Cheney: "Terrorists May Bomb U.S. Cities"

[Guest GreatOne]

Gee I guess the 9/11 Commission better re-do their findings, eh?

 

Al Zarqawi, yeah nothing there right?

[NoCalMike 0]

Gee I guess the 9/11 Commission better re-do their findings, eh?

 

Al Zarqawi, yeah nothing there right?

he wasn't a part of Al Qaeda. Well until he just recently pledged his allegience to Bin laden a few days ago( )

 

Statements like, "terrorists were in Iraq" or "A terrorist showed up in an Iraqi hospital for medical care" as evidence are silly, because then that would be like saying because McVeigh was living life the fullest in America, our government somehow supported his actions. Or the fact that the 9/11 hijackers lived here for quite awhile.

[treble 0]

The problem I have with statements like this are that if terrorists are still likely to bomb America, than Bush, Cheney, et al. haven't done their job properly.

 

You can't go out yelling 'The American people are safer!' and then raise the terror alert level and say stuff like 'we're still going to be bombed' and not expect to be questioned on it.

[cbacon 0]

Well, I kinda hate to inform you that military action against Iraq WAS in fact US foreign policy when Bush took office, forgotten but not non-existant. Since you wanna be so broad and all..................

 

The goal of said terrorists (I'm sure Mike has a better word for them) is to denounce the West--which btw includes YOUR country--and its' ways and convert as many as possible to Islam. They use US foreign policy as a backdoor for their cause.

 

I'm sure it had a lot to do with it but what the fuck you think we should do, capitulate? Or maybe we can take a global test!

 

Denounce the West, yes. But this wasn't some ideology thats started over night, it's a long drawn-out process of resentment towards US foreign policy, fueling the likes of Islamic fundamentalists. The real backdoor for causes, is individuals such as yourself believing that they want to convert others to Islam, and is an easy scapegoat for justification for actions against the middle east. But of course, this is more comforting and helps to create that false sense of urgency. It helps to justify the consequences of US foriegn policy because those mis-guided individuals in the middle east 'hate democracy'.

 

Well, they do intend to try and conditions for the dominance of one form of Radical Islam. "Killing or converting all infidels" is definitely in their M.O, and that definitely sounds like a plan to dominate the world.

 

World domination is a very large stretch. Ask yourself why Islamic fundamentalists have this mind set in the first place (in relation to the West). That's the root of the problem. Bush decaling "They hate freedom" dosen't cut it.

 

No, there is a difference between 'frustration' and 'fanaticism'. Frustration is what the Quebecois have towards the Canadian Government. That is not the same thing as the fanaticism that radical Islamics have towards the West. Trying to argue that is just a sad case of moral relativism.

 

Frustration breeds fanaticism. Fanaticism is the result of frustration combined with an extreme religious ideology. Like many religions, such fanatcism will breed martyrs and acts of terror to get their point across.

 

Saddam was in place long before us, and his continued stay was more the result of Russian and French weapons deals that gave him the power to pacify his people than American Foriegn policy placing and keeping him in power.

 

Osama... Well, Russian and then Saudi policy actually created him. First the War in Afganistan put him in as a rebel leader and then the Saudis pleading for our help and his objections created him. It was passive on our part and active on theirs if we really want to place blame, though I don't think any of them are truly responsible for him.

 

The fact is Osama and al Qaeda came to prominenace as a result of the United States. They were funded by the United States and trained by the CIA, and used these teachings to conduct the attacks on 9/11. It's also notable that during Saddam's greatest atrocities, the US were still supporting him.

 

They would flourish anyways. By not taking any true decisive action in the Middle East, they could easily claim that the Americans are too fearful to try to invade, and still many would flock to what they thought was a winning cause. In all honesty, after 9/11, after it became something serious, there will always be people joining the Terrorist cause.

 

But, and I ask this respectfully, what sort of policy pre-Iraq do you think would decrease the rate of Terror growth or at least have it slow down? I would really like to hear an honest answer from you because I am very curious.

 

Oh they would have flourished regardless, no doubt. But to invade a soveriegn nation in the middle east such as Iraq is taking things to the next level, and the world down a very dangerous path.

 

How do you reduce terror threats? Well, my most blunt answer would be to stop partcipating in it. Like I mentioned earlier, you have to look at the root of the problem. Why is the threat of terror so high? What has the US done to warrant such action? You cannot wage a war on the concept of terrorism in itself. When the Reagen Administration left Nicaragua in shambles, the counter-attack was in the from of pleading to the World Court and the UN. In 2004, you have a different startegy when dealing with blowback. It's counter terrorism.

 

So, after funding al Qaeda during their war with the Russians, they would later turn on the States. This is largely due to the fact that the United States (the "infidels") had army bases in Saudi Arabia, home of the holiest of cities of Islam. Of course, in the grander scheme of things anti-western notions derive from much more. The correct policy to counter terrorism, and I know i've harkened upon this before is to stop these imperialistic tendencies that are formidably etched in the pysche of every administration since World War II. It's taken greater shape in recent years, and the event's of 9/11 are serving as a pre-text for further action that are leading us down a very scary path.

[Guest MikeSC]

Incorrect. Terrorists don't want to 'take over the world'.

You, clearly, are unfamiliar with the ideology of radical Islam. They want a Muslim world. They wish to kill ALL "infidels" (yes, including you).

Terrorism is synonymous with blowback. It is the result of frustrated middle eastern communities as a result of American foreign policy.

And if the goal is to erradicate such terrorists, you don't go to Iraq to achieve this.

Saddam was NECK-DEEP in terrorism --- and if we attacked Iran and not Iraq, the same people bitching about deposing Saddam would have been bitching that we left Saddam alone when he should've been removed.

By doing so, your adding fuel to the the fire, and recruitment for al Qaede and other groups will begin to flourish more.

Terrorists flooding into Iraq is a part of the strategy. Kill them all over there and lower the problems.

It's only inticing more terrorism and resentment towards the United States. Less we forget the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Saudis. To compare this to the attack on Germany during World War II is asinine.

Hardly. Germans didn't kill Americans to any great degree until we attacked them in 1942. Hitler didn't even WANT the US involved, as he knew it'd lead to his downfall.

