My theory of why similiar attacks have not occured in the US

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Doboji
In the real world that we live in cultures clash on a regular basis... Humanity is too diverse for these conflicts to be avoided... If the response to this inevitable conflict is for the offended culture (islam) to lash out by delibrately targeting innocent people and killing them, well than that culture simply cannot exist in the world with everyone else. Thats simply reality. At this point I ponder whether it might be wise for us to use the same tactics. I promise we could kill their innocent people a hell of alot easier and more efficiently than they can. I'm not saying do it... but at what point to we say we are more important than them

-Max

It's the good old us vs them, Christianity vs. Islam thing. Targeting innocent people is not a muslim thing. And culture clash is not the main reason the west is being targeted. It's because the west is encroaching into muslim land by its support for Israel and its manyw ars in the area. And look how quickly you suggest resorting to their tactics, it shows how much you think like them! (PS If America had no army and its land was occupied by a foreign power, you can be sure we'd be resorting to desperate tactics).

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
If al Qaeda is responsible for this attack, this will almost certainly prove to be a colossal strategic error. The British do not have a history of running away from a challenge. If anything, this will only serve to unite the British people, and silence the various anti-capitalists and terror apologists.

I love these silly national stereotypes. Like France and Spain are wusses, and Great Britain is a proud stud that never backs down. BS. First of all, the channel saved the Brits from Hitler, not their willpower. The British ran away from their colonial territories when the going got tough, just like the French and other European colonialists. And don't talk about the British, talk about the government. The British people are against the Iraq war. The government is just not listening to them.

The UK declared war ON Germany. If they could have won it on their own is moot point. The UK decided enough was enough, so along with France they decided it was time to put a stop to Germany. For a few years the UK was the only lone power standing up to Germany, and during that time things didn?t at all look good for them. If the UK fell then the hope that the US could win against Germany would have been very grim.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Doboji
In the real world that we live in cultures clash on a regular basis... Humanity is too diverse for these conflicts to be avoided... If the response to this inevitable conflict is for the offended culture (islam) to lash out by delibrately targeting innocent people and killing them, well than that culture simply cannot exist in the world with everyone else. Thats simply reality. At this point I ponder whether it might be wise for us to use the same tactics. I promise we could kill their innocent people a hell of alot easier and more efficiently than they can. I'm not saying do it... but at what point to we say we are more important than them

-Max

It's the good old us vs them, Christianity vs. Islam thing. Targeting innocent people is not a muslim thing. And culture clash is not the main reason the west is being targeted. It's because the west is encroaching into muslim land by its support for Israel and its manyw ars in the area. And look how quickly you suggest resorting to their tactics, it shows how much you think like them! (PS If America had no army and its land was occupied by a foreign power, you can be sure we'd be resorting to desperate tactics).

Well in order to address these concerns we would have to ask the question of whether or not Israel has less right to exist in the Middle east than any of the other countries created there in the last 75 years.

-Max

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Are we supposed to send them flowers? Good lord, dude. They are angry that we exist. It doesn't matter if we try to be friends. These are people who are hell-bent on destroying us for no other reason that we don't fit into their psychotic ideology. How do you make peace with that? You don't. What you do is kill them before they kill you.

Your premises are flawed. Most muslim anger is not simply due to the existence of the west. OBL himself has stated reasons why he is fighting America. They are fairly common sense (Israel and US intervention in the middle-east). This is another attempt to make all anti-US concerns look irrational. Some anti-western behavior is irrational, but I doubt most of it is. Just like some anti-muslim behavior is irrational. Yours is a false dillemma. There's not just a choice between attacking random Mulsim countires and sending flowers. There is a middle-ground which involves not blindly supporting Israel and not messing around in the middle east whenever we feel like it.

I agree completely. America has historically behaved with disregard for local customs, beliefs, and sensibilities. The 9/11 attack was primarily a reaction to U.S. policies in the middle east. This isn't an excuse for 9/11 (it's inexcusable), but it's a valid explanation.

If the U.S. thinks the solution is hunting down terrorists worldwide and exterminating them, we will never have peaceful co-existence with the greater Muslim world: that approach guarantees a widening cycle of violence. The true solution is understanding what it is that we do that creates animosity toward us, and modifying our way of doing business such that we can achieve our global objectives without causing alienation.

I know; easier said than done. But in the U.S. today, it's not even being said.

In the real world that we live in cultures clash on a regular basis... Humanity is too diverse for these conflicts to be avoided... If the response to this inevitable conflict is for the offended culture (islam) to lash out by delibrately targeting innocent people and killing them, well than that culture simply cannot exist in the world with everyone else. Thats simply reality. At this point I ponder whether it might be wise for us to use the same tactics. I promise we could kill their innocent people a hell of alot easier and more efficiently than they can. I'm not saying do it... but at what point to we say we are more important than them

-Max

If you used your brain a bit you would see that we say we are more important all the time, sadly it does not end at say, we act by this same philosophy. Just look at the coverage when a Westerner dies compared to the hundreds of Iraqis dying weekly. Many historians and intellectuals say that American foreign policy is to this day somewhat dictated by Manifest Destiny.

