posted on October 2, 2001 04:56:24 AM
People seem to think that this attack occurred in a vacuum, and that's reinforced everytime a news announcer solemnly proclaims - "The world changed on September 11th."
But the world did not change on September 11th. Only our little corner of the world, America, changed on September 11th. And we are not the world.
They hate us because we're rich and they're poor! Well, Osama Bin Laden is much richer, personally, than anyone here (probably). He left a comfortable western-style life, swanky vacations in Europe, the whole deal, to base himself in one of the most inhospitable places in the world.
They hate us because they're religious fanatics! Well, the people we saw on the news clips, cheering news of the attacks, didn't look like religious fanatics, they were wearing western clothes.
Could it have to do with something a bit more complex than that we're beautiful or they're nuts? Could it have to do with... foreign policy? Ridiculous!
"Foreign policy" is comprised of two words we hardly believe in the existance of separately. Put them together and it's like someone is asking you to believe in a flying saucer full of bigfoots.
Concurrent with the FBI investigating the hijackers, concurrent with the line of foreign dignitaries trailing in and out of the White House to get their picture taken with Bush, the adminstration has been pushing hard for quick political change in the Middle East... Have you noticed? If you have, would it make you wonder if perhaps people who really believe that there's such a thing as "foreign policy" see a connection here?
posted on October 2, 2001 05:59:15 AMWell, the people we saw on the news clips, cheering news of the attacks, didn't look like religious fanatics, they were wearing western clothes.
? Could it have to do with... foreign policy?
Excuse me, Donny, but sane reasonable people do not go around murduring 7000 civilians at a single shot in order to protest some foreign policy they take issue with. No matter how much you apologize for them, sympathasize with their cause, make excuses for the methods (read murder) they employ to protest foreigh policy, the truth is these people need to be stepped on and stepped on hard. They need to be taught by us AND the whole world that mass murder is not acceptable to protest some foreign policy that is unacceptable to them.
I'm getting rather tired of your apologizing and justifications for these awful acts. Of course in our country, that is your right. Aren't you lucky?
posted on October 2, 2001 06:14:25 AM
donny - Hate to say it but in many ways yes, we are the world. What we do here will ripple out and effect the world far more than say what someone does in say Indonesia.
the US dollar is the closest thing there is to a world currency. There are a number of countries that don't even bother to make their own money - they just use US dollars.
English is the language of Aviation - Space(sorry Russia), science, and the Internet.
The reason for that is not Britain.
When you do something to change the way America does business and I am talking about how we make movies - how we make airliners.
The effect on people and Billions of dollars around the world is huge. The "foreign policy " of CEO's is more important in the long run than the government. If the government holds them back too much from doing something outside the US they will remove that government. They write those big checks before the elections that are due bills after and they will have their way.
posted on October 2, 2001 06:47:46 AM
You seem to think, KatyD, that terrorism can't be a political tool. I am not apologizing or justifying awful acts. What I am saying is that, yes, terrorism can be, and has been, used by sane, reasonable people towards sane, reasonable goals. Whether the goal it's used for is one you agree with or not does not make it either insane or unreasonable. Nasser and Ben-Gurion both used terrorism in pursuit of political goals.
posted on October 2, 2001 07:13:17 AMWhat I am saying is that, yes, terrorism can be, and has been, used by sane, reasonable people towards sane, reasonable goals. Whether the goal it's used for is one you agree with or not does not make it either insane or unreasonable.
Terrorism is never used by sane, reasonable people. Unless of course, you are saying that the people who committed these atrocities were sane, reasonable people. Oh yes, Donny, murduring 7000 people on a single day is so sane and reasonable. And I suppose that these terrorist's "agenda" is somehow validated by this sane, reasonable act.
Please explain, Donny, how the murder of 7000 people is the act of sane, reasonable people, and WHY the rest of the world should view this act as a legitimate political tool to further a sane, reasonable political agenda.
