft enforcing those operated out of Turkey or off carriers. We had no surface presence.

That is true, but it seems pretty stupid to protest our presence in a place we'd already left.



We didn't even have a staff in the Embassy, of all things.

But, furthermore, the assertion that it was the rationalization that it was the US presence in Afghanistan begs more questions than it answers. Why, for example, would a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians be the ones who flew the planes into the buildings because of a long-since-finished minuscule role in Afghanistan?

The primary motivation was the American presence in Saudi Arabia, not because we played slugs and missiles in Afghanistan in the eighties.

That is true, but it seems pretty stupid to protest our presence in a place we'd already left.Not if we left it war-torn and ravaged and didn't help to rebuild it.
Or, in the case of Iraq, not if we'd promised to support the people of Iraq in a coup and then failed to do so, leaving Saddam's troops to steamroll over them.

Wtf? I don't recall such a thing. Can you give a link (or several links, even better) to confirm this claim?

Did you not watch the news in the 90s? At least once a week there would be a blurb about a SAM site or something getting bombed.

Not if we left it war-torn and ravaged and didn't help to rebuild it.
Or, in the case of Iraq, not if we'd promised to support the people of Iraq in a coup and then failed to do so, leaving Saddam's troops to steamroll over them.

The latter, I'll grant you. But the former? Our only presence had been to HELP the Arab and Pashtun Afghanis by giving them weapons to fight the Soviets with.

Good weapons, too, Stingers, artillery and TOW missiles. The war damage was inflicted by the Soviets or the Afghans themselves, not us.

9-11 was a response to US involvement in the Middle East throughout the latter half of the 20th Century... everything from the formation of Israel to Gulf War 1

Not if we left it war-torn and ravaged and didn't help to rebuild it.

Not so much. The Russians left it war-torn and ravaged, they were the ones who invaded, they were the ones who made the war. We really didn't have much to do with anything in Afghanistan besides providing a limited number of weapons systems to the Mujahadeen. The Afghan resistance was an indigenous movement, that provisioned itself internally (or by pillage/fillage), with a limited amount of foreigners.

I mean, honestly, is it our responsibility to rebuild every single country after they come out of a brutal civil war?

The latter, I'll grant you. But the former? Our only presence had been to HELP the Arab and Pashtun Afghanis by giving them weapons to fight the Soviets with.

Good weapons, too, Stingers, artillery and TOW missiles. The war damage was inflicted by the Soviets or the Afghans themselves, not us.Except of course that we began 'helping' these people before, not after, the Soviets invaded. The intent of course to draw a Soviet invasion.

This should be a funny thread. I can't wait until people like Cornlieu, who once called the concept of "blowback" worse than holocaust denial, show up.

Um this can be considered flaming but I'm going to ignore that and actually answer the question:

9/11 was a response to our presence primarily in Saudi Arabia that Bin Laden objected to because it is the "holy land" of Muslim People. However, bin Laden was primarily angry at the Saudi Royal Family because they were the ones that invited the WORLD (not just the US) into their nation to defend it from Saddam Hussein when they invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

I mean...lets face it. Bin laden wanted us out of Saudi Arabia and now we are so he should have no more beef with us. :D

Except of course that we began 'helping' these people before, not after, the Soviets invaded. The intent of course to draw a Soviet invasion.

No, that doesn't scan. The previous Afghani government was socialist, and close to the SU. They didn't like us, but frankly, the US didn't give a damn. It's Afghanistan, butthole of the world. Until the Soviets invaded, we had no interests there.

9-11 was a response to US involvement in the Middle East throughout the latter half of the 20th Century... everything from the formation of Israel to Gulf War 1

Um...we had nothing to do with the State of Israel till after the Six Day War.

Um this can be considered flaming but I'm going to ignore that and actually answer the question:

9/11 was a response to our presence primarily in Saudi Arabia that Bin Laden objected to because it is the "holy land" of Muslim People. However, bin Laden was primarily angry at the Saudi Royal Family because they were the ones that invited the WORLD (not just the US) into their nation to defend it from Saddam Hussein when they invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

I mean...lets face it. Bin laden wanted us out of Saudi Arabia and now we are so he should have no more beef with us. :D

? When did we leave? Last I heard, we were still there, training the Saudi military in the new weapons we were selling them.

? When did we leave? Last I heard, we were still there, training the Saudi military in the new weapons we were selling them.

Training them and actually having hardware there is two separete things. Remember we pulled most of our troops out of Saudi Arabia when we took out Saddam Hussein.

No, that doesn't scan. The previous Afghani government was socialist, and close to the SU. They didn't like us, but frankly, the US didn't give a damn. It's Afghanistan, butthole of the world. Until the Soviets invaded, we had no interests there.From the Wiki (emphasis mine):

"As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). In order to bolster the local Communist forces, the Soviet Union—citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries—intervened on December 24, 1979. Over 100,000 Soviet troops took part in the invasion, who were backed by another 100,000 and plus pro-communist forces of Afghanistan. The Soviet occupation resulted in the killings of at least 600,000 to 2 million Afghan civilians. Over 5 million Afghans fled their country to Pakistan, Iran and other parts of the world. Faced with mounting international pressure and great number of casualties on both sides, the Soviets withdrew in 1989.

The Soviet withdrawal from the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was seen as an ideological victory in the US, which had backed the Mujahideen through three US presidential administrations in order to counter Soviet influence in the vicinity of the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

Soviet troops withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1988. Following the removal of the Soviet forces, the US and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there."

The Soviet invasion came after, not before.

Except of course that we began 'helping' these people before, not after, the Soviets invaded. The intent of course to draw a Soviet invasion.

Which would be all fine and dandy, except for the fact that the United States played a minuscule role in the Afghan Civil War. It makes us feel big and important to say that we played a role, the old fashioned "Only the white man can make big things happen" complex. Instead, it was an indigenous movement that led to the circumstances that the USSR used to excuse their invasion. The only reason they entered was because a Soviet puppet regime was already in power. The Soviets only invaded because their stooges couldn't effectively support themselves.

Which would be all fine and dandy, except for the fact that the United States played a minuscule role in the Afghan Civil War. It makes us feel big and important to say that we played a role, the old fashioned "Only the white man can make big things happen" complex. Instead, it was an indigenous movement that led to the circumstances that the USSR used to excuse their invasion. The only reason they entered was because a Soviet puppet regime was already in power. The Soviets only invaded because their stooges couldn't effectively support themselves.Their stooges couldn't support themselves because the U.S. was helping their opponents.

Their stooges couldn't support themselves because the U.S. was helping their opponents.

The US role in Afghanistan was phenomenally small, especially when compared to what the Afghan resistance was able to procure for themselves, or from other powers. For example, the Mujahadeen managed to procure a large quantity of Type 69 RPGs from the PRC at the time.

But, more than that, the Afghan Communist Government was receiving a substantial quantity of open military and civil aid from the USSR, a far greater amount than the rebels were receiving from the US.

The Afghan Communist government was destabilized from within, not without.

Their stooges couldn't support themselves because the U.S. was helping their opponents.

And the Soviets were supporting their side. Cold War chess game, remember? Neither side had any real presence until the invasion, just advisors and agents.

The US role in Afghanistan was phenomenally small, especially when compared to what the Afghan resistance was able to procure for themselves, or from other powers. For example, the Mujahadeen managed to procure a large quantity of Type 69 RPGs from the PRC at the time.

But, more than that, the Afghan Communist Government was receiving a substantial quantity of open military and civil aid from the USSR, a far greater amount than the rebels were receiving from the US.

The Afghan Communist government was destabilized from within, not without.But the invasion happened from without, and the U.S. was a major player in causing it.

And the Soviets were supporting their side. Cold War chess game, remember? Neither side had any real presence until the invasion, just advisors and agents.But the U.S. had a major role in causing the invasion in the first place.

But the invasion happened from without, and the U.S. was a major player in causing it.

But the U.S. had a major role in causing the invasion in the first place.

The simple fact is that you're just plain wrong. The US role in causing the invasion was minimal, not major. Indigenous, rural resistance that supported itself with weapons that it had been able to lift off of government forces or had possessed prior to the Coup d'etat was what created the situation that led to the Soviet invasion.

The CIA is not behind every action in the world. Individuals and peoples are capable of acting on their own without the US playing a role.

Um this can be considered flaming but I'm going to ignore that and actually answer the question:

9/11 was a response to our presence primarily in Saudi Arabia that Bin Laden objected to because it is the "holy land" of Muslim People. However, bin Laden was primarily angry at the Saudi Royal Family because they were the ones that invited the WORLD (not just the US) into their nation to defend it from Saddam Hussein when they invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

I mean...lets face it. Bin laden wanted us out of Saudi Arabia and now we are so he should have no more beef with us. :D

So you've changed your mind since you said this?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13149416&postcount=35

But the invasion happened from without, and the U.S. was a major player in causing it.

But the U.S. had a major role in causing the invasion in the first place.

No, the US just supported a local rebel regime. They didn't cause anything.

Oh, and Andaluciae, there was no Coup d'etat. The president of Afghanistan was killed by Russian spetznaz to justify the invasion - which the spetznaz team involved later admitted to, after the war ended and the SU collapsed.

Anyone ever hear of muslims being called racist and xenophobic? It's always excuses for jew hating and their bigotry.

They can move to anywhere they want, yet any foreigners that go muslim countries are asking for trouble. For any reason, not even to settle.

The excuses for Islamic terrorism are more of a concern to be at home than being killed in an actual attack.

The simple fact is that you're just plain wrong. The US role in causing the invasion was minimal, not major. Indigenous, rural resistance that supported itself with weapons that it had been able to lift off of government forces or had possessed prior to the Coup d'etat was what created the situation that led to the Soviet invasion.Source?

The CIA is not behind every action in the world. Individuals and peoples are capable of acting on their own without the US playing a role.Certainly. However, this isn't the case in this issue.