If you really honestly think that America and Britain have never slaughtered civilians in humongous numbers, I don't know what to say. But, that doesn't give Arabs the right to do the same. Given human nature though, I would say that their greivances can be easily supported by historical evidence.

Well fine if we're all equally guilty then why shouldnt we use their tactics and win the war?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Are we supposed to send them flowers? Good lord, dude. They are angry that we exist. It doesn't matter if we try to be friends. These are people who are hell-bent on destroying us for no other reason that we don't fit into their psychotic ideology. How do you make peace with that? You don't. What you do is kill them before they kill you.

Your premises are flawed. Most muslim anger is not simply due to the existence of the west. OBL himself has stated reasons why he is fighting America. They are fairly common sense (Israel and US intervention in the middle-east). This is another attempt to make all anti-US concerns look irrational. Some anti-western behavior is irrational, but I doubt most of it is. Just like some anti-muslim behavior is irrational. Yours is a false dillemma. There's not just a choice between attacking random Mulsim countires and sending flowers. There is a middle-ground which involves not blindly supporting Israel and not messing around in the middle east whenever we feel like it.

I agree completely. America has historically behaved with disregard for local customs, beliefs, and sensibilities. The 9/11 attack was primarily a reaction to U.S. policies in the middle east. This isn't an excuse for 9/11 (it's inexcusable), but it's a valid explanation.

If the U.S. thinks the solution is hunting down terrorists worldwide and exterminating them, we will never have peaceful co-existence with the greater Muslim world: that approach guarantees a widening cycle of violence. The true solution is understanding what it is that we do that creates animosity toward us, and modifying our way of doing business such that we can achieve our global objectives without causing alienation.

I know; easier said than done. But in the U.S. today, it's not even being said.

In the real world that we live in cultures clash on a regular basis... Humanity is too diverse for these conflicts to be avoided... If the response to this inevitable conflict is for the offended culture (islam) to lash out by delibrately targeting innocent people and killing them, well than that culture simply cannot exist in the world with everyone else. Thats simply reality. At this point I ponder whether it might be wise for us to use the same tactics. I promise we could kill their innocent people a hell of alot easier and more efficiently than they can. I'm not saying do it... but at what point to we say we are more important than them

-Max

If you used your brain a bit you would see that we say we are more important all the time, sadly it does not end at say, we act by this same philosophy. Just look at the coverage when a Westerner dies compared to the hundreds of Iraqis dying weekly. Many historians and intellectuals say that American foreign policy is to this day somewhat dictated by Manifest Destiny.

If you really honestly think that America and Britain have never slaughtered civilians in humongous numbers, I don't know what to say. But, that doesn't give Arabs the right to do the same. Given human nature though, I would say that their greivances can be easily supported by historical evidence.

Well fine if we're all equally guilty then why shouldnt we use their tactics and win the war?

Why don't we all just nuke each other?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Well in order to address these concerns we would have to ask the question of whether or not Israel has less right to exist in the Middle east than any of the other countries created there in the last 75 years.

-Max

No, we don't need to answer that question. We just need to let the people over there sort it out and let Israel fend for itself. Not take sides basically, like we do now.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
...Not take sides basically, like we do now.

In what way do we take sides? If i'm not mistaken, a lot of Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait come to mind) get a hell of a better deal out of thier relationship with the USA than Isreal does.

And whens the last time an Isreali blew him/herself up in a Muslim city?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Infohawk
...Not take sides basically, like we do now.

In what way do we take sides?

We consistently veto UN measures that criticize them (you know, the only ones except Israel to do so) we give them military aid, give teh blind eye to their nuke program while having a hissy fit about nonexistant muslim nuclear programs, guarantee the existance of their religious state, we ignore their spying on us,... etc... etc... Look into AIPAc and notice how there is no muslim counterpart. You might take one element and say muslims get similar treatment, but when you add it all up we are clearly pro israel.

And whens the last time an Isreali blew him/herself up in a Muslim city?

Hindi Indians don't blow themselves up and we actually take sides with their Muslim enemy. Do you really think that democratic status or a state's "niceness" explains who we support?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Infohawk
...Not take sides basically, like we do now.

In what way do we take sides?

We consistently veto UN measures that criticize them (you know, the only ones except Israel to do so) we give them military aid, give teh blind eye to their nuke program while having a hissy fit about nonexistant muslim nuclear programs, guarantee the existance of their religious state, we ignore their spying on us,... etc... etc... Look into AIPAc and notice how there is no muslim counterpart.

Err...you may want to look into CAIR.