For the record, you are wrong about Ben-Gurion. But your skewed view on that topic is understandable given your pro-palestinian, anti-Israeli opinions. There are many Americans that don't agree with you.
You seem to think, KatyD, that terrorism can't be a political tool. You got that right. We, and the rest of the sane, reasonable world can NEVER accept terrorist acts as a sane reasonablepolitical tool. "Validating" terrorism as a political tool (your own words) is one of the most insane, unreasonable statements I have ever seen you post.
posted on October 2, 2001 07:29:14 AM
Look what a handful of nuts accomplished with a few boxcutters and a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator. As Americans we are very vulnerable. Anyone who thinks we can appease terrorists by giving up our cars or TVs is being foolish. Any more than we can stop terror by carpet bombing Afghanistan.
Those folks who plot murder have already forfeited their lives. Sorry, kiddies, but this is the real world. Sending warm fuzzies to murderers is not the answer.
"Let's try to reason with them" or "if we hit them back, the violence will escalate" are the most absurd positions in this argument. Terrorists seek protection by hiding in civilian centers. Sooner or later, we're going to have to accept that fact and take the gloves off. America must deal from a position of power.
I think Bush is handling it well (fairly well). We'll see what happens next. Bush needs to deliver the head of Bin Laden quickly.
posted on October 2, 2001 07:41:38 AM
Emotional bolding, even if it was done in a whole post, doesn't change history. Arabs and Israelis alike both used terrorism for political ends. You've let my mention of Nasser's terrorism pass unchallenged, yet get all bent out of shape about Ben-Gurion. No, Ben-Gurion didn't have anything at all to do with the King David hotel. Feel better now?
posted on October 2, 2001 07:43:43 AMMurduring 7000 people on a single day is so sane and reasonable.
How many people were killed when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And how many of them were civilians? I'm guessing it was slightly more than 7000.
It's easy for us to rationalize our actions and to say that it was a sane, reasonable thing to do, given the circumstances at the time, the fact that we were officially at war with a hostile nation, the liklihood of a prolonged conflict with greater loss of life if we didn't drop the bombs, etc. And we say that we would never engage in an act of terrorism [at least, not today], but that's because we have the military might to attack openly without fear of reprisal.
For the record, I don't excuse the terrorists' acts, nor do I think we "deserved" it or that the terrorists' leaders should go unpunished. But I do think we need to tone down the rhetoric and self-righteousness a bit. Painting the enemy as unreasonable madmen may make us feel better about ourselves, but doesn't help solve the problem, nor is it an accurate sentiment.
But then, that's just me.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 2, 2001 07:47:31 AM
I've got a couple of stray dogs. Anyone want to light the match? You could stencil a USA Flag & President Bush on their heads and then it will be a noble political statement instead of just an act of pure cruelty.
Yep, I get what is being said here.
Before you presume to know me, you must realize that I am a unique American with many facets of my personality and life!
posted on October 2, 2001 08:02:16 AM
posted by WRONG!see retraction below!!Donny:Before you presume to know me, you must realize that I am a unique American with many facets of my personality and life!
Interesting point, I would presume this also pertains to the "others" that post at the RT?
Of course Donny didn't say that! It was Jess Deliteful!! Terribly sorry! And here you are being unique and I gotcha confused with a totaly different "poison" (my best Bronx dialect)
posted on October 2, 2001 08:08:58 AM
Is Donny stealing my sig line? Before you presume to know me, you must realize that I am a unique American with many facets of my personality and life!
posted on October 2, 2001 08:23:51 AMYou've let my mention of Nasser's terrorism pass unchallenged, yet get all bent out of shape about Ben-Gurion.. You are the one calling Nasser a terrorist. I didn't. You continually blame these terrorists' actions on Israel and US policy supporting Israel's right to exist. This had nothing to do with Israel, yet you continue to try to place the blame on Israel and by extension, American support for Israel. That is about as sane, and reasonable as the Taliban official's statement that the events of September 11 was a Jewish conspiracy, and 4000 Jewish workers did not show up for work at the WTC that day in anticipation of an attack they knew were going to happen. So we're back to blaming everything on the Jews, are we? Some things never change.