No, the US just supported a local rebel regime. They didn't cause anything.The U.S. knew that the Soviets were bound by treaty to aid the Afghan government against the rebels.

Oh, and Andaluciae, there was no Coup d'etat. The president of Afghanistan was killed by Russian spetznaz to justify the invasion - which the spetznaz team involved later admitted to, after the war ended and the SU collapsed.

I was referring to the so-called "Saur Revolution" that installed the first Communist government in the first place.

Source?

Certainly. However, this isn't the case in this issue.

The U.S. knew that the Soviets were bound by treaty to aid the Afghan government against the rebels.

And? The usual response in a situation like that was to up your support for the local government, not murder the President and invade the place. That was all the Kremlin.

I was referring to the so-called "Saur Revolution" that installed the first Communist government in the first place.

Ah. Sorry, I thought you were speaking of the "justification" the Soviets used for going in.

And? The usual response in a situation like that was to up your support for the local government, not murder the President and invade the place. That was all the Kremlin.The local government was incapable of suppressing the rebels due to the massive amounts of aid the rebels were receiving.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Initiation_of_the_insurgency

It describes how the insurgency was born independent of US aid, but as it progressed it did indeed receive aid to a degree, but was primarily self-sufficient, and was a response to the rise of the pro-Soviet government in Kabul.

Certainly. However, this isn't the case in this issue.

Maybe, but to a far lesser degree than you insinuate.

The U.S. knew that the Soviets were bound by treaty to aid the Afghan government against the rebels.

It's quite an interesting manner to start off providing aid to your ally by assassinating their President, blowing up their communications infrastructure and occupying government facilities with special forces units. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan not to uphold their treaty, but to attempt to guarantee that they would be able to keep Afghanistan on their "side."

The local government was incapable of suppressing the rebels due to the massive amounts of aid the rebels were receiving.

Source that, then. How much aid were the rebels receiving prior to the Christmas invasion? Were they even receiving a tenth as much aid as the Soviet backed government was receiving? How much?

Or how about the massive amounts of aid the Soviet supported government was receiving? What made the Soviet supported government so legitimate?

The local government was incapable of suppressing the rebels due to the massive amounts of aid the rebels were receiving.

Except that at that stage the US was supplying Chinese crap weaponry, and not much of that. Most of the material the rebels had was from stealing it from their own government, not US support.

Afghanistan wasn't even on the US radar before 1979. They gave some help to the rebels just to cause the Soviets grief, but they certainly weren't going to spend big money on a country they didn't give a damn about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Initiation_of_the_insurgency

It describes how the insurgency was born independent of US aid, but as it progressed it did indeed receive aid to a degree, but was primarily self-sufficient, and was a response to the rise of the pro-Soviet government in Kabul.From that very Wiki article (emphasis mine):

"Like many other anti-communist movements at that time, the rebels quickly garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the American intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.

Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled:

We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."

Maybe, but to a far lesser degree than you insinuate.Oh? See above.

It's quite an interesting manner to start off providing aid to your ally by assassinating their President, blowing up their communications infrastructure and occupying government facilities with special forces units. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan not to uphold their treaty, but to attempt to guarantee that they would be able to keep Afghanistan on their "side."Yes, however the treaty was the official reason given.
Nonetheless, treaty or not, the U.S. knew the Soviets would invade.

From that very Wiki article (emphasis mine):

"Like many other anti-communist movements at that time, the rebels quickly garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the American intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.

Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled:

We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."

Oh? See above.

Yes, however the treaty was the official reason given.
Nonetheless, treaty or not, the U.S. knew the Soviets would invade.

No. Assuming the above is 100% accurate (iffy with Wiki, of course), all the US did was offer some aid and do some propaganda. Hell, it even says they weren't pushing the Soviets to do it. All they did was offer the Soviets an opportunity to be their usual Imperialist selves. It was the Soviets who chose to jump through the hoop.

From that very Wiki article (emphasis mine):

"Like many other anti-communist movements at that time, the rebels quickly garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the American intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.

Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled:

We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."

This doesn't back your assertion that there was massive, though, merely that the US wanted the USSR to invade Afghanistan, and tried to undermine the Afghan communist government to that end. In the end, it was not the external US movement that spurred on the Soviet actions, but the internal resistance to the central government. It's a lot like what has happened in the Sunni areas of Iraq right now. It's nearly an entirely indigenous achievement, and we Americans are claiming responsibility for it.


Yes, however the treaty was the official reason given.
Nonetheless, treaty or not, the U.S. knew the Soviets would invade.

Because that's what they'd done in the past when their puppets tried to break away. East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the Baltic Republics can all testify to the Soviet penchant for keeping their domination in place. We just knew that they'd keep up their old habits of imperialism in Afghanistan as well.

No. Assuming the above is 100% accurate (iffy with Wiki, of course), all the US did was offer some aid and do some propaganda. Hell, it even says they weren't pushing the Soviets to do it. All they did was offer the Soviets an opportunity to be their usual Imperialist selves. It was the Soviets who chose to jump through the hoop.As the result of U.S. intervention.

OP has been edited. Please take a look. Post your'grade' if you're brave enough - otherwise discuss what led you to come to your erroneous conclusions.

As the result of U.S. intervention.

US intervention only occurred after the insurgency had begun to grow strong, and even then, US intervention was minimal.

This doesn't back your assertion that there was massive, though, merely that the US wanted the USSR to invade Afghanistan, and tried to undermine the Afghan communist government to that end. In the end, it was not the external US movement that spurred on the Soviet actions, but the internal resistance to the central government. It's a lot like what has happened in the Sunni areas of Iraq right now. It's nearly an entirely indigenous achievement, and we Americans are claiming responsibility for it.Obviously the U.S. couldn't have funded rebel groups if there were no rebel groups to fund, but the purpose of funding them was to draw a Soviet intervention, not merely to help the rebel groups.

Because that's what they'd done in the past when their puppets tried to break away. East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the Baltic Republics can all testify to the Soviet penchant for keeping their domination in place. We just knew that they'd keep up their old habits of imperialism in Afghanistan as well.Certainly. Unlike those other places, though, the U.S. did what it could to keep them there, as well.

9/11 was a response to...


your mom.


but on a joking note:
us foreign policy in general.
or so i thought at the time, on that very day.
since it had been so fing disgustingly vile and kill, kill, kill, rape, and pillage the world for those legal entities called corporations' profits long before gw.

of course, none of those individuals deserved to die that day.
who is to say who deserves to live and to die?
are you god? or some other named entity here _____________?

the "US", as an artificial entity, received blowback
that was a long time in coming.
the small bit of info that was managed to get into the public domain - where it belongs! - in the 70s via the congressional investigations such as the Church & Pike commissions should have been enough to realize this.
and they didn't learn and continued with the terrorist Contra war on the people of Nicaragua and the other dirty wars of the 80s throughout Latin America....
to name just a teensy-weensy bit of the crimes against humanity done by the last remaining empire (no honor in empire, remember)

As the result of U.S. intervention.

Wrong again. As a result of a popular uprising the US supported. There's a huge difference.

US intervention only occurred after the insurgency had begun to grow strong, and even then, US intervention was minimal.

is this about Afghanistan?

Z Brezinski, Carter's guy has even admitted back in 1998? the Us was there a full 6 months before the Soviet Union. he called it "the Afghan trap".

ZB and co didn't care about the Afghan people then
any more than Bush&co care about the Afghan people today.
i.e., not at all.

it's all about some weird-o thing of 'geo-political "strategic"? something or nother'
as if the US has any right to be anywhere but in the US...

Obviously the U.S. couldn't have funded rebel groups if there were no rebel groups to fund, but the purpose of funding them was to draw a Soviet intervention, not merely to help the rebel groups.

You're attributing the success of the insurgent groups to the US, which just simply isn't correct.

Certainly. Unlike those other places, though, the U.S. did what it could to keep them there, as well.

Are you daft? We didn't actively seek to keep the Russians there, the Russians just kept themselves there, not all that much different from us in Vietnam.

Wrong again. As a result of a popular uprising the US supported. There's a huge difference.And the difference between intervention and support is?

You're attributing the success of the insurgent groups to the US, which just simply isn't correct. Their initial success was not the result of the U.S., but their initial success was not what spurned the Soviet invasion, either.

Are you daft? We didn't actively seek to keep the Russians there, the Russians just kept themselves there, not all that much different from us in Vietnam.So the U.S. didn't fund the training of the Mujahideen, who were fighting against the Soviets?

And the difference between intervention and support is?

Intervention is usually unsought, support is sought.

Their initial success was not the result of the U.S., but their initial success was not what spurned the Soviet invasion, either.

Once again, provide sourcing to this. I have argued, that, while the US sought to create conditions conducive to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, the US impact is far less than what you argue. Likely without further US aid the USSR would have invaded Afghanistan at the exact same time, because the indigenous movements were sufficiently strong on their own to force this event.

So the U.S. didn't fund the training of the Mujahideen, who were fighting against the Soviets?

Did that force the USSR to remain in Afghanistan any more than Soviet funding of the NLF force the US to remain in Vietnam?

is this about Afghanistan?

Z Brezinski, Carter's guy has even admitted back in 1998? the Us was there a full 6 months before the Soviet Union. he called it "the Afghan trap".

ZB and co didn't care about the Afghan people then
any more than Bush&co care about the Afghan people today.
i.e., not at all.

it's all about some weird-o thing of 'geo-political "strategic"? something or nother'
as if the US has any right to be anywhere but in the US...
This is the "Shift key", use it! (http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/58/16/22421658.jpg)

For more on the illustrious history of the shift key, click here! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shift_key)

the Soviets an opportunity to be their usual Imperialist selves.

kind of like "our" US gov't and their usual imperialist selves as well.

in the cold war there were 2 competing imperial powers.
wake up and smell the sewage

kind of like "our" US gov't and their usual imperialist selves as well.

in the cold war there were 2 competing imperial powers.
wake up and smell the sewage

Capital letters at the beginning of sentences, and proper paragraph formatting never hurt anyone.