 

We attacked Germany because we recognized the problem of WORLD-WIDE FASCISM and worked towards fixing the PROBLEM, not just in dealing with the country that attacked us.

Are you implying that the 9/11 attacks were not a result of US foreign policy? That the martyrs that hi-jacked the planes were part of a grand scheme for Muslim world domination?

Ah they're "martyrs" now? Lovely.

 

They want the US dead because we're the driving force in the world. Plain and simple.

Statements like, "terrorists were in Iraq" or "A terrorist showed up in an Iraqi hospital for medical care" as evidence are silly, because then that would be like saying because McVeigh was living life the fullest in America, our government somehow supported his actions. Or the fact that the 9/11 hijackers lived here for quite awhile.

Well, except for the fact that despots tend to actually practice considerable control over people in their country and don't allow people they don't like to enter their country without an army behind them.

 

But, hold on to the pipe dream that Zarqawi and Saddam had no ties whatsoever.

The problem I have with statements like this are that if terrorists are still likely to bomb America, than Bush, Cheney, et al. haven't done their job properly.

 

You can't go out yelling 'The American people are safer!' and then raise the terror alert level and say stuff like 'we're still going to be bombed' and not expect to be questioned on it.

Fact is, we've STOPPED terrorist attacks under Bush and Cheney (most notably, a planned bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge). We are noticeably safer --- which does not begin to mean that future attacks are impossible.

Denounce the West, yes. But this wasn't some ideology thats started over night, it's a long drawn-out process of resentment towards US foreign policy, fueling the likes of Islamic fundamentalists.

You REALLY don't get Islamic fundamentalism.

 

They want to kill all infidels. That is an EXPRESSLY stated goal.

 

Keep in mind --- if not for 9/11, WE wouldn't be in Iraq. That showed us the folly of permitting radical Islam to grow.

The real backdoor for causes, is individuals such as yourself believing that they want to convert others to Islam, and is an easy scapegoat for justification for actions against the middle east.

That is, to be kind, unmitigated bullshit.

 

Do you know a damned thing about the Koran?

 

Go to MEMRI.org --- a nonpartisan site that simply translates Arabic newspapers. It'll be quite the eye-opener for you, apparently.

But of course, this is more comforting and helps to create that false sense of urgency. It helps to justify the consequences of US foriegn policy because those mis-guided individuals in the middle east 'hate democracy'.

You go to the Middle East and they'd have few qualms about killing you. If one ignores their HISTORY of action, then they can believe as you do.

World domination is a very large stretch. Ask yourself why Islamic fundamentalists have this mind set in the first place (in relation to the West). That's the root of the problem. Bush decaling "They hate freedom" dosen't cut it.

Why do they believe it? Because it's stated in the Koran and their clergy have few qualms about encouraging that.

 

Hell, do you know they STILL want to "re-conquer" the land they once held in Spain?

Frustration breeds fanaticism. Fanaticism is the result of frustration combined with an extreme religious ideology. Like many religions, such fanatcism will breed martyrs and acts of terror to get their point across.

Then we should kill them indiscriminately. We should do things that make Abu Gharib seem likea visit to "It's a Small World".

The fact is Osama and al Qaeda came to prominenace as a result of the United States. They were funded by the United States and trained by the CIA, and used these teachings to conduct the attacks on 9/11. It's also notable that during Saddam's greatest atrocities, the US were still supporting him.

More bullshit.

 

1) The US did not give Osama one red dime. Not one. The Afghan rebellion we supported was NOT the one OBL was associated with --- and, quite frankly, Osama was such a small part of the movement that there would be no reason for the US to even deal with him.

 

Saudi Arabia gave Osama's rebels money. The US did not.

 

2) The US cut support to Saddam IMMEDIATELY when we learned of his atrocities. It was France that refused to stop the support.

How do you reduce terror threats? Well, my most blunt answer would be to stop partcipating in it. Like I mentioned earlier, you have to look at the root of the problem. Why is the threat of terror so high? What has the US done to warrant such action? You cannot wage a war on the concept of terrorism in itself. When the Reagen Administration left Nicaragua in shambles, the counter-attack was in the from of pleading to the World Court and the UN. In 2004, you have a different startegy when dealing with blowback. It's counter terrorism.

That, too, is bullshit. We HELPED Nicaragua, like it or not.

So, after funding al Qaeda during their war with the Russians

Which, mind you, we did not actually do.

This is largely due to the fact that the United States (the "infidels") had army bases in Saudi Arabia, home of the holiest of cities of Islam.

At the request of the Sauds.

The correct policy to counter terrorism, and I know i've harkened upon this before is to stop these imperialistic tendencies that are formidably etched in the pysche of every administration since World War II. It's taken greater shape in recent years, and the event's of 9/11 are serving as a pre-text for further action that are leading us down a very scary path.

Imperialist tendencies?

 

OK, I know empire is the default position of Europeans --- but America has NO desire for an empire.

 

If we wanted an empire, trust me, we'd have one.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

C-Bacon is really giving INXS a run for his money over who's the biggest idiot in the CE folder.

[Highland 0]

If we wanted an empire, trust me, we'd have one.

-=Mike

 

You already do, just not in the traditional sense of 'empire'.

[Guest MikeSC]

If we wanted an empire, trust me, we'd have one.

-=Mike

 

You already do, just not in the traditional sense of 'empire'.

No, we really don't.

 

If we wanted an empire, let's just say that the UN would be VERY supportive of everything we do.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

If we wanted an empire, trust me, we'd have one.

-=Mike

 

You already do, just not in the traditional sense of 'empire'.

No, we really don't.

 

If we wanted an empire, let's just say that the UN would be VERY supportive of everything we do.

-=Mike

Nah, they'd only be supportive if we starting killing Jews and Africans en mass.

[Guest MikeSC]

If we wanted an empire, trust me, we'd have one.

-=Mike

 

You already do, just not in the traditional sense of 'empire'.

No, we really don't.

 

If we wanted an empire, let's just say that the UN would be VERY supportive of everything we do.