Barry, Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened well over 50 years ago. While it can be argued that it was the single defining act that ended WWII, I do not see how it is at all relevant to the events of September 11. You would do well to remember that September 11th, will forevermore be used as a benchmark for future terrorist actions. However will the murder of 7000 people be topped? Just how many more people can be targeted for death by a single terrorist act in the future. Maybe a biochemical terrorist act? Maybe they can get 50,000 or 100,000 next time. Hmmm?
posted on October 2, 2001 08:53:18 AM
"Must be those dang bigfoots hacking into AW from their spaceships"
That must be it!
KatyD...
"You continually blame these terrorists' actions on Israel and US policy supporting Israel's right to exist."
No, that's wrong, KatyD, I've done no such thing.
I support Isreal's right to exist. 100%. What I think we need to re-examine is our support, tacit or explicit, of Israel's "right" to continue to subjugate, in many cases, brutally, and practice terrorism against, Palestinians.
This policy of ours is a component of Middle Eastern hatred against us. You can take out Bin Laden, and the X number of guys who are with him today. But you're only leaving in place a situtation that will breed X times guys tomorrow. September 11th will be nothing more than 7,000 drops in a big bucket of blood.
People get all het up - 7,000 people dead... It's eeeevil! It's insane! We gotta kill... whoever did this!
Well, it's not that simple. First of all, the people who did this, in the strictest sense, are dead. They died on those planes. But we all seem to recognize, to some degree, anyway, that there's a situation that needs examining that's larger and more complex than merely - getting who did this.
Why do you think that there's been a mad rush to force Israeli/Palestinian peace talks? Why do you think Colin Powell is desperate to quickly make an announcement concerning the formation of a Palestinian state? Surely with something so important as America being attacked, issues that have nothing to do with this crisis at hand would be put aside? But they're not being put aside, they're being hastened.
posted on October 2, 2001 09:14:43 AM
"Why do you think that there's been a mad rush to force Israeli/Palestinian peace talks?"
Perhaps to try to add some stability to the region.
Like it or not, both sides over there are now to the point of being locked in to the dreaded "last word" syndrome
Many fear the last word will be nukes.
We are in the position of either trying to make peace, taking sides and actively fighting, or sitting back in isolation watching the fireworks begin. I personally prefer the peace talks even though I have only slim hope of either side being able to commit for any long term.
Before you presume to know me, you must realize that I am a unique American with many facets of my personality and life!
posted on October 2, 2001 09:14:46 AMIsrael's "right" to continue to subjugate, in many cases, brutally, and practice terrorism against, Palestinians.
Yup. Those old Israelis bomb Palestinian school busses and cafes and grocery stores every day. Uh huh. Wait! Maybe these Israeli terrorist actions are their military reprisals against Palestinian terrorists who hide themselves behind their women and children in residential neighborhoods. Yep. That's it.
Well, it's not that simple. First of all, the people who did this, in the strictest sense, are dead. They died on those planes. But we all seem to recognize, to some degree, anyway, that there's a situation that needs examining that's larger and more complex than merely - getting who did this.
Well, yes it is that simple. A message needs to be sent that these acts will not be tolerated. These fanatics have PROMISED us (meaning you, me, and every other American) that they are going to kill us. Now you may need to sit down and examine that complex statement and think about what it means, but hey! I have a college degree. When someone tells me that they are going to kill me, I tend to take that statement at face value and assume that is indeed what they are planning to do, especially when they have already killed 7000 on a single day. So. Donny, do you hear anyone representing Al-Queda or Bin Laden asking to sit down and talk about this? No? What about those fundamental Muslim clerics all those middle eastern countries that have declared jihad against ALL Americans. Does it appear that they want to sit down and examine this complex situation?. Uh huh. There is no compromise or negotiation with these kind of people. There was no compromise with Hitler either.
posted on October 2, 2001 09:24:17 AMKatyD: Barry, Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened well over 50 years ago.