Capital letters at the beginning of sentences, and proper paragraph formatting never hurt anyone.

except for my feelings from people who know more about computers than everyone else.


but at least my posts weren't disagreed with

except for my feelings from people who know more about computers than everyone else.


but at least my posts weren't disagreed with

Your posts aren't worthy of being discussed until you are willing to pay attention to the most basic conventions of grammar, punctuation and style. This has nothing, whatsoever, to do with computers, rather, it has everything to do with expressing yourself effectively. Right now your lack of appropriate style is the single defining element of your time as a poster here.

kind of like "our" US gov't and their usual imperialist selves as well.

in the cold war there were 2 competing imperial powers.
wake up and smell the sewage

The sewer is where that tripe belongs.

The US: Overthrew unfriendly governments.

Supported local rebel regimes against Soviet-Backed states.

Propped up their own pawns against Soviet attempts to destabilize them.

Fought two wars against Communist aggressors - one win, one loss.

The USSR: Invaded approximately seventeen sovereign nations in the course of it's history, directly annexing many.

Sent it's own and puppet state military forces to seize control of Africn nations.

Supported aggressive attacks by Communist nations on non-communist neighbours.

AS WELL AS everything the US did.

Further, the US had allies in Europe. The USSR had only puppets.

The US, after WWII, was not an Imperialistic state. Ironically, the Soviet Union "champion of the working man against imperialist aggression", was.

Intervention is usually unsought, support is sought.Did the rebels in Afghanistan seek U.S. assistance?

Once again, provide sourcing to this. I have argued, that, while the US sought to create conditions conducive to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, the US impact is far less than what you argue. Likely without further US aid the USSR would have invaded Afghanistan at the exact same time, because the indigenous movements were sufficiently strong on their own to force this event.Because the rebellion had been gaining support for months.

From the wiki: "The revolt began in October among the Nuristani tribes of the Kunar Valley, and rapidly spread among the other ethnic groups, including the Pashtun majority. The Afghan army was plagued with desertion and low morale and proved completely incapable of subduing the insurgency. By the spring of 1979, 24 of the 28 provinces had suffered outbreaks of violence.[16] The rebellion began to take hold in the cities: in March 1979 in Herat Afghan soldiers led by Ismail Khan mutinied and massacred approximately 100 Soviet advisors. The PDPA and Soviet Union retaliated by a bombing campaign that killed 24,000 inhabitants of the city."

If the Soviets felt that the rebellion was strong enough then to invade, then they would've invaded then. Instead, the rebellion wasn't strong enough to merit invasion until December, nine months after the massacre of the Soviet advisors, but six months after the U.S. began aiding the rebellion.

Did that force the USSR to remain in Afghanistan any more than Soviet funding of the NLF force the US to remain in Vietnam?Yes. It was in the Soviets' interest to rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan up enough for it to remain an effective satellite state. They couldn't do this with U.S.-funded rebels sabotaging things. This is unlike the U.S. presence in Vietnam, where the goal was merely to defeat the Communists, and not to build Vietnam's infrastructure.

...rising oil prices.

Did the rebels in Afghanistan seek U.S. assistance?

Because the rebellion had been gaining support for months.

From the wiki: "The revolt began in October among the Nuristani tribes of the Kunar Valley, and rapidly spread among the other ethnic groups, including the Pashtun majority. The Afghan army was plagued with desertion and low morale and proved completely incapable of subduing the insurgency. By the spring of 1979, 24 of the 28 provinces had suffered outbreaks of violence.[16] The rebellion began to take hold in the cities: in March 1979 in Herat Afghan soldiers led by Ismail Khan mutinied and massacred approximately 100 Soviet advisors. The PDPA and Soviet Union retaliated by a bombing campaign that killed 24,000 inhabitants of the city."

If the Soviets felt that the rebellion was strong enough then to invade, then they would've invaded then. Instead, the rebellion wasn't strong enough to merit invasion until December, nine months after the massacre of the Soviet advisors, but six months after the U.S. began aiding the rebellion.

Yes. It was in the Soviets' interest to rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan up enough for it to remain an effective satellite state. They couldn't do this with U.S.-funded rebels sabotaging things. This is unlike the U.S. presence in Vietnam, where the goal was merely to defeat the Communists, and not to build Vietnam's infrastructure.

Dude, this is AFGHANISTAN. The only thing it produces is people and poppies. There was very little infrastructure in the first place.

As to the rebels: Of course they sought US assistance. Being not totally stupid, they sought all the help they could get!

Did the rebels in Afghanistan seek U.S. assistance?

Increasingly commonly, yes.

The rebellion began to take hold in the cities: in March 1979 in Herat Afghan soldiers led by Ismail Khan mutinied and massacred approximately 100 Soviet advisors. The PDPA and Soviet Union retaliated by a bombing campaign that killed 24,000 inhabitants of the city."

If the Soviets felt that the rebellion was strong enough then to invade, then they would've invaded then. Instead, the rebellion wasn't strong enough to merit invasion until December, nine months after the massacre of the Soviet advisors, but six months after the U.S. began aiding the rebellion.

They did not invade then because they continued to feel that their puppet government still had a chance to hold onto power, and that it would remain in support of the USSR. In late November the KGB managed to collect some questionable intelligence that Amin was in talks with the CIA, which was the last straw that broke the camels back. Once they felt that the government itself was shifting against them, they made open military actions.

Yes. It was in the Soviets' interest to rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan up enough for it to remain an effective satellite state. They couldn't do this with U.S.-funded rebels sabotaging things. This is unlike the U.S. presence in Vietnam, where the goal was merely to defeat the Communists, and not to build Vietnam's infrastructure.

You are daft. The NLF practiced a campaign of terrorism, assassination and execution against RVN officials deployed to the countryside in order to build infrastructure: The most common targets were teachers and Engineers because they were likely to be unarmed, unlike police and army units. The US did seek to build RVN infrastructure: The NLF proved to be just as capable at inhibiting that as were the Afghan insurgents were for the Soviets.

i know all that is the official history, but, official does not mean truth

Fought two wars against Communist aggressors - one win, one loss.


really?
the US was attacked by gov'ts that ran communist economies (dictators or otherwise, most likely dictators given the history thus far)?

we know the US invaded southern Vietnam.
you might be confusing that act of aggression by the US here.

http://www.rawa.org

get your scoop on Afghanistan from their women
rather than Reagan's buddy who liked to throw acid in the
faces of women who didn't wear a veil.
some freedom fighter, that Reagan

Dude, this is AFGHANISTAN. The only thing it produces is people and poppies. There was very little infrastructure in the first place.

As to the rebels: Of course they sought US assistance. Being not totally stupid, they sought all the help they could get!There was enough infrastrure for there to be communications systems throughout the country.

Increasingly commonly, yes.Meh. Fine, I'll say U.S. support, though the Wiki uses "Soviet intervention" for when the Soviets responded to being asked by the Afghani government for help.

They did not invade then because they continued to feel that their puppet government still had a chance to hold onto power, and that it would remain in support of the USSR. In late November the KGB managed to collect some questionable intelligence that Amin was in talks with the CIA, which was the last straw that broke the camels back. Once they felt that the government itself was shifting against them, they made open military actions.Exactly. And what caused them to believe the government was shifting against them? U.S. propaganda campaigns.

You are daft. The NLF practiced a campaign of terrorism, assassination and execution against RVN officials deployed to the countryside in order to build infrastructure: The most common targets were teachers and Engineers because they were likely to be unarmed, unlike police and army units. The US did seek to build RVN infrastructure: The NLF proved to be just as capable at inhibiting that as were the Afghan insurgents were for the Soviets.I'm not talking about merely military infrastructure, such as in South Vietnam, I'm talking about infrastructure that would aid Afghanistan in being self-functioning after a (future) Soviet withdrawal.

really?
the US was attacked by gov'ts that ran communist economies (dictators or otherwise, most likely dictators given the history thus far)?

we know the US invaded southern Vietnam.
you might be confusing that act of aggression by the US here.

Now, how can you even consider for a microsecond that the US invaded South Vietnam?

I mean, this isn't even a matter of opinion. It's just out and out factually wrong in every possible aspect. It's so far out into fantasy land as to be utterly absurd.

The two wars they fought against Communist aggressors were the Korean and Vietnam wars. In both cases, a sovereign state REQUESTED US help against an external, communist aggressor.

The NLF practiced a campaign of terrorism, assassination and execution against RVN officials deployed to the countryside in order to build infrastructure: The most common targets were teachers and Engineers because they were likely to be unarmed, unlike police and army units.

um, excuse me?

who "practiced a campaign of terrorism, assassination and execution"?

i don't know about the NFL,
but the US most certainly DID.

look up "The Phoenix Program"

Now, how can you even consider for a microsecond that the US invaded South Vietnam?

I mean, this isn't even a matter of opinion. It's just out and out factually wrong in every possible aspect. It's so far out into fantasy land as to be utterly absurd.

The two wars they fought against Communist aggressors were the Korean and Vietnam wars. In both cases, a sovereign state REQUESTED US help against an external, communist aggressor.

because the US gov't did.
and the US gov't was the aggressor.
did you ever hear of "The Pentagon Papers"?



that's wrong on Korea too actually.
Korea WAS/is a civil war.
i've never seen described as anything but a civil war.

the foremost expert on Korea is Bruce Cumings in
his "Korea's Place in the Sun"
from the back cover:
"An energetic revisionist account....Korea's Place in the Sun is passionate, cantankerous, and fascinating. Indeed it is like Korea itself." --Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times Book Review


i did not know any part of Korea or Vietnam ever attack the US.
so, how could they possibly have been the aggressor?

because the US gov't did.
and the US gov't was the aggressor.
did you ever hear of "The Pentagon Papers"?

Heard of, yes. But if they say the uS invaded South Vietnam, well, frankly, anything containing such lies is not worth reading.