-=Mike

Nah, they'd only be supportive if we starting killing Jews and Africans en mass.

If we wanted an empire, most of the UN would be under our thumb as it is.

 

No country ever has had the power advantage we have.

 

But, yes, killing Jews and Africans would definitely endear us to them.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

Well, they do intend to try and conditions for the dominance of one form of Radical Islam. "Killing or converting all infidels" is definitely in their M.O, and that definitely sounds like a plan to dominate the world.

 

World domination is a very large stretch. Ask yourself why Islamic fundamentalists have this mind set in the first place (in relation to the West). That's the root of the problem. Bush decaling "They hate freedom" dosen't cut it.

I don't think it's a stretch at all. They are obviously looking to make their fundamental style of Islam the dominant religion on the Earth. They are religious fundamentalists; that's what they do. Since their religion calls for government to be almost synonamous with the Mosque, I'd say they are after World Domination. They might use different terms, but essentially that's their ultimate goal.

 

Frustration breeds fanaticism. Fanaticism is the result of frustration combined with an extreme religious ideology. Like many religions, such fanatcism will breed martyrs and acts of terror to get their point across.

 

Fanaticism was there long before frustration. I'd say you are wrong on that count.

 

I'll say that their actions do have frustration to do with them, but they are more a result of an intolerant and extreme ideology than anything else. Frustration isn't exactly the proper term to describe their mindset. Fanatical is the better and more accurate term, because it more properly expresses the unwillingness to compromise and the illogic behind much of their hatred.

 

The fact is Osama and al Qaeda came to prominenace as a result of the United States. They were funded by the United States and trained by the CIA, and used these teachings to conduct the attacks on 9/11. It's also notable that during Saddam's greatest atrocities, the US were still supporting him.

 

See, this is very flawed reasoning. Osama and Al Qaeda became prominent because of the support for Fundamentalist Islam and it's extremist teachings. The US is hardly responsible for it's creation.

 

They weren't exactly 'funded' by the US; the Mujahadeen and the general Afghan people were. To say that we were funding Al Qaeda is to say that the Marine Corp is responsible for Lee Harvey Oswald. You are ignoring the personal choice and responsibility of the members, which is critical when looking at organizations like this. These people weren't pushed into their beliefs by the US; many of them already were fundamentalists and fanatics. The US just happened to be the biggest guy around when they started to form.

 

How do you reduce terror threats? Well, my most blunt answer would be to stop partcipating in it. Like I mentioned earlier, you have to look at the root of the problem. Why is the threat of terror so high? What has the US done to warrant such action? You cannot wage a war on the concept of terrorism in itself. When the Reagen Administration left Nicaragua in shambles, the counter-attack was in the from of pleading to the World Court and the UN. In 2004, you have a different startegy when dealing with blowback. It's counter terrorism.

 

See, the problem is that this is what we thought back in the Clinton Administration. We can counter it on a case by case basis and try small actions in an effort to cut their effectiveness. It didn't work; the WTC, the embassy bombings in Tanzania, and, in the end, 9/11. Small actions aren't enough. Police actions aren't enough.

 

The entire flaw in the 'counter-terrorist' strategy is that by waiting for them (Which is what you are doing most of the time) cut down your effective reaction time to nil; it's like trying to catch the punch of a prize-fighter. You can't simply win a boxing match from blocking and trying to counter-punch. You have to throw some punches yourself.

 

Overall, counter-terrorism is simply a remedy for the symptoms of terror, not the disease. The root of it is in the governments and the ideology of the Middle East. This has to change, and for that to happen, governments have to change. Governments with more freedom for free thought and religion have to appear so that we can breed tolerance and rationality rather than fanaticism and blind hate. We need direct action against states like Iraq who promote hatred against the West, who fund people like Hamas, who rules his people with an iron fist, to start the process. We need to get to the cause of this, rather than just addressing the effects.

 

So, after funding al Qaeda during their war with the Russians, they would later turn on the States. This is largely due to the fact that the United States (the "infidels") had army bases in Saudi Arabia, home of the holiest of cities of Islam. Of course, in the grander scheme of things anti-western notions derive from much more. The correct policy to counter terrorism, and I know i've harkened upon this before is to stop these imperialistic tendencies that are formidably etched in the pysche of every administration since World War II. It's taken greater shape in recent years, and the event's of 9/11 are serving as a pre-text for further action that are leading us down a very scary path.

 

See, I'll tell you right now that 'taking away our imperialistic tendencies' won't work. We are the most powerful nation in the world; any action, whether diplomatic or not can be twisted into an imperialistic plot. "Imperialistic" is perhaps the most overused buzz word from the far left, and it irritates the hell out of me. Any action can be imperialistic, it only needs to be written in the right context, and don't think that they won't find the proper context to fit their needs.

 

This action also is basically capitulation. What 'imperialistic tendencies' do you want to eliminate? Do you want us to leave Saudi Arabia like they want, to leave Israel like they want? They'll see it as a victory, a rallying call to push the US further. You think that they only want the US out of the region. In reality, they want the world to conform to their belief system, and if we give them an inch they will assuredly take a mile in blood.

[cbacon 0]

Islamic Fundamentalists are trying to take over the world....the current war on terror can be equated to that of World War II.....bombing Iraq holds the same priniples as bombing Nazi Germany circa 1942....Whose really wearing the tin foil hat here? I find it hilarious that you use that logic, yet at the same time declade me a conspiracy theorist, no matter how much indication there is that clearly points to to the sinister aims and goals of the Bush Administration

 

Islam Fundamentalism is whack, just like any other fundamentalist religion. They can endores spreading their word and empoweing the Islamic culture, but the ones who take it to the extereme levels that result in terrorism are in the minority. Use the Koran as proof of their plots for 'world domination' but its the same principles as fundamentalist Christains taking the story of Adam and Eve literal, or mis-interpreting the Bible for whatever reason. You can't look at the fanatical minority and paint it is the entire ideology of Islam, which is typically peaceful. The reason there's such backlash against the West does not derive from spreading Islam beliefs, but anger towards the US siding with Israel, US support for dictaorships in the middle east, US bases in the holy lands, and a general hatred for Western culture, of which it deems 'evil'

 

Don't like buzzwords like "American Imperialism"? We can call it the extension of the American empire then. What part of this extension should be eliminated? How about the part where you try to dictate behaviour in the Middle East and Central America? Where you stop hypocritically supporting dictatorships while using the removal of them as justification when convenient? Or using human rights as a scapegoat to further foreign interests? That's just a few. To believe the roots of terrorism lie in the Middle East alone is very naive, when you meddle in foreign affairs, you can expect blowback. For the sake of civilians abroad and at home in the States, it requires a repression of these re-occuring tendencies.