Ah, that makes all the difference I guess. The past is the past, so it doesn't count.
In fact, I think the only REAL difference is that we eventually won that war. Had our attacks instead spurred Japan on to greater conviction, and had THEY won the war instead, I can guarantee you that our act of "terrorism" against them would have gone down in the annals of history as one of the most heinous acts of all time. We're the good guys, however [which is just another way of say that we won], so it's all right.
Don't get me wrong -- I certainly don't SUPPORT the recent attack against us in any way. But history has shown again and again that the ends always justify the means, and it's only because we have the luxury of being on the winning side that allows us to justify our actions while at the same time condemning the actions of others.
If you want more recent examples, though, how many civilians died during our attacks during the Gulf "War"? How many civilians have died of starvation in Iraq as a result of our sanctions against that country? Every time we launch a missle attack from afar, we end up killing civilians. And the people who live in those countries think we are totally insane and unreasonable for doing so.
Again, I do not support terrorism, nor do I think it is justified. But neither do I think it is the action of insane, unreasonable madmen, as comforting as that characterization may be. After all, if these were the acts of madmen, then there is no reason for introspection to find out what, if anything, we ourselves may have done to exacerbate [not cause or deserve] the situation. Ayup, it sure is comforting to think that we are perfect and anybody who hates us is therefore insane. I just don't happen to think it's the truth, however.
Donny: Israel's "right" to continue to subjugate, in many cases, brutally, and practice terrorism against, Palestinians
I'll admit to a bit of ignorance here. Can you provide some examples of Israel's "terrorism" against the Palestinians? I'm assuming that you are not referring to acts of self-defense here, but cases where Israel has actively targeted innocent civilians? Bombing a schoolbus full of children, perhaps? Or a restaurant full of people?
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 2, 2001 09:29:19 AM
KatyD, there are Israeli and Palestinian terrorists... There are today, and there were yesterday. Israel was founded on terrorism. Yes, Menachem Begin was a terrorist, and so was Ben-Gurion. Sorry, but those are the ugly facts. It's possible to support Israel's right to exist, and, at the same time, acknowledge the past and the present.
Things are not simple, issues are not black and white. A college education should have prepared you to understand that.
Our message in the Middle East has been that acts like these will be tolerated... so long as they're performed by us or our allies. Now all of a sudden the whole civilized world righteously decries terrorism! It sounds good, but it doesn't wash.
posted on October 2, 2001 09:31:45 AM
Godzillatemple,
Excuse me, but didn't Japan attack America first? Or doesn't that little fact matter?
I have a hard time understanding your theory that our bombings in WW II against Japan were acts of terrorism. In fact I find that notion offensive to say the least.
Before you presume to know me, you must realize that I am a unique American with many facets of my personality and life!
posted on October 2, 2001 09:48:58 AMdeliteful: I have a hard time understanding your theory that our bombings in WW II against Japan were acts of terrorism.
That's not what I said. Please do not put words into my mouth or presume to tell me what I am thinking. I am, after all, a unique American with many facets of my personality and life. If you would like to ask questions as to certain aspects of what I think about things, feel free to do so. But please do not presume to think you know me or how I feel about anything.
KatyD asked "Please explain ... how the murder of 7000 people is the act of sane, reasonable people, and WHY the rest of the world should view this act as a legitimate political tool to further a sane, reasonable political agenda."
I gave an example of how the "murder of 7000 people" can be construed as the act of sane, reasonable people, given the proper perspective. And if, god forbid, the Arabs who launched this attack on us were to someday prove victorious and the U.S. were to go down in flames, you can bet that the acts of September 11th would go down in history as the courageous actions of brave men instead of the cowardly actions of insane madmen.
