RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers

RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 10:45:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver This is my point. But it is not just Bush and it is not just the US that has been guilty. The European empires preceded the American empire. Meatclever.....What about the effect that the Ottoman and Persian empires have had on the middle east and Afghanistan. Most Western Empires, and i am assuming you mean European, had little influence in the middle east until WW1. Prior to that the Turks had held sway. Persia invaded Afghanistan in the 1700s to try and impose Shia religion on a Sunni people. What did that have to do with the west ? MC - See what I mean about using a historical argument, selective or all encompassing, to rationalize current behavior by either side? Maybe ultimately you can get back to the banishment of Cain to the land of Nod; but today's people taking today's actions are the only actions and issues of relevance.

meatcleaver -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 10:50:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver This is my point. But it is not just Bush and it is not just the US that has been guilty. The European empires preceded the American empire. Meatclever.....What about the effect that the Ottoman and Persian empires have had on the middle east and Afghanistan. Most Western Empires, and i am assuming you mean European, had little influence in the middle east until WW1. Prior to that the Turks had held sway. Persia invaded Afghanistan in the 1700s to try and impose Shia religion on a Sunni people. What did that have to do with the west ? WWI is significant. The British promised the Arabs independence if they rebelled against the Ottoman Empire. The British planned stabbing the Arabs from the outset and did. Lawrence was shocked and disgusted but reluctantly put his country first, even though it was governed by bare faced liars. What was the British Empire doing in that region of the world if not exploiting and oppressing people there? Before the British government nationalised the empire, the British East India Company was operating out there which was a little like ENRON with a mercenary army. Just because Persia invaded its neighbour at some point in teh past, it doesn't let the west off the hook. Why did Britain and the US over throw a democratic Iranian government in 1953 which was far more recent. What gave Britain the right to carve up the middle east to its own advantage which has caused many of the conflicts there. The British refused to let the Kurds have a country of their own because they simply didn't like them and thought them untrustworthy which is why there is a conflict involving the Kurds to this day. Turks call them terrorists but who created them?

meatcleaver -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 11:00:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver This is my point. But it is not just Bush and it is not just the US that has been guilty. The European empires preceded the American empire. Meatclever.....What about the effect that the Ottoman and Persian empires have had on the middle east and Afghanistan. Most Western Empires, and i am assuming you mean European, had little influence in the middle east until WW1. Prior to that the Turks had held sway. Persia invaded Afghanistan in the 1700s to try and impose Shia religion on a Sunni people. What did that have to do with the west ? MC - See what I mean about using a historical argument, selective or all encompassing, to rationalize current behavior by either side? Maybe ultimately you can get back to the banishment of Cain to the land of Nod; but today's people taking today's actions are the only actions and issues of relevance. see above Merc. Justifying ones own crimes by blaming others of soing the same is not a defence. The Arabs hate the Turks because of what happened in the Ottoman Empire and is a source of conflict that could explode between them. History can't be dismissed as if it hasn't happened and then pretend when one is attacked that one is innocent. 100 years in historical time is no time at all and most of the west's exploitation and oppression of the Arabs have happened within the last 100 years.

Owner59 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 11:00:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 To be fair i think the 9/11 attack took some planning. Even if Bush had continued the hunt for Bin Laden, maybe it was already too late to prevent an attack. Having said that, maybe continuing to hunt for him would have led to info that foiled the attack. Its really impossible to be sure one way or the other. Yeah, it seems like there are so many things that a President has to keep track of that being concerned with one terrorist organization that hadn't done something like 9/11 yet in America right away after entering office, instead of everything else, would've been irresponsible. In a way, I sort of see Bush as a doctor who lost a pacient who made a note of a minor headache to a sudden brain anerisum (however it's spelt). I mean, sure, he had a bit of warning, but it was so vague and not exactly major that going to check for it, with all the other things his career demands, would've been wholey irresponsible. With respect, what was vague about the following events. Attacks on US soliers in Somalia ( After Bin Laden had been expelled from Saudia and set up base in Khartoum ) The attacks on the US Embassies In East Africa... Several hundred killed. The bombing of the USS Cole. The first bombing of the WTC...... I read a report that they had also planned to use a plane in this attack. but i cant recall the link. I realise all the above were not specific regards 9/11, although i think several intelligence agencies had passed on warnings. So far, the "vague" idea comes from one of the, well, conspiracy theorists here not too long back. He cited a memo which was given to Bush, saying something along the lines of, "We have reason to believe that (it was either Bin Laden or Al Qaeda) is going to strike the US", or something like this. It struck me as pretty vague. Still, I say that it was vague as.. well, did anyone see 9/11 coming? Planes being hijacked and flown into the WTC? Were there any direct warnings along these lines? While I love to debate things like this, the ethics and decisions and such- I'm unstudied. So I'm pretty unaware of some of the things you mentioned. About the "With respect, "- It's okay, I know you're a good guy; I'll take things you say in good faith as being respectful, and I'd ask for the same privledge. Ahh ,I think I know why you`re so mis-informed and clueless. The PDB said ,bin laden determined to strike in the US,and you read/saw : "We have reason to believe that (it was either Bin Laden or Al Qaeda) is going to strike the US", or something like this. It struck me as pretty vague." Let`s compare, 1. "bin laden determined to strike in the US",and 2 "We have reason to believe that bin laden is going to strike the US" See,they are two different sentences,but to you,they`re the same. You have dyslexia?Maybe?That would explain a lot.Along with the anger. To everyone else: It`s ok to be an apologist,there`s one(or thousands) for every scoundrel.With almost 300 million people in the US,there are obviously going to be some people,masochistic enough to be a bush apologist.In-Curious lord, is one such masochist.