The first group of US troops to arrive in South Vietnam was a batch of fifteen military advisors. Fifteen. One hell of an invasion force (/sarcasm).


that's wrong on Korea too actually.
Korea WAS/is a civil war.
i've never seen described as anything but a civil war.

the foremost expert on Korea is Bruce Cumings in
his "Korea's Place in the Sun"
from the back cover:
"An energetic revisionist account....Korea's Place in the Sun is passionate, cantankerous, and fascinating. Indeed it is like Korea itself." --Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times Book Review

It could be described as a civil war. That doesn't stop the communist north being the aggressor to the non-communist south.

But I'd strongly suggest you get your head out of this revisionist bullshit. Becasuse that's all it is.


i did not know any part of Korea or Vietnam ever attack the US.
so, how could they possibly have been the aggressor?

You are not ee cummings; use your shift key.

In both the Korean and Vietnam wars the aggressor was the north. The US fought against those aggressors.

Heard of, yes. But if they say the uS invaded South Vietnam, well, frankly, anything containing such lies is not worth reading.

The first group of US troops to arrive in South Vietnam was a batch of fifteen military advisors. Fifteen. One hell of an invasion force (/sarcasm).



It could be described as a civil war. That doesn't stop the communist north being the aggressor to the non-communist south.

But I'd strongly suggest you get your head out of this revisionist bullshit. Becasuse that's all it is.


You are not ee cummings; use your shift key.

In both the Korean and Vietnam wars the aggressor was the north. The US fought against those aggressors.


No, it was Bruce Cumings, and I'm not pretending to be him.
I just referenced him.
"could be". When has it not been?


"The Pentagon Papers" were internal government documents leaked to the public domain (where all such stuff belongs) and talks about the reasons for being in Vietnam were much different from what was told to the US public. (it was the resources). There's also something about bombing in the south being not planned, but in the north specific targets were. So in the south they didn't care how many peasants they killed.
So,
if what the US gov't was actually saying isn't worth reading, I guess history just isn't worth anything at all.


Maybe if someone were a Nixon or LBJ fan during the Vietnam war they'd go along with their public statements as truth, and anything heard else where would naturally sound like revisions. But, yeah, the US did invade south Vietnam. Just because they started with advisors doesn't mean it can't escalate into full out invasion, as it did.

The coups and guns the CIA sold right-wing forces to topple communist leading parties in developing countries were all done in the name of "stopping socialism." But when you trace most of the situations, it usually goes back to the communist countries stopping trade with the West, or altering their welfare program and skyrocketing the minimum wage; a huge bummer to American multinational corporations. This plays a huge part to 9/11 actually; as the Shah was installed because the prime minister nationalized the oil away from what is now British Petroleum-Amoco. Really the British, with powerful American investors, had to convince Eisenhower that the PM existed to serve the country's Communist Party. That was secondary to economic interests and the growing control corporations have on our society. Everything we've done with third-world countries is like that since the passing of the GATT treaty. The WTO, World Bank, and IMF were structured to FORCE third-world countries to have practically no minimum wage or standard for working conditions; and take away any guilt multinational corporations had in the publics' eye in seeking out the country with the lowest minimum wage.

Occasionally wars happened with no present economic threat, but were usually a result of some previously formed alliance (US-France in Vietnam) and the maintaining the facade of responsibility we shone to the rest of the world (Korea). The Cold War was an excuse for the Stalin to feel safe and the United States to get rich. It fulfilled both of those.

The US: Overthrew unfriendly governments.

Supported local rebel regimes against Soviet-Backed states.

Propped up their own pawns against Soviet attempts to destabilize them.
And all the while claiming the moral high ground to the whole of the rest of the world.
Fought two wars against Communist aggressors - one win, one loss.
A draw and a loss, squire.
The USSR: Invaded approximately seventeen sovereign nations in the course of it's history, directly annexing many.
Aye, the US never did anything of the sort, right?
Sent it's own and puppet state military forces to seize control of Africn nations.
Aye, not like the US ever did that... oh... wait...
Supported aggressive attacks by Communist nations on non-communist neighbours.
Aye, the US never propped up any dictators like Pol Pot or Idi Amin or anything. Pol Pot being possibly worse, himself only being supported because he was ethnically cleansing the Vienamese. Eugh.

And it's not like it helped Saddam Hussein invade Iran successfully at all. Oh no. That'd be leftie propaganda, right?

Nor helped out the Israelis before the Six-Day War, when they launched a "pre-emptive attack" on Egypt, right?
AS WELL AS everything the US did.
Both sides were equally bad.
Further, the US had allies in Europe. The USSR had only puppets.
The US had allies in Europe because the leaders of the Western European governments up until about the late 1960s were pretty much the same men that they installed after World War two, and the fact that, since the early 1920s, the populace of every European state was told by the media that the Bolsheviks were Really Bad meant that getting over this prejudice was extremely hard, so they just didn't bother.
The US, after WWII, was not an Imperialistic state.
Actually, it was.
Ironically, the Soviet Union "champion of the working man against imperialist aggression", was.
Both superpowers were baddies shocker?

Sent it's own and puppet state military forces to seize control of Africn nations.

yeah.
One can read "In Search of Enemies" (which is about US involvement in Angola) by John Stockwell.
He is the highest ranking cia ever to leave the agency and speak out about what his former employer did.

And let's not forget US gov't support for the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
it was a cia informant who allowed the regime to know where Nelson Mandela was when he was arrested so many years ago.

9/11 was the result of an evil group of religious fanatics that were able to take advantage of legitimate grievances against the US for their own ends and then used those grievances to murder 3,000 innocent people.

yeah.
One can read "In Search of Enemies" (which is about US involvement in Angola) by John Stockwell.
He is the highest ranking cia ever to leave the agency and speak out about what his former employer did.

And let's not forget US gov't support for the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
it was a cia informant who allowed the regime to know where Nelson Mandela was when he was arrested so many years ago.

Actually what you shouldn't be forgetting are the Americas. How many countries from South and Central America haven't had their governments attacked by the United States or some militant group sponsored by the same?

Actually what you shouldn't be forgetting are the Americas. How many countries from South and Central America haven't had their governments attacked by the United States or some militant group sponsored by the same?

yes. this is true.

the US was even condemned at the World Court for acts of aggression (or was it terrorism) against Nicaragua?

the US overthrew gov'ts of Arbenz in Guatemala and supported the (near) genocide of the indigenous people there.
as well as the democratically elected gov't of Salvador Allende in Chile supporting after that the fascist dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.
sooooo many atrocities throughout the years here.
and so many dictators and death squad leaders once trained by the US.


that's stuff i thought caused such horrible acts on some since "branded" day in 2001. all such crimes against humanity are bad,
but i'd agree with the poster above you.

All the Muslims are doing is making up for the Crusades and the Inquisition.

No, it was Bruce Cumings, and I'm not pretending to be him.
I just referenced him.
"could be". When has it not been?

Quite often, actually. It can be condsidered both ways. I don't consider it such because, at the time, as now, there are two sovereign states, and one attacked the other. Civil Wars are ones that occur within a sovereign state.


"The Pentagon Papers" were internal government documents leaked to the public domain (where all such stuff belongs) and talks about the reasons for being in Vietnam were much different from what was told to the US public. (it was the resources). There's also something about bombing in the south being not planned, but in the north specific targets were. So in the south they didn't care how many peasants they killed.


That doesn't make the US presence in Vietnam in any way an invasion.


Maybe if someone were a Nixon or LBJ fan during the Vietnam war they'd go along with their public statements as truth, and anything heard else where would naturally sound like revisions. But, yeah, the US did invade south Vietnam. Just because they started with advisors doesn't mean it can't escalate into full out invasion, as it did.

No, it didn't. I'm well aware of the US' agendas in the Vietnam War. But the US never attempted to take command of the country, never tried to disarm it's military (in fact it trained and equipped that military), barely had any efect on the Republic's government (except to pressure them to hold elections)...yes, the US had a lot of troops there. So what? Was the stationing of thousands of US troops in Britain prior to D-Day an invasion? By your fractured logic the answer would be yes.

The truth is, if the US HAD invaded South Vietnam, they'd probably would have had an easier time of it. The RVN was a bad ally; we should've been backing the North.

And all the while claiming the moral high ground to the whole of the rest of the world.

Yup. Good PR firms.


A draw and a loss, squire.


Disagree. In Korea we actually got everything we started out trying to get. While we didn't get NK, that merely restored the status quo, which was the US' stated aim.


Aye, the US never did anything of the sort, right?

Aye, not like the US ever did that... oh... wait...

No, actually. The US took land from unrecognized states, annexed part of the Spanish Empire (then promptly gave them self-rule) and conducted a remarkable piece of diplomatic jiu-jitsu to get Hawaii to request annexation, but never actually conquered another recognized, sovereign state by force of arms.

Aye, the US never propped up any dictators like Pol Pot or Idi Amin or anything. Pol Pot being possibly worse, himself only being supported because he was ethnically cleansing the Vienamese. Eugh.

And it's not like it helped Saddam Hussein invade Iran successfully at all. Oh no. That'd be leftie propaganda, right?

Nor helped out the Israelis before the Six-Day War, when they launched a "pre-emptive attack" on Egypt, right?

Yup, did all that. Fundamental difference: We didn't tell Hussein to attack Iran, or Israel to attack Egypt.


Both sides were equally bad.

Disagree.


The US had allies in Europe because the leaders of the Western European governments up until about the late 1960s were pretty much the same men that they installed after World War two, and the fact that, since the early 1920s, the populace of every European state was told by the media that the Bolsheviks were Really Bad meant that getting over this prejudice was extremely hard, so they just didn't bother.

The US didn't install the Churchill or DeGaulle regimes, nor the Whitlam Government in Australia. More, the western nations were almost all democraciees that changed governments on a regular basis.

As for the prejudice against socialism, you can blame a whole lot of that on people escaping the East and simply telling the truth.

Actually, it was.

Not even close.

The ragheads believe in a horrific religion that advocates killing infidels (in both the Koran and especially the Hadith). We Americans are infidels. That simple.