For the record, though, I wonder what your definition of "terrorism" is? The bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an effort to demoralize the Japanese people to the point where they would be willing to surrender unconditionally, not because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important military targets.
Again [for the 7th or 8th time] I do not support terrorism. I think it is wrong, and those who committed these acts against must be caught, punished, and stopped. But we need to resist the urge to "demonize" them by saying that they must necessarily be insane and unreasonable. Insane, unreasonable men are unpredictible and attack for no good reason, which means we are essentially powerless to defend ourselves against them. Cooly calculating, rational men, however, who do what they do because of misguided beliefs or out of hatred, can be anticipated and stopped.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 2, 2001 09:54 AM ]
posted on October 2, 2001 10:01:04 AMIsrael was founded on terrorism
Wrong.
Menachem Begin was a terrorist, and so was Ben-Gurion.
Wrong again.
Sorry, but those are the ugly facts.
And yet wrong again. Your opinion maybe, but not facts.
What we are dealing with here is a group of fanatics that have no regard for their own survival, let alone the rest of humanity. Indeed, they look forward to dying a martyr's death, and have demonstrated that they will use any means at their disposal to accomplish this. Historically, our "enemies" have understood that in any conflict, their own ability to "survive" were paramount. How do you deal with a group of people that do not care if they live or die? The one thing that stopped the engagement of nuclear or biochemical weapons in past conflicts was the realization that the tit for tat utilization of such weapons would most likely mean their own demise as well as their enemies. Now we must deal with people that have no self-survival instinct. They simply do not care if they survive or not, as long as they take as many "enemies" with them as they can.
Barry, you need to read up a bit on Iraq. Saddam Hussein, and he alone, is responsible for the Iraqui people's humanitarian predicament. US sanctions do not preclude "oil for medicine" most of the proceeds of which he confiscates and uses for his own ends which include nuclear and biochemical weapon production. Seen a recent picture of him? He doesn't look so "starved" does he?
posted on October 2, 2001 10:01:30 AM
(edited out because after reading Barry's next post, I decided that my first interpretation was correct afterall)
posted on October 2, 2001 10:05:00 AMyou can bet that the acts of September 11th would go down in history as the courageous actions of brave men instead of the cowardly actions of insane madmen.
What are you SMOKING?
Nevermind. I don't want to know.
posted on October 2, 2001 10:15:21 AMKatyD: What are you SMOKING? It's all a matter of perspective. We here in the U.S. are sure that the terrorists were insane, unreasonable madmen. In parts of the Arab world, however, they are seen as courageous heroes who gave their lives to further a noble cause, and WE are seen as the insane, cowardly madmen [especially since we love to bomb from afar without committing ground troops].
Which viewpoint prevails in the history books depends entirely on who wins this conflict. I hope, of course, that we are the victorious ones and have the luxury of writing the history books.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 2, 2001 10:21:13 AM
Well, Barry, just last week.. or the week before, an Israeli soldier shot and killed a Palestinian teenager who threw a rock at him. That's nothing new, and it might come under the 'self-defense' clause.
You can go back to '40's, the assasination of Count Bernadotte, planned by Yitzhak Shamir, the bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem, planned by Manachem Begin, both of those with the support of Ben-Gurion, to see the basis of the formation of Israel. This isn't anti-Jewish propoganda. It's what happened.
For more about that time, this essay, and others there, concerning the history of Israel, is informative, this first one specifically addressing Israelis' murder of civilians in 1948:
You could find more, less reputable, sources. But how about MSNBC, on what happened after the Sept 11th attack?
"Israel launched its second incursion into the nearby West Bank town of Jenin in two months, killing at least seven people, including an 11-year-old boy"
A schoolbus full of children? No. But if it's your 11 year old child who's killed, do you accept it as "collateral damage?" This is a euphimism we can live with when it's someone else's child.
Palestians do commit terrorism, and I've said that. But we decry "Palestinian terrorism," and turn a blind eye towards Israeli misdeeds.