 

US foreign policy in the Middle East has been a huge issue since WWII. The State Department has even stated it's source of stragegic importance, and have been ensuring energy reserves ever since. And when someone poses a threat to these reserves, such as that of Iran in the 1950's, they over throw they're democratically leaders (after which American oil companies dominated almost half of Iranian oil)

 

As for Nicaragua, I don't know where your getting these ideas from, Mike. Nicaragua certainly did not gain from US intervention. After years of supporting Somoza's dictatorship, they invested $100 million to get rid of the Sandanista rebels. They bombed residential neighbours , trying to fight the Sandanistas, killing thousands in the process by arming the Contra terrorist group. The country was decimated. Of course it didn't help that the US ignored the World Court's demand for reperations for the destruction it helped to finance.

 

So, i'd like to know, when did all this help towards Nicaragua occur?

 

And of course, history is repeating itself.

[Guest GreatOne]

God doesn't it just seem like M------ M---- himself is posting in this thread?

 

I would say through Bacon but one mention of MM and Bacon in the same sentence and I may be indirectly liable for many small earthquakes destroying third world villages.

 

'The United States is historically evil, which is currently being shown today in the Middle East. But fear not brave Iraqis! Because Allah loves you, and the MINUTEMEN, not insurgents, will win!'

[Guest MikeSC]

Islamic Fundamentalists are trying to take over the world....the current war on terror can be equated to that of World War II.....bombing Iraq holds the same priniples as bombing Nazi Germany circa 1942....Whose really wearing the tin foil hat here? I find it hilarious that you use that logic, yet at the same time declade me a conspiracy theorist, no matter how much indication there is that clearly points to to the sinister aims and goals of the Bush Administration

You mean a total LACK of evidence?

Islam Fundamentalism is whack, just like any other fundamentalist religion. They can endores spreading their word and empoweing the Islamic culture, but the ones who take it to the extereme levels that result in terrorism are in the minority.

Hence the term extremists and fundamentalists and not, you know, ALL MUSLIMS.

 

However, the lack of outrage by many Muslims is a concern.

Use the Koran as proof of their plots for 'world domination' but its the same principles as fundamentalist Christains taking the story of Adam and Eve literal, or mis-interpreting the Bible for whatever reason.

There are considerably fewer Christians beheading people while praising God than there are Muslims doing it.

You can't look at the fanatical minority and paint it is the entire ideology of Islam, which is typically peaceful.

And I'll say, flat out, that is bullshit. Some Muslims, no doubt, are nice and peaceful --- but the religion itself is a bigger shitbox than Christianity during the Crusades.

The reason there's such backlash against the West does not derive from spreading Islam beliefs, but anger towards the US siding with Israel, US support for dictaorships in the middle east, US bases in the holy lands, and a general hatred for Western culture, of which it deems 'evil'

So, they oppose US-supported "dictatorships" --- by creating even WORSE ones? So, they're fanatical and stupid.

 

US bases in the Holy Land? Talk to the Sauds who asked us to be there due to that "non-threat" Saddam.

 

You know what other cultures they deem evil? All that aren't Muslim.

Don't like buzzwords like "American Imperialism"? We can call it the extension of the American empire then.

Except, unlike YOUR country, we don't have an Empire when we can easily have one if we so desire.

What part of this extension should be eliminated? How about the part where you try to dictate behaviour in the Middle East and Central America?

Actually, we acted to stop SOVIET interference in those areas --- but British education is so horribly overrated.

Where you stop hypocritically supporting dictatorships while using the removal of them as justification when convenient?

Leave Fantasyland and try living in the REAL world.

 

Guess what --- you have to deal with unpleasant people. We still deal with France, even though they armed Saddam AFTER knowing he gassed Kurds and accepted money that was supposed to feed Iraqis...

Or using human rights as a scapegoat to further foreign interests? That's just a few. To believe the roots of terrorism lie in the Middle East alone is very naive, when you meddle in foreign affairs, you can expect blowback. For the sake of civilians abroad and at home in the States, it requires a repression of these re-occuring tendencies.

What foreign interests are we pursuing?

 

If wanted to conquer the Middle East, we'd simply carpet bomb them and take over. It wouldn't even be a challenge.

US foreign policy in the Middle East has been a huge issue since WWII. The State Department has even stated it's source of stragegic importance, and have been ensuring energy reserves ever since.

Yup.

And when someone poses a threat to these reserves, such as that of Iran in the 1950's, they over throw they're democratically leaders (after which American oil companies dominated almost half of Iranian oil)

And the Shah was an infinitely more humane leader than the monkeys who govern presently.

As for Nicaragua, I don't know where your getting these ideas from, Mike. Nicaragua certainly did not gain from US intervention. After years of supporting Somoza's dictatorship, they invested $100 million to get rid of the Sandanista rebels. They bombed residential neighbours , trying to fight the Sandanistas, killing thousands in the process by arming the Contra terrorist group. The country was decimated. Of course it didn't help that the US ignored the World Court's demand for reperations for the destruction it helped to finance.

When given a chance to VOTE for whom they wanted, whom did the Nicaraguans elect overwhelmingly in 1990?

 

And the World Court is a haven for thugs and dictators. We ought to bomb the building just for the hell of it.

So, i'd like to know, when did all this help towards Nicaragua occur?

 

And of course, history is repeating itself.

We're supporting the side the people support. Go us.

 

Better than sitting on the sidelines and bitching about human rights violations while not going a fucking thing to fix the problem.