No, it didn't. I'm well aware of the US' agendas in the Vietnam War. But the US never attempted to take command of the country, never tried to disarm it's military (in fact it trained and equipped that military), barely had any efect on the Republic's government (except to pressure them to hold elections)...yes, the US had a lot of troops there. So what? Was the stationing of thousands of US troops in Britain prior to D-Day an invasion? By your fractured logic the answer would be yes.

The truth is, if the US HAD invaded South Vietnam, they'd probably would have had an easier time of it. The RVN was a bad ally; we should've been backing the North.
Yeah, and who killed Diem?

Yeah, and who killed Diem?

Nguyen Van Nhung.

So you've changed your mind since you said this?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13149416&postcount=35

Considering that everyone heard what Ron Paul said...no. My position has not changed.

um, excuse me?

who "practiced a campaign of terrorism, assassination and execution"?

i don't know about the NFL,
but the US most certainly DID.

look up "The Phoenix Program"

You still aren't using such basic elements style as capitalizing the first letters of your sentences, and I doubt you will, but here's the problems with what you've just said:

You're trying to commit a tu quoque fallacy to justify the actions of the NLF.

The NLF aggressively hunted down and murdered from the earliest days of its campaign against said government.

Considering that everyone heard what Ron Paul said...no. My position has not changed.

What, you mean this?

PAUL: No, non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for ten years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do, from the point of view of what it would be like if someone did it to us.

PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I'm glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They've already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages, and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there. I mean what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

He said 9/11 was because of our actions in the Middle East. You said 9/11 was because of our actions in the Middle East. You also said that saying such a thing is worse than holocaust denial. Which is it?

Nguyen Van Nhung.

More like the CIA.

9/11 was the result of an evil group of religious fanatics that were able to take advantage of legitimate grievances against the US for their own ends and then used those grievances to murder 3,000 innocent people.

QFT

Edit- "Jealous of our freedom, I can't believe you bought that excuse, rocking a MFing flag don't make you a hero, word to ground zero. The devil crept into heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on September 11th."

They hate what we have done. They hate how the Europeans have wronged them. People don't just wake up one day and say, "I really fucking hate those (insert country here)." Those of you who choose to ignore the antecedents to behavior are either stupid, naive, or intentionally ignorant. But Vetalia is right. Crazy fundies took legitimate grievances against the United States and used them for their own evil self promotion. The idea that so many of you can still vote for "they hate our freedom" is evidence that the media propaganda is still working. Live in fear my little drones. Hell, bring Al Quada to Brooklyn so we can show them who lives in fear. They'll be praying for the end of days to stop the relentless terror New Yorkers would reign down on them. They're a bunch of cowards like the people who continue to live in fear of them. Be afraid, be very afraid.

because the US gov't did.
and the US gov't was the aggressor.
did you ever hear of "The Pentagon Papers"?



that's wrong on Korea too actually.
Korea WAS/is a civil war.
i've never seen described as anything but a civil war.

the foremost expert on Korea is Bruce Cumings in
his "Korea's Place in the Sun"
from the back cover:
"An energetic revisionist account....Korea's Place in the Sun is passionate, cantankerous, and fascinating. Indeed it is like Korea itself." --Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times Book Review


i did not know any part of Korea or Vietnam ever attack the US.
so, how could they possibly have been the aggressor?

Cumings was shockingly one-sided in Korea's Place in the Sun, readily referring to the foibles of the dictators of the ROK, all the while ignoring the terrifying brutality of the regime of the Kim's. At times, he actually extolled the virtues of their regime as something of a modern rebirth of a traditional Confucian monarchy. His logic is so bizarre and twisted as to make it unpalatable.

inevitable

More like the CIA.

You're typing without thinking. The CIA wanted to depose Diem, not kill him. In fact, when orchestrating with the coup leadership they provided explicit instructions that they wanted Diem alive. Instead Nguyen Van Nhung got a bit overzealous in the back of an Armored Personnel Carrier and blew Diem's brains out as the result of an ill advised dick-waving contest.

In fact, when informing the US government that Diem was dead, the RVN government reported that he had committed suicide.

inevitable

_end_of_line_

Heard of, yes. But if they say the uS invaded South Vietnam, well, frankly, anything containing such lies is not worth reading.

The first group of US troops to arrive in South Vietnam was a batch of fifteen military advisors. Fifteen. One hell of an invasion force (/sarcasm).



It could be described as a civil war. That doesn't stop the communist north being the aggressor to the non-communist south.

But I'd strongly suggest you get your head out of this revisionist bullshit. Becasuse that's all it is.




You are not ee cummings; use your shift key.

In both the Korean and Vietnam wars the aggressor was the north. The US fought against those aggressors.

Facts are irrelevent to TWS! He blames the US for all the wrongs in the world.

The answer wasn't on the polls. I tend to think, with good evidence, Islamic terrorists attacked because if martyrdom. It is the only way to be sure that you have done more good than bad to enter paradise in Islam because dying as a martyr erases those justice scales that most Muslims live by as code. It is a works-based system. There is no way to know whether or not you have done at least just over half "good" more than "bad" works when you die. It explains terrorist attacks...

The ragheads believe in a horrific religion that advocates killing infidels (in both the Koran and especially the Hadith). We Americans are infidels. That simple.

Actually...it is far more complicated than that.

He said 9/11 was because of our actions in the Middle East. You said 9/11 was because of our actions in the Middle East. You also said that saying such a thing is worse than holocaust denial. Which is it?

So now tell me which action he is referring to! According to Bin Laden himself it was due to our presence in Saudi Arabia which was at the request of the Saudi Government itself due to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

This thread is temporarily closed until I or another mod gets time to sort out the various accusations.

EDIT: Re-opened. Disputants thoroughly Hacked. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13173016&postcount=13) Play nice, folks.

Had we followed George Washington's sage advice, it's highly doubtful that 9/11 would have happened.

So now tell me which action he is referring to! According to Bin Laden himself it was due to our presence in Saudi Arabia which was at the request of the Saudi Government itself due to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Your confusing the holy land of Arabia and the government, which most Islamists regard as a corrupt, wealthy behemoth.

So now tell me which action he is referring to! According to Bin Laden himself it was due to our presence in Saudi Arabia which was at the request of the Saudi Government itself due to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Bin Laden cites several US actions.

Lebanon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966817.stm)

I will speak to you about the reasons behind these incidents. I will honestly tell you about the minutes in which the decision was made so that you will consider. I say to you that God knows that the idea of striking the towers never occurred to us.


Your security is in your own hands

But, after things had gone too far and we saw the injustice of the US-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I started thinking of that.

The events that influenced me directly trace back to 1982 and subsequent events when the United States gave permission to the Israelis to invade Lebanon, with the aid of the sixth US fleet.

At those difficult moments, many meanings that are hard to describe went on in my mind. However, these meanings produced an overwhelming feeling to reject injustice and generated a strong determination to punish the unjust ones.

While I was looking at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust one in a similar manner by destroying towers in the United States so that it would feel some of what we felt and to be deterred from killing our children and women...

Israel (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1729882.stm) (not specifically 9/11, but a more general statement)

Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people.

Iraq (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html) (again, not 9/11, but his "declaration of war" against the US, which culminated in 9/11. Also note this is from 1998, so he's not talking about the current war)

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So it wasn't just the US presence in Saudi Arabia that Bin Laden is against. Paul only specifically mentions Iraq, but that's certainly no reason to believe that he thinks that's the only reason.

If attributing the cause of 9/11 to US actions in the Middle East isn't "worse than holocaust denial" what exactly were you referring to?

Your confusing the holy land of Arabia and the government, which most Islamists regard as a corrupt, wealthy behemoth.

So do most non-Islamists. Excepting the Bush family and Bush's administration, of course. :p

Please spend more time reading up on your history and less on your propoganda.




Screw you, commie.

if, in fact, the planing had anything to do with intrests outside of the us, then surely decades, even centuries of abuse, of not just middle eastern, but of many so called third world and or southern world, countries and the people living in them, by the corporate economic interests of 'western powers', the u.s., of course at this point in time, primary among them, just might, have had something to do with it.

and while some may see this as an exercise in vengence, i believe what people in these countries are really begging for, is simply for us to stop abusing them, to stop destroying their traditional means of self sufficiency and survival, and to stop murduring parents infront of their children and children in front of their parrents for partisan political gain in the abusing countries and the ripping off of the abused countries resources.

i'm not sure how much israel may have had to do with it, except also as something of an intermediary, but i do know the excuse the event provided served well major economic intrests in the u.s.

it is entirely possible that it may have been orchestrated entirely by them and not those accused at all. funded through pakistan and 'agricultural' subsidies.

i do know the best defence the middle east had for getting at least some piece of its own pie was opec. and this whole set up stinks as an excuse for having assaulted its solidarity.

never forget that the u.s. regeme in power at that time, and for the most part still, are puppets of american and other 'western' oil interests.

america has also had a long standing policy, for much if not all of my nearly 60 years of life, of demonizing any nation that tried to stand up to economic intrests and protect its people and environment from them.

=^^=
.../\...

If you want to insult me, then you have to prove it douche.

I brought up a very valid point that radical Islam wants us to live under Sharia.

You are such a fool. Why would I be hating Jews when I myself and a Jew? Go get yourself a clue and back up your fucking flaming arguments. When I call OD, UB, and AP anti-semites I have fucking proof. You just lump random posters into a pile and call them racist because you disagree with them.

personal meltdown ITT

Bin Laden cites several US actions.

Lebanon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966817.stm)

He's siting our help of the CIVILIANS as a reason? Guess what? We were doing nothing but evacing the PLO and doing operations to keep the civil war from spreading. Yea valid reason my ass! As to giving permission, please point to the relevent sources that we gave Israel permission to invade Lebanon.

[quote]Israel (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1729882.stm) (not specifically 9/11, but a more general statement)

As opposed to the killing of innocent men, women, and children at the hands of islamic terrorists in direct violation of the Koran which states that civilians are innocent and the fact that Jews and Christians are our brothers and to be protected.