Politesub53 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 11:02:33 AM)
Merc is right about being able to be selective with history, although i was making a point that its not just the west but also eastern empires that have invaded the west, or their neighbours, throughout history. My point in mentioning the Persian invasion of Afghanistan is current, as todays conflict in Iraq is now, as it was then, about the split in Islamic religion. You know the answer about the 1953 coup, it was over oil, just as i suspect the overthrow of Saddam was, and for the same reason we invaded at the start of WW2, to stop the Germans getting the Iranian oil fields, as Iran was sympathetic to Germany. [;)]

meatcleaver -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 11:06:19 AM)
Politesub, since you know about all this exploitation and double dealing, why is it so hard to understand why radical Arabs hate the west and have a large sympathic population in which they can hide. Why is it justifiable for the west to exploit and oppress people and when those people respond the west is somehow magically innocent of doing anything that might provoke a response?

Politesub53 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 11:13:15 AM)
Meatclever.... We have coversed enough for you to know i understand what its all about. You have also read enough of my posts where i criticise Blair and Bush. So to accuse me of not understanding is a tad over the top. Show me a post where have ever said any of this is justified.

Politesub53 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 2:00:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 To be fair i think the 9/11 attack took some planning. Even if Bush had continued the hunt for Bin Laden, maybe it was already too late to prevent an attack. Having said that, maybe continuing to hunt for him would have led to info that foiled the attack. Its really impossible to be sure one way or the other. Yeah, it seems like there are so many things that a President has to keep track of that being concerned with one terrorist organization that hadn't done something like 9/11 yet in America right away after entering office, instead of everything else, would've been irresponsible. In a way, I sort of see Bush as a doctor who lost a pacient who made a note of a minor headache to a sudden brain anerisum (however it's spelt). I mean, sure, he had a bit of warning, but it was so vague and not exactly major that going to check for it, with all the other things his career demands, would've been wholey irresponsible. With respect, what was vague about the following events. Attacks on US soliers in Somalia ( After Bin Laden had been expelled from Saudia and set up base in Khartoum ) The attacks on the US Embassies In East Africa... Several hundred killed. The bombing of the USS Cole. The first bombing of the WTC...... I read a report that they had also planned to use a plane in this attack. but i cant recall the link. I realise all the above were not specific regards 9/11, although i think several intelligence agencies had passed on warnings. So far, the "vague" idea comes from one of the, well, conspiracy theorists here not too long back. He cited a memo which was given to Bush, saying something along the lines of, "We have reason to believe that (it was either Bin Laden or Al Qaeda) is going to strike the US", or something like this. It struck me as pretty vague. Still, I say that it was vague as.. well, did anyone see 9/11 coming? Planes being hijacked and flown into the WTC? Were there any direct warnings along these lines? While I love to debate things like this, the ethics and decisions and such- I'm unstudied. So I'm pretty unaware of some of the things you mentioned. About the "With respect, "- It's okay, I know you're a good guy; I'll take things you say in good faith as being respectful, and I'd ask for the same privledge. I hope this helps, i cant vouch for accuracy but the link does quote it`s sources. http://cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaytheytriedtowarnus

Owner59 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 6:56:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. " FDR did say that...He also locked all the Americans of Japanese descent up in internment camps, as well as quite a few others. So do we just care about what they say, not what they do? To lucky dog and the un-real one. FDR said this before WWII,before FCR knew there would be a war.Before he was faced with the tough choices of WWII.Which he brought us through in four short years,without grabbing power and looting the treasury.His VP(Truman),at taking the presidency,but war profiteers in jail.bush just gives them more over-charged,no-bit contracts. Imagine what life would have been like, if FDR or Truman had gamed WWII,to make it last in-deffinately.Like bush is doing with the Iraq war.He just said in his speech,that we weren`t leaving Iraq,and that the next president will have to deal with it. That is the definition of cowerdice.