 

Bacon, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You know shit about America and even less about history. If you're an example of what British educatino churns out, than I have far more faith in the American system than I had before.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

Actually, he's a Canadian Mike, though he could have been 'educated' in Britian,

 

I can see where you'd mistake him for INXS though.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, he's a Canadian Mike, though he could have been 'educated' in Britian,

 

I can see where you'd mistake him for INXS though.

Bah, they're the same person. They're all Kamui in different wrappers.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

He's definitely a 9/10 thinker

Of all the conservative talking points, this one pisses me off the most of all, because it basically insinuates that 9/11 is forcing us to take a different look at how we view the world.

 

9/11 was a fucking fluke comitted by people who want to kill us, and we have been dealing with people who want to kill us for a long time. Our ancestors only just got the country going when the British came over and wanted to kill us.

 

The idea that some outlaw who lives in a cave managed to send about a dozen guys over here to sneak around airport security and cause damage, even 3,000 dead damage, is simply an outrageous exploitation of security protocol and isn't some catalyst to changing how we view the world, because most the world had absolutely nothing to do with this.

 

It's almost self serving to suggest that after so many wars and so much bloodshed, that OUR event is the big one.

[Guest GreatOne]

So 9/11 was a fluke and there really is NO terrorist threat anywhere whatsoever.........tell that to Israel.

 

Damn...................

[Guest MikeSC]

He's definitely a 9/10 thinker

Of all the conservative talking points, this one pisses me off the most of all, because it basically insinuates that 9/11 is forcing us to take a different look at how we view the world.

Which, shockingly enough, it does. Letting problems simmer rather than taking care of them was PROVEN to us to be a bad idea.

 

Doing nothing about the 1993 WTC attack and pulling out of Somalia were two events that emboldened OBL to make his plans for 9/11.

9/11 was a fucking fluke comitted by people who want to kill us, and we have been dealing with people who want to kill us for a long time. Our ancestors only just got the country going when the British came over and wanted to kill us.

And we learned what happens when we ignore that and hide our head in the sand. History should have showed us what happens when you don't deal with a problem (WW II could have easily been avoided if anybody stood up to Hitler when he began his conquests of Europe, as he couldn't have actually fought anybody).

The idea that some outlaw who lives in a cave managed to send about a dozen guys over here to sneak around airport security and cause damage, even 3,000 dead damage, is simply an outrageous exploitation of security protocol and isn't some catalyst to changing how we view the world, because most the world had absolutely nothing to do with this

And we've stopped NUMEROUS attacks since then. They wanted to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge. We stopped it. They've cased locations. We stopped the plans.

 

Vigilance is needed and 9/11 showed it.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It's not that there isn't a terror threat, there is one and we're not the only nation on Earth that suffers from it. That's part of the issue. Other countries don't go rampaging around the world declaring the end of every terrorist outlaw alive when an attack happens on their soil. We're only doing it because we have a big military and think that we're "special."

 

Israel actually has the right idea, they blow up Hamas repeatedly because Hamas keeps blowing up cars in Israel. They haven't charged around the planet declaring an end to everyone who's ever detonated a car or donkey in a public square, governments be damned.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Doing nothing about the 1993 WTC attack and pulling out of Somalia were two events that emboldened OBL to make his plans for 9/11.

I haven't done any research into connections between Al-Qaeda and Somalia so I don't know if there are any, but yes, I've previously stated that sitting around and not actually going after Al-Qaeda (key words "going after Al-Qaeda") for their previous actions wasn't a good idea.

 

And we learned what happens when we ignore that and hide our head in the sand. History should have showed us what happens when you don't deal with a problem (WW II could have easily been avoided if anybody stood up to Hitler when he began his conquests of Europe, as he couldn't have actually fought anybody).

That's true, and if OBL had been nipped after the 1990s WTC bombing he wouldn't have gotten much farther. But Hitler is a distinct target with a finite army. A "global war on terror" is an idea with a virtual army. In this case, the enemy could be fighting us in seven different countries while blowing up buildings at home at the same time.

 

At least Hitler provided us with an advantage. When he no longer wanted to fight and did himself in, most of the remaining Nazis lost their interest as well. After all, when Great Leader stops fighting, why should I keep on? But you're never going to see someone rise up and speak on behalf of all terrorists that they're giving up and going to stop.

 

You also didn't have a problem where killing Nazis could result in more people becoming Nazis. You do have that problem here.

 

While you have made a good case for tightening homeland defense, and I applaud you for that, I think you missed my point.

[Justice 0]

It's not that there isn't a terror threat, there is one and we're not the only nation on Earth that suffers from it. That's part of the issue. Other countries don't go rampaging around the world declaring the end of every terrorist outlaw alive when an attack happens on their soil. We're only doing it because we have a big military and think that we're "special."

Well, that's not true. The British dealt with the IRA on their home turf. Russia has taken a pretty militant stand in Chechnya as well. The same with France and the Algerians. Spain had a terrorist attack on their soil, but they simply capitulated and ran off. Note also that many of these are domestic terrorists; terrorists that are within ones own borders. This is much different than us.

 

We are truly the only country on Earth that deals with the threat of terrorist who come from THOUSANDS of miles away. You can't fight when you lack any sort of staging point near where these people are. It's not that we think we are 'special', it's just that ours is a much different case, and I hope you honestly understand that.

 

Israel actually has the right idea, they blow up Hamas repeatedly because Hamas keeps blowing up cars in Israel. They haven't charged around the planet declaring an end to everyone who's ever detonated a car or donkey in a public square, governments be damned.

 

...? Are you serious? Our policy on Israel is what got us INTO this whole thing. To think that their whole policy doesn't shape world politics is wrong because it shapes out policies and the policies of many other countries. Secondly, once again they are dealing with domestic terrorism. I don't think you really understand how different foreign and domestic terroism are when it comes down to the logistics of fighting them.

[Guest MikeSC]

Doing nothing about the 1993 WTC attack and pulling out of Somalia were two events that emboldened OBL to make his plans for 9/11.

I haven't done any research into connections between Al-Qaeda and Somalia so I don't know if there are any, but yes, I've previously stated that sitting around and not actually going after Al-Qaeda (key words "going after Al-Qaeda") for their previous actions wasn't a good idea.