Iraq (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html) (again, not 9/11, but his "declaration of war" against the US, which culminated in 9/11. Also note this is from 1998, so he's not talking about the current war)

No kidding he's not talking about the current war as 9/11 occured before this current action. He keeps forgetting that it was the UNITED NATIONS that imposed those sanctions on Iraq. The UNITED NATIONS authorized the use of force if Iraq did not pull out of Kuwait.

So it wasn't just the US presence in Saudi Arabia that Bin Laden is against. Paul only specifically mentions Iraq, but that's certainly no reason to believe that he thinks that's the only reason.

If attributing the cause of 9/11 to US actions in the Middle East isn't "worse than holocaust denial" what exactly were you referring to?

And as I just pointed out...

Your confusing the holy land of Arabia and the government, which most Islamists regard as a corrupt, wealthy behemoth.

Yeah, so does most everyone in the world.

What irked Bin Laden was that the Saudi royal family permitted an "infidel army" to enter what he considered to be the holy land of Islam, that and they shunted his offer for a force of Mujahadeen to combat the Iraqis off to the side.

He hated our freedoms lowl.

Seriously though, it doesn't matter what his rationalization is. He is an undisputable psychopath. A person with no conscience or moral forethought. Maybe it was our occupation in the Holy Lands, or maybe he just got pissed because an American drank the last of his beers. Trying to rationalize what is, in all likelyhood, an irrational act seems like a big waste of time.

We're arguing on the internet, so we're actually probably trying to waste time. :p

Yea valid reason my ass!

Where did I ever say his reasons were valid? If you want to argue his logic you'll have to go to Pakistan and take it up with him. Valid or not, events pissed him and others off enough to commit mass murder.

No kidding he's not talking about the current war as 9/11 occured before this current action. He keeps forgetting that it was the UNITED NATIONS that imposed those sanctions on Iraq. The UNITED NATIONS authorized the use of force if Iraq did not pull out of Kuwait.

And who is the most powerful nation in said United Nations? On whose request were those sanctions imposed?

I'm willing to bet that you and Bin Laden probably have a similar amount of faith in the UN.

And as I just pointed out...

You didn't answer my question. If stating that 9/11 was caused by perceived wrongs perpetrated by the US in the Middle East isn't worse than holocaust denial, what exactly is?

edit: I don't know why I'm arguing this with you. Much like the rightness of the Iraq War you apparently are so emotionally invested in the idea that US didn't do anything to provoke 9/11 that you'll believe whatever you have to to avoid it.

Seriously though, it doesn't matter what his rationalization is. He is an undisputable psychopath. A person with no conscience or moral forethought. Maybe it was our occupation in the Holy Lands, or maybe he just got pissed because an American drank the last of his beers. Trying to rationalize what is, in all likelyhood, an irrational act seems like a big waste of time.
Actually, it does matter what his rationalization is, because that rationalization is used in al-Qaeda propaganda to draw new recruits.

There are many reasons why the United States can never win the "War on Terror," but the most important reason is the refusal by American politicians and a large chunk of the American public to admit the real motivations behind terrorist behaviour.

If you refuse to understand why terrorists do what they do, you will never be able to disrupt their recruiting process; thus they will have an endless supply of reinforcements, and they will win.

"They hate us for our freedoms"




No, seriously it was a number of things but support for Israel and US policy in the region in general were by far the biggest reasons. I think everyone knows that.

Where did I ever say his reasons were valid? If you want to argue his logic you'll have to go to Pakistan and take it up with him. Valid or not, events pissed him and others off enough to commit mass murder.

Or is he in Pakistan?

And who is the most powerful nation in said United Nations? On whose request were those sanctions imposed?

Militarily...the United States. Economically...that's a tough one.

I'm willing to bet that you and Bin Laden probably have a similar amount of faith in the UN.

Do I believe in the ideals of the UN? Yes I do. Do I believe that the UN is workable with the number of dictators in said organization? No.

You didn't answer my question. If stating that 9/11 was caused by perceived wrongs perpetrated by the US in the Middle East isn't worse than holocaust denial, what exactly is?

Considering we only been dealing with it for a lot shorter timespan...his beef should be with Britain and France as they were involved in this region a hell of a lot longer than we have. And yes. I did answer your question. You just did not like my answer.

edit: I don't know why I'm arguing this with you. Much like the rightness of the Iraq War you apparently are so emotionally invested in the idea that US didn't do anything to provoke 9/11 that you'll believe whatever you have to to avoid it.

*snorts* Just go on believing that. I cannot stop you. Its wrong on both counts but I cannot stop you from having your own opinions.

And yes. I did answer your question. You just did not like my answer

How about you give me a clear statement on what exactly is worse than holocaust denial. Perhaps by filling in the blank in this statement "_____ is worse than holocaust denial".

How about you give me a clear statement on what exactly is worse than holocaust denial. Perhaps by filling in the blank in this statement "_____ is worse than holocaust denial".

Oh nice...sorry but I've given my answer in numerous threads. Holocaust denial is bad as is blaming America for 9/11.

Oh nice...sorry but I've given my answer in numerous threads. Holocaust denial is bad as is blaming America for 9/11.

Sorry if I haven't read or remembered every single thread you've posted in.

Didn't you say that 9/11 was a reaction to the US presence in Saudi Arabia?

9/11 was a response to our presence primarily in Saudi Arabia that Bin Laden objected to because it is the "holy land" of Muslim People. However, bin Laden was primarily angry at the Saudi Royal Family because they were the ones that invited the WORLD (not just the US) into their nation to defend it from Saddam Hussein when they invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

Oh wait, you passed the blame on to Saudi Arabia for requesting our help.

9/11 was a reaction to the US presence in Saudi Arabia and US support of Israel, among other things I've already listed. Whether these actions are right or wrong, they are why Al Qaeda committed mass murder. You seem to make the assumption that admitting that implies that 9/11 was justified, which is not the case. Nothing can justify that sort of thing. I'll say it again, 9/11 was not justified, but US actions in the Middle East were the cause of it, as Bid Laden's many statements prove beyond a doubt.

So then, what exactly motivated Al Qaeda to commit such an atrocity if not US actions in the Middle East?

Also, as sort of a side question, do you believe in the concept of blowback?

Sorry if I haven't read or remembered every single thread you've posted in.

Didn't you say that 9/11 was a reaction to the US presence in Saudi Arabia?

Did I also mention it was at the request of the government of Saudi Arabia?

Oh wait, you passed the blame on to Saudi Arabia for requesting our help.

I passed on the blame? Care to point where I "passed the blame" to Saudi Arabia? I do not see it.

Did I also mention it was at the request of the government of Saudi Arabia?

I passed on the blame? Care to point where I "passed the blame" to Saudi Arabia? I do not see it.

You answered this question with your previous one.

I won't say that Bin Laden doesn't care about the fact that the KSA government invited us, as I'm sure you know his opinion of the legitimacy of said government, but he was angry about the fact that we went, invited or not, and not only did we go but we stayed for over a decade. Just for clarity's sake (because you seemed to assume earlier than when I stated Bin Laden's motives I thought they were valid), I'll state that I don't see this as a valid reason to attack the US, but it was still one of his reasons.

Nothing to say about my other comments? I really am curious about your opinion of the concept of blowback.

Hey, for some nice trivia, did you know that Bin Laden, because his families were billionaires, was actually given the position of leading the Arab Legion in Afghanistan against the Soviets, the positions were originally offered to some Saudi princes but they preferred to keep gambling and whoring in Monte Carlo rather than hide in some caves.

Hey, for some nice trivia, did you know that Bin Laden, because his families were billionaires, was actually given the position of leading the Arab Legion in Afghanistan against the Soviets, the positions were originally offered to some Saudi princes but they preferred to keep gambling and whoring in Monte Carlo rather than hide in some caves.

And then the Bin Ladens disowned Osama and Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship! That's gratitude for ya! LOL.

You answered this question with your previous one.

I won't say that Bin Laden doesn't care about the fact that the KSA government invited us, as I'm sure you know his opinion of the legitimacy of said government, but he was angry about the fact that we went, invited or not, and not only did we go but we stayed for over a decade. Just for clarity's sake (because you seemed to assume earlier than when I stated Bin Laden's motives I thought they were valid), I'll state that I don't see this as a valid reason to attack the US, but it was still one of his reasons.

Nothing to say about my other comments? I really am curious about your opinion of the concept of blowback.

You still have not proven that I passed the buck onto the Saudi Government.

As to blowback, it happens. It happens to every country based on whatever decision they make. The blowback from the Holocaust resulted into the Genocide Convention as well as the Nuremburg trials that resulted in the deaths of the top nazi commanders. Also, we can go to the Iraq war or even how World War II took place. The blowback from political decisions from the various Allied powers against Germany led to a stronger Germany able to strike against them and nearly succeeded.

Is there blowback? Yes. Is it the result of our policies in the Mideast? Yes. Is the US the sole bearer of this? No but somehow we are the only ones shitted upon by many individuals claiming it is our damn fault when numerous other countries (notably France and the UK) who have screwed up the Middle East far worse than we ever could.

You still have not proven that I passed the buck onto the Saudi Government.

It seems as though you're trying to imply something when you keep repeating that the KSA invited us over there. If you're not trying to shift the responsibility for the US being there to the KSA what are you trying to say?

Is there blowback? Yes. Is it the result of our policies in the Mideast? Yes. Is the US the sole bearer of this? No but somehow we are the only ones shitted upon by many individuals claiming it is our damn fault when numerous other countries (notably France and the UK) who have screwed up the Middle East far worse than we ever could.

It's quite true that France and the UK screwed up the Middle East worse than we have. However, we're doing it now, in an age when highly decentralized, global terrorist networks are capable of orchestrating attacks like 9/11. Had such things been possible when the British and French were cocking things up there, they likely would have been on the receiving end of such terrorist attacks themselves.