Also, I noticed that you failed to mention where the vast majority of UN resolutions concerning Israel originate from. They are drafted by Arab-Muslim countries that seemingly concentrate on doing little else at the UN besides introducing resolutions against Israel. The US is a counter-balance to that bias.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Infohawk
....
OBL specifically said it was because of US support for Israel and the first gulf war involvement. Not only that, it doesn't take a mind-reader to figure out what's bothering a lot of muslims. If Muslims were occupying Christian territories and supporting a country that created a Mulsim state out of say, Florida, do you think Americans would be pissed? Of course they would.

Heres a few quotes from what "Bin Laden Specifically Said"

[

Originally posted by: Osama Bin Lade to the United States
(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

Still sure you want to alter US policies to make terrorism stop? Careful what you wish for. What OBL lists above is a lot of what the liberals in here keep claiming the Right Wing is trying to do to America. Gambling, Drinking, Promiscuous Sex, Anti-Semitism, Exploitation of Women, Homosexuality, making interest off of loans, etc. All OUTLAWED. Oh and not to mention you would have to convert to Islam.

I'll take war over OBL's terms anyday.

I guess Clinton is indeed responsible for 9/11.

There has been no terrorism since 9/11 in the US due to the strong preventive measures taken by this administration.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Also, I noticed that you failed to mention where the vast majority of UN resolutions concerning Israel originate from. They are drafted by Arab-Muslim countries that seemingly concentrate on doing little else at the UN besides introducing resolutions against Israel. The US is a counter-balance to that bias.

Who cares about counter-balancing unless you are looking out for a country. That's my whole point. If you are not involved, you don't care what happens.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: zendari
I guess Clinton is indeed responsible for 9/11.

There has been no terrorism since 9/11 in the US due to the strong preventive measures taken by this administration.

This makes NO sense. Clinton at least paid attention to OBL. Bush ignored a memo that talked about terrorists using planes as weapons. Also, don't confuse correlation with causation.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: zendari
I guess Clinton is indeed responsible for 9/11.

There has been no terrorism since 9/11 in the US due to the strong preventive measures taken by this administration.

This makes NO sense. Clinton at least paid attention to OBL. Bush ignored a memo that talked about terrorists using planes as weapons. Also, don't confuse correlation with causation.

Its worth mentioning that Clinton let bin Laden slip away several times. The memo that talked about terrorists using planes as weapons was one memo in a stack of thousands of other threats.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Infohawk
....
OBL specifically said it was because of US support for Israel and the first gulf war involvement. Not only that, it doesn't take a mind-reader to figure out what's bothering a lot of muslims. If Muslims were occupying Christian territories and supporting a country that created a Mulsim state out of say, Florida, do you think Americans would be pissed? Of course they would.

Heres a few quotes from what "Bin Laden Specifically Said"

[

Originally posted by: Osama Bin Lade to the United States
(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

Still sure you want to alter US policies to make terrorism stop? Careful what you wish for. What OBL lists above is a lot of what the liberals in here keep claiming the Right Wing is trying to do to America. Gambling, Drinking, Promiscuous Sex, Anti-Semitism, Exploitation of Women, Homosexuality, making interest off of loans, etc. All OUTLAWED. Oh and not to mention you would have to convert to Islam.

I'll take war over OBL's terms anyday.

I guess Clinton is indeed responsible for 9/11.

There has been no terrorism since 9/11 in the US due to the strong preventive measures taken by this administration.

Good parody post! I like it. Tell those lies to Carlos who is walking hand in hand with Mohamed over the US - Mexican border as I type this. I am sure they will be interested to hear how difficult it was to "sneak" into this country. :roll:

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Its worth mentioning that Clinton let bin Laden slip away several times. The memo that talked about terrorists using planes as weapons was one memo in a stack of thousands of other threats.

And Bush has done any better? 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. It's one thing to apologize for Bush's failure, but to blame Clinton for that is absurd.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Its worth mentioning that Clinton let bin Laden slip away several times. The memo that talked about terrorists using planes as weapons was one memo in a stack of thousands of other threats.

And Bush has done any better? 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. It's one thing to apologize for Bush's failure, but to blame Clinton for that is absurd.

Nice of you to jump to that conclusion. I am not apologizing for any of Bush's failures, but pointing out the nonsense that you spew.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Nice of you to jump to that conclusion. I am not apologizing for any of Bush's failures, but pointing out the nonsense that you spew.

Yeah, I jumped to that conclusion because you responded to a post which was specifically comparing Bush and Clinton.

I said Clinton paid attention to OBL. Apparently you think that's "spewing nonsense."