Q) Mr. Bin Ladin, in a recent interview with an Arabic newspaper, you said that Arabs who fought in the Afghan war killed U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia. Can you tell us about that?

 

BIN LADIN: The U.S. government went there with great pride and stayed there for some time with a strong media presence wanting to frighten people that it is the greatest power on earth. It went there with pride and with over 28,000 soldiers, to a poor unarmed people in Somalia. The goal of this was to scare the Muslim world and the whole world saying that it is able to do whatever it desires. As soon as the troops reached the Mogadishu beaches, they found no one but children. The CNN and other media cameras started photographing them (the soldiers) with their camouflage and heavy arms, entering with a parade crawling (on the ground) and showing themselves to the world as the "greatest power on earth". Resistance started against the American invasion, because Muslims do not believe the U.S. allegations that they came to save the Somalis.A man with human feelings in his heart does not distinguish between a child killed in Palestine or in Lebanon, in Iraq or in Bosnia. So how can we believe your claims that you came to save our children in Somalia while you kill our children in all of those places?

 

With Allah's grace, Muslims over there, cooperated with some Arab "Mujahideen" who were in Afghanistan. They participated with their brothers in Somalia against the American occupation troops and killed large numbers of them. The American administration was aware of that. After a little resistance, The American troops left after achieving nothing. They left after claiming that they were the largest power on earth. They left after some resistance from powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only weapon is the belief in Allah The Almighty, and who do not fear the fabricated American media lies. We learned from those who fought there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who fought and killed them, while the latter were still there. If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return.

http://www.ishipress.com/osamaint.htm

 

If you wish to twist this into a Somalia/Al Qaeda link, so be it.

And we learned what happens when we ignore that and hide our head in the sand. History should have showed us what happens when you don't deal with a problem (WW II could have easily been avoided if anybody stood up to Hitler when he began his conquests of Europe, as he couldn't have actually fought anybody).

That's true, and if OBL had been nipped after the 1990s WTC bombing he wouldn't have gotten much farther. But Hitler is a distinct target with a finite army. A "global war on terror" is an idea with a virtual army. In this case, the enemy could be fighting us in seven different countries while blowing up buildings at home at the same time.

And if they believed that we'd retaliate harshly after any attack, they wouldn't have tried anything. We did not and it emboldened the monkeys that they can do whatever they want and we'll, at best, lob a couple of missiles at them.

At least Hitler provided us with an advantage. When he no longer wanted to fight and did himself in, most of the remaining Nazis lost their interest as well. After all, when Great Leader stops fighting, why should I keep on? But you're never going to see someone rise up and speak on behalf of all terrorists that they're giving up and going to stop.

Then continue attacking. You're not going to appeal to the good side of their personalities as no good side exists.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

You mean a total LACK of evidence?

 

If you choose to ignore the writing on the wall....

 

Hence the term extremists and fundamentalists and not, you know, ALL MUSLIMS.

 

However, the lack of outrage by many Muslims is a concern.

 

What are you talking about? Muslims worldwide are condeming the acts of these terrorists.

 

There are considerably fewer Christians beheading people while praising God than there are Muslims doing it.

 

Yeah, they just tie up black guys to their vans and drag them across dirt roads. And Christianity and beheadings do indeed have an historical background.

 

And I'll say, flat out, that is bullshit. Some Muslims, no doubt, are nice and peaceful --- but the religion itself is a bigger shitbox than Christianity during the Crusades.

 

Well, at least now I can now add bigotry in the long list of reasons not to take you seriously. You truly are ignorant if you have that kind of view on the Muslim world.

 

So, they oppose US-supported "dictatorships" --- by creating even WORSE ones? So, they're fanatical and stupid.

 

US bases in the Holy Land? Talk to the Sauds who asked us to be there due to that "non-threat" Saddam.

 

You know what other cultures they deem evil? All that aren't Muslim.

 

I see you have no qualms about US suported dictatorships then. Good to know. I'm not trying to justify all extreme islamics here, but point to the reason why the think the way they do.

 

Except, unlike YOUR country, we don't have an Empire when we can easily have one if we so desire.

 

Ah yes, the Canadian empire. Soon to be joined by the American Empire (work in progress)...

 

Actually, we acted to stop SOVIET interference in those areas --- but British education is so horribly overrated.

 

Looking at revisionists history, it would seem that way. Using the Soviet excuse is one of those wonderful excuses apologists like to use when a country suffers as a result of US intervention. Those countries in Central America REALLY benefited from the heroic Americans.

 

Leave Fantasyland and try living in the REAL world.

 

Guess what --- you have to deal with unpleasant people. We still deal with France, even though they armed Saddam AFTER knowing he gassed Kurds and accepted money that was supposed to feed Iraqis...

 

And I suppose the US didn't know he was gassing the Kurds when they were chummy with him? But, if France does it, oh it validates it. Dictatorships are 'unpleasant people' now? How cute, and I love how you try to equate France dealing with Saddam as being on the same levels of the numerous dictatorships that the US supports, all the while using Iraq for justification for removing another dictator.

 

What foreign interests are we pursuing?

 

The riches that the Middle East provides. You could bomb them easily, but that probably wouldn't look very humanitarian now would it? No, you have to be a bit more discreet than that, so it looks good on paper.

 

 

And the Shah was an infinitely more humane leader than the monkeys who govern presently.

 

Ok, dodge the issue. You have no qualms for the US putting Shah in power? And does the coup not act as further proof that the main goal in the US is to benefit from

it's industries?

 

When given a chance to VOTE for whom they wanted, whom did the Nicaraguans elect overwhelmingly in 1990?

 

And the World Court is a haven for thugs and dictators. We ought to bomb the building just for the hell of it.

 

Who did they vote for?:

The FSLN lost to the the liberal National Opposition Union led by Chamorro on February 25, 1990. During President Chamorro's nearly 7 years in office, her government achieved major progress toward consolidating democratic institutions, advancing national reconciliation, stabilizing the economy, privatizing state-owned enterprises, and reducing human rights violations. Wikipedia

 

So what was your point in posing that question? That the US heavily favoured Chamorro over the Sandinistas (with the embargo threats), suddenly that makes the crimes of the past (Somoza and the Contras) right? That having that much influence in a country's national electiona a good thing?