luckydog1 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 7:39:21 PM)
owner59, so we left Japan, Germany and Italy when?

jaymckenas -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 7:48:45 PM)
quote: It was Radical Islam. More a State without borders rather than a religion. ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth There is no such thing as a State of Radical Islam. The hijackers of 9/11 are roughly equated to your Timothy McVeigh. You didn't invade Oklahoma because an individual whose opinions were radical acted outside the bounds of his Faith and his culture's norm, so why do you persecute the Muslim people by buying into the propaganda the media spoon feeds you about there being this great Islamic State of radical terrorists marching around preparing to do battle with the "Great Satan"? Islam is a peaceful religion which is tolerant, accepting, and respectful of other Faiths and ideologies, don't let the "McVeighs" of the Middle East taint your opinion of the nature of Islam. It is unfair to judge a people by their radical contingencies within, regardless of the impact on our own personal lives. There is no such thing as a radical Islamic State, that is a fabrication of American media. With respect and regret for the things of the past, but with hope for understanding and a world without prejudice, Jayson.

luckydog1 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 7:56:54 PM)
Which islamic states are tolerant of other ideologies and religions? Which muslim people are being persecuted by the US? We most certianly did step up surveilance adn monitoring of White supremists like Mc vey. IF he and his folks had a traing base anywhere, you bet the US would take it out. If the state of Oklahoma had tried to defend Mc vey, the USA would have re-invaded it. I would agree that calling it a "state" with out borders is incorrect...more of a "nation" with out borders. And having government led death chants sounds fairly radical, intolerant, and non peacefull to me. Perhaps to you it is different. Iran, and Taliban do not define Islam, but they are a part of it. You can not even pretend that the taliban were tolerant, peace loving peoples, can you?

jaymckenas -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 7:59:50 PM)
The Taliban are "Muslims" like the Nazis were "Christians" obviously there are going to be extremists borne of any religious following, but the nature of true Islam is peace. The radical Islam you speak of, the death chants etc. are part of the cultural area and probably represent less than 1% of the "Nation" of Islam. Islam after all, covers more than just the middle east, but is found in Northern Africa, Southeast asia etc. To assume the masses of Middle Eastern extremists screaming "Death to America" represents Islam is a foolish and prejudicial judgment.

Owner59 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 8:07:25 PM)
ditto, jaymckenas.

luckydog1 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 8:07:40 PM)
No jay, you should study more about the Nazis. And you are fully aware, so must intentionally be telling a false hood...you know that Islam means "submission" not "peace". And in North Africa the Muslims are slaughtering those they disaprove of. And in Indonesia the Muslims are slaughtering those of different faiths. You really should get some better counter examples, or stick to talking to people with no knowledge of the world at all. "It is unfair to judge a people by their radical contingencies within, regardless of the impact on our own personal lives. " So you define Islam as one people.

luckydog1 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 8:08:44 PM)
Owner, but when did we leave Japan, Germany, and Italy?

jaymckenas -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 8:11:26 PM)
Islam is derived from the words aslama (submission) and salam (peace). If you feel I have no knowledge of the world I shall not try to sway you, I do not wish to incite anger. I merely am stating that at it's core, Islam is about, as you say "submission to Allah", (Allah of course being the same God christians worship) and "spreading peace". Spreading peace in the name of Allah/God. If you wish to judge Islam on the actions of the few. Then you miss the redeeming qualities of the many.

Owner59 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 8:11:41 PM)
There are alot of simplistic thinking in the conservative mind. That`s why you get phrases like,"kill`m all and let god sort them out,or Popeye`s famous,"nuke the whole place" comments.

Owner59 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 8:12:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Owner, but when did we leave Japan, Germany, and Italy? What`s your point?

luckydog1 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 8:17:14 PM)
"Imagine what life would have been like, if FDR or Truman had gamed WWII,to make it last in-deffinately.Like bush is doing with the Iraq war.He just said in his speech,that we weren`t leaving Iraq,and that the next president will have to deal with it. That is the definition of cowerdice. " We haven't left Germany, Japan, or Italy. So you are saying FDR did set up a perpetual war and calling him a coward. you said this in an attempt to deflect from your quote of his nonsense"nothing to fear..." he rounded people up by race and grabbed power in un preceented ways.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875