In response to these attacks, President Bill Clinton ordered a freeze on assets linked to bin Laden. Clinton also signed an executive order authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination. In August 1998, the U.S. military launched an assassination attempt using cruise missiles. The attack failed to harm bin Laden but killed 19 other people. The U.S. offered a US$25 million reward for information leading to bin Laden's apprehension or conviction and, in 1999, convinced the United Nations to impose sanctions against Afghanistan in an attempt to force the Taliban to extradite him.

--Wikipedia

Meanwhile, Bush was ignoring his terror advisor...

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Its worth mentioning that Clinton let bin Laden slip away several times. The memo that talked about terrorists using planes as weapons was one memo in a stack of thousands of other threats.

And Bush has done any better? 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. It's one thing to apologize for Bush's failure, but to blame Clinton for that is absurd.

The events leading up to 9/11 were in motion before Dubbya even took office.

What's more... Clinton had OBL literally in his sights and refused to pull the trigger and that's the best you can come up with?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Its worth mentioning that Clinton let bin Laden slip away several times. The memo that talked about terrorists using planes as weapons was one memo in a stack of thousands of other threats.

And Bush has done any better? 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. It's one thing to apologize for Bush's failure, but to blame Clinton for that is absurd.

The events leading up to 9/11 were in motion before Dubbya even took office.

What's more... Clinton had OBL literally in his sights and refused to pull the trigger and that's the best you can come up with?

That's complete and utter BS.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Infohawk
...Not take sides basically, like we do now.

In what way do we take sides?

We consistently veto UN measures that criticize them (you know, the only ones except Israel to do so) we give them military aid, give teh blind eye to their nuke program while having a hissy fit about nonexistant muslim nuclear programs, guarantee the existance of their religious state, we ignore their spying on us,... etc... etc... Look into AIPAc and notice how there is no muslim counterpart. You might take one element and say muslims get similar treatment, but when you add it all up we are clearly pro israel.

And whens the last time an Isreali blew him/herself up in a Muslim city?

Hindi Indians don't blow themselves up and we actually take sides with their Muslim enemy. Do you really think that democratic status or a state's "niceness" explains who we support?

True that - its Hindu though

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The events leading up to 9/11 were in motion before Dubbya even took office.

A lot happened on his watch though. The buck stops at the president.

What's more... Clinton had OBL literally in his sights and refused to pull the trigger and that's the best you can come up with?

Clinton also signed an executive order authorizing bin Laden's arrest or assassination. In August 1998, the U.S. military launched an assassination attempt using cruise missiles.

That's pulling the trigger IMO.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
True that - its Hindu though

I don't understand the "its Hindu though" part. That's my whole point. Their sworn enemies are muslims who do commit terrorism. Train acts like we support Israel because we support the good guys. Well, if we did that, we'd support India, a democracy. Not its enemy.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

You have to look at the history of terror too. Declaring war on terror has never helped. It hasn't helped the Israelis or the various European countries that have dealt with the problems. The political solutiosn were always what really undermined terror activity. With the current situation, its doubly easy. The US doesn't need to give up territory or any national security. It simply has to stop supporting Israel in its attempt to take over all of Palestine and it needs to stop putting troops on muslim soil. Very simple and actually in our interest regardless of what OBL wants.

Good point. The english didn't finish the IRA by invading ireland, they went to the table and negotiated.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
If al Qaeda is responsible for this attack, this will almost certainly prove to be a colossal strategic error. The British do not have a history of running away from a challenge. If anything, this will only serve to unite the British people, and silence the various anti-capitalists and terror apologists.

I love these silly national stereotypes. Like France and Spain are wusses, and Great Britain is a proud stud that never backs down. BS. First of all, the channel saved the Brits from Hitler, not their willpower. The British ran away from their colonial territories when the going got tough, just like the French and other European colonialists. And don't talk about the British, talk about the government. The British people are against the Iraq war. The government is just not listening to them.

The germans would have overrun the british far more easily than the french and poles. The british army was easily outmanuveared and forced into an emergency retreat across the channel.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Proletariat
Its interesting that you falter enough to bring up the uncomfortable truth that conservative Christians and conservative Muslims have a lot in common. It was after all, the Right that created Al-Queda.

Actually, it was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait that prompted OBL to create al Qaeda.

OBL met twice with the Saudi misiter of defense when Saddam invaded Kuwait and offered his services - and that of the Muj from Afghanistan since they were just kind of bumming around and didn't have much to do - to remove Saddam from Kuwait. The Saudi MoD turned him down and permited the US on Saudi soil to do the job instead. That absolutely infuriated OBL, not mention it was a blow to his ego which had been pumped up in his own mind after his "heroic" effort in Afghanistan against the Ruskies, and that's precisely when he acquired his case of the ass about the US and the west in general.

Edit: If you don' beleive me, there's a Frontline (iirc) docu on OBL in which the Saudi MoD that met with OBL states this precisely what transpired.

this is when america became the target, but we initially created this entire movement as a way to fight the soviets. You reap what you sow i suppose.