 

Furthermore, you seem to have no objections to the US funding of the contras and support of repressive regiemes, so it's not surprising you try to undermine issues that are repeating themselves today.

 

Better than sitting on the sidelines and bitching about human rights violations while not going a fucking thing to fix the problem.

 

Gee, I must have missed where they changed the meaning of 'fix' to 'create'

 

Bacon, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You know shit about America and even less about history. If you're an example of what British educatino churns out, than I have far more faith in the American system than I had before.

 

Mike, you clearly have a mis-guided, jaded, and overall skewed revisionists version of history. Picking and choosing what parts you want to mention that suits you best.

[Guest MikeSC]

You mean a total LACK of evidence?

If you choose to ignore the writing on the wall....

 

 

The evidence being NO evidence whatsoever.

Hence the term extremists and fundamentalists and not, you know, ALL MUSLIMS.

 

However, the lack of outrage by many Muslims is a concern.

What are you talking about? Muslims worldwide are condeming the acts of these terrorists.

Actually, no they are not. I can point to plenty of clerics in plenty of countries that defend such tacticsas abduction and decapitation.

There are considerably fewer Christians beheading people while praising God than there are Muslims doing it.

Yeah, they just tie up black guys to their vans and drag them across dirt roads. And Christianity and beheadings do indeed have an historical background.

Ah, you're actually trying to claim that the James Byrd killing was done on behalf of Christianity, eh?

 

Please note, even the people who DID it make that claim.

 

And, there is a small difference between Christianity and Islam --- Christianity CHANGED and IMPROVED. Islam has sunk into a shithole.

And I'll say, flat out, that is bullshit. Some Muslims, no doubt, are nice and peaceful --- but the religion itself is a bigger shitbox than Christianity during the Crusades.

 

Well, at least now I can now add bigotry in the long list of reasons not to take you seriously. You truly are ignorant if you have that kind of view on the Muslim world.

Fine, outside of Turkey, name a Muslim country that pays ANY respect to even the most basic human rights.

 

You don't see CHRISTIAN countries forcing little girls to burn to death in a burning school because they were dressed "inappropriately".

 

You really are so painfully naive --- or simply too brain-dead to worry about.

So, they oppose US-supported "dictatorships" --- by creating even WORSE ones? So, they're fanatical and stupid.

 

US bases in the Holy Land? Talk to the Sauds who asked us to be there due to that "non-threat" Saddam.

 

You know what other cultures they deem evil? All that aren't Muslim.

I see you have no qualms about US suported dictatorships then.

Given a choice between evil and REALLY evil, evil is the better option.

Except, unlike YOUR country, we don't have an Empire when we can easily have one if we so desire.

Ah yes, the Canadian empire. Soon to be joined by the American Empire (work in progress)...

Ah, forgot you're Canadian --- well, precisely, I didn't care.

 

Must be nice to know that somebody would bail you out if problems ever came. Wish we had the same gift.

Actually, we acted to stop SOVIET interference in those areas --- but British education is so horribly overrated.

Looking at revisionists history, it would seem that way. Using the Soviet excuse is one of those wonderful excuses apologists like to use when a country suffers as a result of US intervention. Those countries in Central America REALLY benefited from the heroic Americans.

Compared to what they were facing --- yup.

Leave Fantasyland and try living in the REAL world.

 

Guess what --- you have to deal with unpleasant people. We still deal with France, even though they armed Saddam AFTER knowing he gassed Kurds and accepted money that was supposed to feed Iraqis...

 

And I suppose the US didn't know he was gassing the Kurds when they were chummy with him?

Actually, the moment we learned, we abandoned him.

But, if France does it, oh it validates it. Dictatorships are 'unpleasant people' now? How cute, and I love how you try to equate France dealing with Saddam as being on the same levels of the numerous dictatorships that the US supports, all the while using Iraq for justification for removing another dictator.

It's the same thing, whether you like it or not.

What foreign interests are we pursuing?

The riches that the Middle East provides.

Because gas prices have dropped so much.

You could bomb them easily, but that probably wouldn't look very humanitarian now would it? No, you have to be a bit more discreet than that, so it looks good on paper.

To give you a newsflash, we do not give two shits what the world thinks. We're doing this because we feel it's the right thing to do.

And the Shah was an infinitely more humane leader than the monkeys who govern presently.

Ok, dodge the issue. You have no qualms for the US putting Shah in power?

No, we shouldn't have. But the Brits asked us to and we, foolishly, did it. Much like bailing out France in Vietnam, we made a mistake for our allies.

And does the coup not act as further proof that the main goal in the US is to benefit from it's industries?

You've already demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about America. You really should cease and desist with the attempts to analyze us.

When given a chance to VOTE for whom they wanted, whom did the Nicaraguans elect overwhelmingly in 1990?

 

And the World Court is a haven for thugs and dictators. We ought to bomb the building just for the hell of it.

 

Who did they vote for?:

The FSLN lost to the the liberal National Opposition Union led by Chamorro on February 25, 1990. During President Chamorro's nearly 7 years in office, her government achieved major progress toward consolidating democratic institutions, advancing national reconciliation, stabilizing the economy, privatizing state-owned enterprises, and reducing human rights violations. Wikipedia

 

So what was your point in posing that question? That the US heavily favoured Chamorro over the Sandinistas (with the embargo threats), suddenly that makes the crimes of the past (Somoza and the Contras) right? That having that much influence in a country's national electiona a good thing?

We helped Nicaraguans get what THEY wanted.

 

While YOU sit on the sidelines and bitch about human rights, we actually get dirty and ACT on it.

 

I love that supporting a gov't that achived major progress towards fixing human rights abuses was bad.

Furthermore, you seem to have no objections to the US funding of the contras and support of repressive regiemes, so it's not surprising you try to undermine issues that are repeating themselves today.

Because I largely do not. We are on the side of good.