Interesting how claiming that 9/11 was caused by US actions in the Middle East is "shitting on them". People are going to be critical of US actions abroad, especially when they have such catastrophic, if unforeseen consequences. Not only will they be critical they'll probably be extremely emotive and use highly emotionally charged rhetoric like claiming that things are worse than holocaust denial. The key is to look through the rhetoric and see if anything worthwhile is actually being said, and in the case of people assigning the cause of 9/11 to US foreign policy (or if you like emotionally charged phrases "blaming America") there is.

It seems as though you're trying to imply something when you keep repeating that the KSA invited us over there. If you're not trying to shift the responsibility for the US being there to the KSA what are you trying to say?

So posting an historical fact is passing the buck? Where was that lesson in my history classes.

It's quite true that France and the UK screwed up the Middle East worse than we have. However, we're doing it now, in an age when highly decentralized, global terrorist networks are capable of orchestrating attacks like 9/11. Had such things been possible when the British and French were cocking things up there, they likely would have been on the receiving end of such terrorist attacks themselves.

The only things I can see that we are guilty of is the coup in Iran that we should not have done and various other coups during the cold war ousting democraticly elected leaders we did not like. Do not forget that we did support people against iran (when we supported Iraq) and then the rest of the Middle East against Iraq when they attacked Kuwait.

As to Israel, we only been supporting them for 40 years and even then our aide is limited.

So posting an historical fact is passing the buck? Where was that lesson in my history classes.

So you weren't trying to imply anything?



The only things I can see that we are guilty of is the coup in Iran that we should not have done and various other coups during the cold war ousting democraticly elected leaders we did not like. Do not forget that we did support people against iran (when we supported Iraq) and then the rest of the Middle East against Iraq when they attacked Kuwait.

That's largely how I see it as well, although I'm rather less supportive of some of Israel's policies than I'm sure you are, and I rather disagree with the working of the sanctions we put in Iraq in 1991 because they didn't work. Oh, and the Iran Air shootdown incident was highly uncool.

However, it's not your opinion or my opinion that matters here, it's the opinion of those who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, and what their motivations were. Many in the Middle East believe that the US controls Israel or vice verse. Of course, this is ridiculous, but it is true that the US provides them substantial amount of aid, as well as providing a great deal of support in the UN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%2C_Palestine_and_the_United_Nations#Claims_that_the_United_States_is_pro-Israel_at_the_UN). Radical Islamist groups also see our support of Israel as supporting Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, and the heavy handed measures that Israel sometimes employs there.

As to Israel, we only been supporting them for 40 years and even then our aide is limited.

40 years is quite a while, and I wouldn't call our aid limited. We give them a substantial amount of money and aid.

From a Congressional Report (http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:7xVgexnWtJ4J:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB85066.pdf)

Since 1985, the United States has provided $3 billion in grants annuallyto Israel. Since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, and isthe largest cumulative recip-
ient since World War II. In addition to U.S. assistance, it is estimated that Israel receives about $1 billion annually through philan-
thropy, an equal amount through short- and long- term commercial loans, and around $1 billion in Israel Bonds proceeds.

Also, in times of need we've given them extraordinary amounts of support, with the JCS resigning because he felt we were aiding Israel more than our own troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass

This isn't to say that I'm against all aid to Israel or anything. The fact is that we aid Israel and that's one of the reasons they attacked us on 9/11. Cause and effect. Again, that doesn't justify it, it merely explains it.

So you weren't trying to imply anything?

Nope!

That's largely how I see it as well, although I'm rather less supportive of some of Israel's policies than I'm sure you are, and I rather disagree with the working of the sanctions we put in Iraq in 1991 because they didn't work. Oh, and the Iran Air shootdown incident was highly uncool.

Ok now we are moving into agreement here.

However, it's not your opinion or my opinion that matters here, it's the opinion of those who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, and what their motivations were. Many in the Middle East believe that the US controls Israel or vice verse. Of course, this is ridiculous, but it is true that the US provides them substantial amount of aid, as well as providing a great deal of support in the UN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%2C_Palestine_and_the_United_Nations#Claims_that_the_United_States_is_pro-Israel_at_the_UN).

I wish we had let some of the resolutions against Israel go through. That might've settled some attitudes overseas but then, I'm not the one calling the shots. Its been happening for years.

Radical Islamist groups also see our support of Israel as supporting Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, and the heavy handed measures that Israel sometimes employs there.

It realy is hypocritical that they condemn Israel for taking reprisal measures when they condone the attacks in the first place.

Fourt years is quite a while, and I wouldn't call our aid limited. We give them a substantial amount of money and aid.

From a Congressional Report (http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:7xVgexnWtJ4J:www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB85066.pdf)

It has been on the decrease for quite some time.

Also, in times of need we've given them extraordinary amounts of support, with the JCS resigning because he felt we were aiding Israel more than our own troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass

And the world better be damned grateful that we did for the world could very well have had mushroom clouds over it.

This isn't to say that I'm against all aid to Israel or anything. The fact is that we aid Israel and that's one of the reasons they attacked us on 9/11. Cause and effect. Again, that doesn't justify it, it merely explains it.

And you notice I did not say you were wrong.

Screw you, commie.

Oh wow, let's start a line to bash people's socio-economic preferences, what with it being the entire world capable of accessing and inputting here.
Now, if you'd said "Screw you, hippie", that would've been funnier. We could've imagined you like Cartman. 'specially in drag.

If they really "hated us for our freedoms," why didn't they attack us several years earlier, when we were much more free than we are now? Or why didn't they attack a country freer than the U.S.?

If they really "hated us for our freedoms," why didn't they attack us several years earlier, when we were much more free than we are now? Or why didn't they attack a country freer than the U.S.?

Because the US is a symbol, and because it is also responsible for other things. Nobody said it's only that reason.

Besides, they did attack the US earlier. Don't you remember the embassy bombings and the 1993 attack on the WTC? It takes time to plan an attack like 9/11.

Because the US is a symbol, and because it is also responsible for other things. Nobody said it's only that reason.

Besides, they did attack the US earlier. Don't you remember the embassy bombings and the 1993 attack on the WTC? It takes time to plan an attack like 9/11.

And let us not forget the attack in Saudi Arabia.

Because the US is a symbol, and because it is also responsible for other things.

Fair enough.

Nobody said it's only that reason.

Plenty of neocons do. ;)

Besides, they did attack the US earlier. Don't you remember the embassy bombings and the 1993 attack on the WTC? It takes time to plan an attack like 9/11.

Yeah, true.

You can't say that it was all their fault. We've been screwing with them for too long, and we kinda did see this coming, just like Pearl Harbor. We screw with countries and people, and then think they won't hit us back? Well, both times they have, and if we do it again, it's just going to be worse. "Islamo-fascist rule on the entire world."-That sounds like something George Bush would say.
To associate that kind of phrase with George Bush isn't giving him enough credit. Seriously, I remember from a Bush speech a couple years ago (I don't watch many of them, really) he himself mentioned how the Al-Queda terrorists don't represent Islam, etc...

The terrorists were driven by a fervent, all-consuming loathing of our freedoms and a wish to impose Islamo-fascist rule on the entire world.

It's great to see you again, MTAE.

As far as I can see, bin Laden is a nutjob who thinks killing innocent civilians is a fair response to letting American soldiers set foot in Saudi Arabia.

wohoo I get full marks!

FreedomAndGlory, I am loving your neo-Hegelian (Trotskyist) revolutionary war against Islamo-fascist and great American destiny stuff, it's gold - in fact you would be surprised how similar your rhetoric is to that used by Trotsky when he wanted to 'declare global revolutionary war' in WWI and magically the whole world world would rise up in celebration, your delusions are similar.

The only things I can see that we are guilty of is the coup in Iran that we should not have done and various other coups during the cold war ousting democraticly elected leaders we did not like. .

"Only"?


As to Israel, we only been supporting them for 40 years and even then our aide is limited.

Undermining international attempts to aid the Palestinians. The use of the Veto. The use of massive pressure to give them the cloak of respectability......the Billions in aid, access to arms licences...parts...

"Only"?



Undermining international attempts to aid the Palestinians. The use of the Veto. The use of massive pressure to give them the cloak of respectability......the Billions in aid, access to arms licences...parts...

Which is nothing we haven't done for many of our other allies.

"Only"?



Undermining international attempts to aid the Palestinians. The use of the Veto. The use of massive pressure to give them the cloak of respectability......the Billions in aid, access to arms licences...parts...


I support Israel for the same reason the middle east hate them .... they are Gods chosen people. I haven't agreed with some things they have done and neither does God. How do I know this? Because God sent Jesus to save the world and a large percentage of Isreal rejects him. But it is not our place to judge them, it is not our place to judge anybody. Only God has that right, the bible states this. Read it for yourselves if you don't believe me.

I support Israel for the same reason the middle east hate them .... they are Gods chosen people. I haven't agreed with some things they have done and neither does God. How do I know this? Because God sent Jesus to save the world and a large percentage of Isreal rejects him. But it is not our place to judge them, it is not our place to judge anybody. Only God has that right, the bible states this. Read it for yourselves if you don't believe me.

For a second I almost thought you were serious.:D

For a second I almost thought you were serious.:D

Kormanthor is being serious.

For a second I almost thought you were serious.:D

So did I...:eek:

FreedomAndGlory, I am loving your neo-Hegelian (Trotskyist) revolutionary war against Islamo-fascist and great American destiny stuff, it's gold - in fact you would be surprised how similar your rhetoric is to that used by Trotsky when he wanted to 'declare global revolutionary war' in WWI and magically the whole world world would rise up in celebration, your delusions are similar.

Well, seriously, where do you think the neo-conservative movement came from? A bunch of disillusioned Trotskyists!

Which is nothing we haven't done for many of our other allies.

To the same extent and in combination? Nope. The rest either changed their ways or ceased being useful, Apartheid South Africa being a case in point. No others are as important, strategically speaking. It was a fear that this would change with a client state in Iraq that prompted Sharon to begin unilaterally finalising borders.