Bacon, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You know shit about America and even less about history. If you're an example of what British educatino churns out, than I have far more faith in the American system than I had before.

 

Mike, you clearly have a mis-guided, jaded, and overall skewed revisionists version of history. Picking and choosing what parts you want to mention that suits you best.

Again, your utter lack of education simply demonstrates that the American system is the best out there.

 

We acknowledge our faults in addition to our good things. Seems few others are willing to do the same.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

You mean a total LACK of evidence?

 

If you choose to ignore the writing on the wall....

I wouldn't call this writing on the wall, really. More of a toddler's crayon drawing, really.

 

Hence the term extremists and fundamentalists and not, you know, ALL MUSLIMS.

 

However, the lack of outrage by many Muslims is a concern.

 

What are you talking about? Muslims worldwide are condeming the acts of these terrorists.

 

No offense, but condemning is really lip-service. There has been little action by the foreign Muslim community as a whole to really back up that claim.

 

There are considerably fewer Christians beheading people while praising God than there are Muslims doing it.

 

Yeah, they just tie up black guys to their vans and drag them across dirt roads. And Christianity and beheadings do indeed have an historical background.

 

Um.... that's not technically a Christian thing, bud. Racism isn't inherent in Christianity. Of course, I guess I'm missing the reasoning why a racist religion would EVER admit so many blacks into their community.

 

Nice try at twisting the facts, though! *Thumbs up*

 

And I'll say, flat out, that is bullshit. Some Muslims, no doubt, are nice and peaceful --- but the religion itself is a bigger shitbox than Christianity during the Crusades.

 

Well, at least now I can now add bigotry in the long list of reasons not to take you seriously. You truly are ignorant if you have that kind of view on the Muslim world.

 

Yeah, they just tie up black guys to their vans and drag them across dirt roads. And Christianity and beheadings do indeed have an historical background.

'

 

Because that isn't bigoted at all (Especially being an incorrect reference). I don't agree with the initial statement, but you look stupider for your previous statement and then trying to take the moral highground.

 

I see you have no qualms about US suported dictatorships then. Good to know. I'm not trying to justify all extreme islamics here, but point to the reason why the think the way they do.

 

Eh... I wouldn't say we support them as much as we support what we thought was the lesser of two evils at the time. Of course, you generally don't have a better solution to these problems, so rant all you want but understand that sometimes there isn't an alternative.

 

And no, I'm sure you aren't trying to justify all the islamic extremists. I mean, that New World Order video only wrote off 9/11 as a response to American Imperialism and World Dominance. That's pretty big condemnation, eh?

 

Ah yes, the Canadian empire. Soon to be joined by the American Empire (work in progress)...

 

He thought you were British, apparently. I kinda figured you were one of those crazy leftist Ontario boys who kept electing Liberals to slide your government into a quagmire.

 

And why would we ever want America Jr?

 

Looking at revisionists history, it would seem that way. Using the Soviet excuse is one of those wonderful excuses apologists like to use when a country suffers as a result of US intervention. Those countries in Central America REALLY benefited from the heroic Americans.

 

Of course, countries like North Vietnam, Cambodia, and North Korea REALLY benefited from Communism, eh?

 

You are just as guilty at revising history here. You lack the understanding that when many of these things happened, Communist regiemes were killing off their populations at a pretty damn startling rate. You act as though all these countries were doing so excellently under their current leaders or that they were these great places. The US (Via Roosevelt addition to the Monroe Doctrine) went into it's own backyard to stop shit like that from happening.

 

If you are going to try an analyze why the US intervined so many times to stop Communist regiemes from forming, look at the Communist regiemes at the time and tell me that you would REALLY want those in your backyard...

 

And I suppose the US didn't know he was gassing the Kurds when they were chummy with him? But, if France does it, oh it validates it. Dictatorships are 'unpleasant people' now? How cute, and I love how you try to equate France dealing with Saddam as being on the same levels of the numerous dictatorships that the US supports, all the while using Iraq for justification for removing another dictator.

 

Considering the gassing of the Kurds started after we sort of stopped our aid, I'd say yes. But you probably didn't know that.

 

The difference between France and the US, since you haven't caught it yet, is that we didn't deal with him after he did all his incredibly horrible shit. France continued to long after, and even throughout sactioning.

 

Question, and an honest one: Which dictators outside of Saudi Arabia do we currently support and endorse? Perhaps I'm not really informed, but I don't remember really being hot on dictators since the Cold War.

 

The riches that the Middle East provides. You could bomb them easily, but that probably wouldn't look very humanitarian now would it? No, you have to be a bit more discreet than that, so it looks good on paper.

 

Which is exactly why the US hasn't reaped any of the benefits yet. Or maybe I'm really missing where we are... *Waits for 'Corporate Moneypigs response*

 

w00t @ raping the land while having no effect on the economy!

 

Oh, and question: How can we do anything humanitarian for any country in your eyes if there are resources? Seriously, if we go into Darfur, you'd probably claim we were going after the diamonds. If we intervined in Middle Earth, you'd probably say "NO BLOOD FOR MITHRIL!". Seriously, just because Iraq has oil does NOT mean that it's the only reason we went in.

 

Ok, dodge the issue. You have no qualms for the US putting Shah in power? And does the coup not act as further proof that the main goal in the US is to benefit from it's industries?

 

Not... really. The point is that the Shah had flaws, but he was the best person we could put in power. There was no one else in the pool that would be any better than he was. Unless you have a magic candidate in there somewhere...

 

Point is, the US can only put people who can assume power. We can't put in some magical leader who does everything right; we have to work with what we have, who could do better, despite flaws. Of course, you seem to think that we can place just about ANYONE in power, which really isn't true. We want the countries to succeed; why else would we do that? If it's for investment purposes, like you think, why would we honestly want them to fail like you seem to think? A stable, free country is the best for capitalism, if you didn't notice.

 

Who did they vote for?:

 

Milosevic would probably be the biggest irritation, since it still isn't assured that he'll be convicted of anything.

 

I'm going out to get some food, but seriously, you should consider looking for something other than massive conspiracies in everything political. Plus, your incredible bias against the US really makes it hard to take you seriously.