I support Israel for the same reason the middle east hate them .... they are Gods chosen people.

*snigger. Yeah. Them, the Iranians, the Christians, the Zoastrians, the Hindus.....The Rubber Nuns.....The Knights who say "Ni!!!!". Sure I'd be Gods chosen people if there was two of me.....

I support Israel for the same reason the middle east hate them .... they are Gods chosen people. I haven't agreed with some things they have done and neither does God. How do I know this? Because God sent Jesus to save the world and a large percentage of Isreal rejects him. But it is not our place to judge them, it is not our place to judge anybody. Only God has that right, the bible states this. Read it for yourselves if you don't believe me.

For a second I almost thought (Kormanthor) was serious.:DSo did I...:eek::confused: so did I

My two cents:

They didn't attack because of inherent hatred of intangible American "freedoms". That's just the excuse used by your politicians to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Those Saudi's where Wahhabist's who hated the US military presence in thier country, and thier own governments pathetic dependence on the US.

If you want to insult me, then you have to prove it douche.

I brought up a very valid point that radical Islam wants us to live under Sharia.

You are such a fool. Why would I be hating Jews when I myself and a Jew? Go get yourself a clue and back up your fucking flaming arguments. When I call OD, UB, and AP anti-semites I have fucking proof. You just lump random posters into a pile and call them racist because you disagree with them.IDF you are an Anti-Semite.



I have as much moronic proof as you do ;) ... idiot proof :D

There is a strong possibility that we were not even attacked by Islamic extremests. It could have easily been perpitrated by our own government, or a select few individuals. It seems to me that the most powerful, well defended nation on earth would not be so easily attacked. Especailly the planes over D.C. The Cold War left our nations capital the one of the most protected citys on earth. A friend of mine even worked on a dish system that can use microwaves to destroy planes. There are lots of holes in the whole 9/11 theory.

I support Israel for the same reason the middle east hate them .... they are Gods chosen people. Targets, yes. Obedient ones at that.
But it is not our place to judge them, it is not our place to judge anybody. Oh, okay. Why have laws again? Because that whole "no place to judge" is ... how to say ... erm, bullshit?
Only God has that right, the bible states this. Heh. The bible says a lot of things. Know what it says about how powerful "god" is? Judges 1:19.
How "god" is a scatophile? Malachi 2:3.
Read it for yourselves if you don't believe me.
I did read it, and not only did it not help me to believe you, it helped to show the disingenuity of anyone posting as though any of it is legitimate in the first place.
As for reading, perhaps you should read this:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Thanks for the sarcasm! :p

IDF you are an Anti-Semite.



I have as much moronic proof as you do ;) ... idiot proof :D

Erm, that makes no sense.

Fucking money (power) and control of money (power) *sick*

It goes deeper .. and most either do not recognize it or are in denial imo. Example - Corny on here (been around a while -- I know there are others, but I've seen Corny speak more) is a perfect example. Fucking blind. But I actually think this young un' just spits his parents trite .. and if he keeps on .. he won't have 'his own' .. only 'theirs'. Denial is a powerful thing.

The terrorists were driven by a fervent, all-consuming loathing of our freedoms and a wish to impose Islamo-fascist rule on the entire world.

I know a lot of you guys think FaG is a troll, but..

I work Internet tech-support. During an install of our anti-virus system, the customer made a habit of chatting with me. He said that Newt Gringrich was right and we'd have to lose a major city to a nuclear attack before congress did anything.

And he blamed the Islamo-fascists.

You hear that word on TV, read it on the internet.. but you have absolutely no idea how retarded it sounds until someone actually says it directly to you.

Since it become tense and awkward to be diametrically opposed to the person you're walking through computer processes, I did my best to pretend to agree with him. It was still weird, though.

IDF wants the world to live under Zionazi Judeofascist OT law which includes oppression of women, homophobia, general bigotry, forced Zionist ultranationalism plus a quasi-religious worship of the Holocaust.

IDF wants the world to live under Zionazi Judeofascist OT law which includes oppression of women, homophobia, general bigotry, forced Zionist ultranationalism plus a quasi-religious worship of the Holocaust.

Judeo-fascist is also a stupid word.

I'm also pretty sure that's not what IDF wants.

IDF wants the world to live under Zionazi Judeofascist OT law which includes oppression of women, homophobia, general bigotry, forced Zionist ultranationalism plus a quasi-religious worship of the Holocaust.

That's news to me. I strongly support the state of Israel as a bullwark of democracy, modernity, and freedom in a very oppressive, very backward region. The Arab states could learn a lot from them.

i don't suppose any of you thought of the fact that America wanted to protect their oil and force democracy on the citizens of Iraq or the fact that war is good for the economy

i don't suppose any of you thought of the fact that America wanted to protect their oil and force democracy on the citizens of Iraq or the fact that war is good for the economy

This is an interesting and original theory. I don't think any of us have thought of that.

That's news to me. I strongly support the state of Israel as a bullwark of democracy, modernity, and freedom in a very oppressive, very backward region. The Arab states could learn a lot from them.

The barbarity of Israel is ingrained in the Talmud and OT, and is reinforced by a long tradition of violently racist and nationalist tendencies in the Zionist movement. Israel: Only country to shrine a terrorist.

IDF wants the world to live under Zionazi Judeofascist OT law which includes oppression of women, homophobia, general bigotry, forced Zionist ultranationalism plus a quasi-religious worship of the Holocaust.

EA, you've been deleted before for flaming other players. Knock off the personal attacks before you lose this nation too.

~ Tsar the Mod.

IDF wants the world to live under Zionazi Judeofascist OT law which includes oppression of women, homophobia, general bigotry, forced Zionist ultranationalism plus a quasi-religious worship of the Holocaust.

Do you have facts to back that up or are you trying to be sarcastic?

The barbarity of Israel is ingrained in the Talmud and OT, and is reinforced by a long tradition of violently racist and nationalist tendencies in the Zionist movement. Israel: Only country to shrine a terrorist.

Then explain to me why there are Arab-israelis in Parliment, in Cabinet, and on the Israeli Supreme Court? Oh and let us not forget the fact that the IDF also has Arab-israelis in it as well.

IDF wants the world to live under Zionazi Judeofascist OT law which includes oppression of women, homophobia, general bigotry, forced Zionist ultranationalism plus a quasi-religious worship of the Holocaust.

You do realize that a very large portion of the Zionist movement was spearheaded by the concepts of socialism, and that a large portion of the movement was controlled by areligious "Jews" who wanted to build a socialist utopia?

That's news to me. I strongly support the state of Israel as a bullwark of democracy, modernity, and freedom in a very oppressive, very backward region. The Arab states could learn a lot from them.


Like how to instituionalise torture, racism/sectaranism/, occupy territory and not get "Coalitioned" out of it, run areas as apartheid provinces and have gullible people in certain countries tout you as the epitome of modernity? Yeah...Just think.....

... or the fact that war is good for the economy

Ugh, that pervasive myth again.

General War is good for economic restructuring and rebuilding. It forces the temporary regimentation of society, under the banner of national survival. Limited wars, like this pukey little crapfest in Iraq (especially when they're in volatile regions with on which we rely for a nigh irreplaceable resource) are economically awful.

The barbarity of Israel is ingrained in the Talmud and OT, and is reinforced by a long tradition of violently racist and nationalist tendencies in the Zionist movement. Israel: Only country to shrine a terrorist.

Oh, don't be ridiculous! A LOT of countries have shrines to people labelled (at one time or another) terrorists. Australia has two I can think of off the top of my head, the memorials for the Eureka Stockade, and the one for the Kelly Gang. The US has a fragload more.

That's news to me. I strongly support the state of Israel as a bullwark of democracy, modernity, and freedom in a very oppressive, very backward region. The Arab states could learn a lot from them.What have they learned in the last 50 years ?

Whatever they have learned.. it has really done a lot of good to the region [/sarcasm en mass]

I am sure all the Middle East is saying "Thank the good USA for helping keep Israel around.. God bless the president of the United States .. God bless America"

....quotes are mixed

I am sure all the arabs are saying "Thank US for helping keep Israel around.. God bless the president of the United States .. God bless America"

Well, I'm sure that's what the Arab leadership is saying, at least. After all, every time they're faced with some sort of internal domestic challenge to their authority they bust out the "Eb1L J00Z3!!@!!1!!!!shift1!!!!" trump card to rile up their populace against an external threat.

What have they learned in the last 50 years ?

Do not mess with Israel or they will mess with you.

Well, I'm sure that's what the Arab leadership is saying, at least. Like I said many times before:

I dont give a sh*t about what the bloody dictators say.
They are not the ones putting down the IEDs

Do not mess with Israel or they will mess with you.They have learned to trust US, trust the West, trust the UN, etc.

Well, I'm sure that's what the Arab leadership is saying, at least. After all, every time they're faced with some sort of internal domestic challenge to their authority they bust out the "Eb1L J00Z3!!@!!1!!!!shift1!!!!" trump card to rile up their populace against an external threat.

Yup! Regardless of the fact that they (the arab governments) put them into the mess their in :D

They have learned to trust US, trust the West, trust the UN, etc.

Um...Israel does not trust the UN and neither does the Arab street.

Um...Israel does not trust the UN they dont need to.

Anytime there is a "Judgment" against Israel, Uncle George is going to Block it.

they dont need to.

Anytime there is a "Judgment" against Israel, Uncle George is going to Block it.

Um dont you mean uncle sam for this has been going on long before Bush took office?

Just like the Russians block every Resolution against the Iranians. It's patronage, pure and simple.

Yep!

they dont need to.

Anytime there is a "Judgment" against Israel, Uncle George is going to Block it.

Just like the Russians block every Resolution against the Iranians. It's patronage, pure and simple.

Um dont you mean uncle sam (blocks resolutions against Israel) for this has been going on long before Bush took office?Fair Enough©