9/11 thread

I don't see that this question could take the thread anywhere.I suppose he wanted to hit the symbols of our power, money power in the trade centers, military power in the Pentagon, executive power in the white house which didn't come off but was intended.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The topic title is "9/11 thread", which, despite the broader aspects of message 1, does put the focus on the targets. Have we reached a point of agreement?While it's pretty tough to justify fighting evil with evil, my personal opinion is that the U.S. had a "punch in the nose" coming.Might OBL also be manipulating the behaviour of the U.S. leadership? He certainly has managed to get the U.S. in a much less favorable view by much of the rest of the world.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

That all sounds fine and dandy from where you are sitting but the long history of US/European involvement in the Middle East has left a bitter taste.For many Muslims "democracy" = "western imperialism" - the imposition of a "democratic" puppet who serves western interests.Iran is a case in point. The UK and US organized coup againt the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953 when he threatened to nationalize Iranian oil and end British and American control. We imposed our own "democracy" in the form of the Shah. The Shah, whose repressive regime enforced secularism on a traditional populace, fuelled fundamentalist Islam. This lead directly to the Islamic Revolution of 1979.The US's anger at the state of affairs in Iran then led them to provide support to Saddam Hussein's regime in the 80's during the Iran/Iraq war. To add insult to injury, it also turned out that at the same time the US sold weapons to Iran in order to fund the Contras, a right-wing guerrilla group in Nicaragua which, with US help, overthrew the leftist Sandinistas.Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is possibly the most repressive state in the ME, yet due to their control of vast oil reserves and their government's willingness to do business, the West has not batted an eyelid at it's lack of democracy. 9/11, I might remind you, was inspired by a Saudi and committed by a group that included eleven Saudi nationals.It's all very well for the West to look down on the Middle East's lack of democracy, but our own meddling has done little to help it along in a natural manner! Instead, over the years we have issued a combination of coups, threats or diktats and wasted no oppurtunity to cozy up to anti-democratic dictators who serve our desire for oil.

And yet, there are Islamic nations where Islamism is controlled, such as Turkey. And in some Islamism is weakening, actually. Given chance and time, democracy will defeat Islamism from within.

I agree that many in the Islamic world resent the west's incursions and now associate things western, including democracy, with that. Generally, though, it's more pride than association with something western per se, that is the issue. Have you read Bernard Lewis? He argues that Islamic nations assumed for centuries that they were superior to the west, as ordained by Allah, It was an incredible shock to learn during wars with the west that they were weaker, that they had been surpassed. This pride is still in play. Accepting democracy means accepting something western, something huge, something that fundamentally alters their societies. And yet, there are budding Islamic democracies. They will find ways to decsribe their democratic movements as different and superior to western ones. Nonetheless, there are some pertinents facts in reply to your post:First, Islamic imperialism against the west has a much longer history than the reverse. Most of us have forgotten about that, because it is no longer relevant to our lives. At least it wasn't until 9/11. Now some of us are learning about it. But still, that's only to understand. The same can happen in reverse.Second, the US was never an imperialist nation in the ME. The Europeans were, for sure. But not for all that long.Third, the US didn't actually support Hussein against Iran, and to whatever degree it did, it had nothing to do with anger. The US had correctly recognized that Islamism was democracy's enemy, as was hussein. It was strategic, therefore, to balance them off against one another.The US has given Saudi Arabia a pass, but not entirely. There has been, in fact, some pressure for change. And pressure to withhold funding of Islamism. Yet, Islamism is so central to so much of the body politic, that, yes, you're right that the saudis have altered little. Ironically, were the west still imperialist, the US would have invaded after 9/11.It is also critical to understand that our "meddling" (in the post colonial period) as you call it, was, as much as it actually happened, a means of countering Communism. In fact, that was one motivation for undermining Iran's nascent democracy in the 50's. That is, it was believed that the Communists were getting the upper hand there, and might have fomented a Communist revolution. Which is not to deny that Iran's nationalization of oil interests was a factor in and of itself.

This isn't entirely accurate. The US-backed civil war in Nicaragua was a major factor, especially through diversion of needed resources to counter-insurgency operations, but the Sandinista's were defeated in what may possibly be the first election in history where a revolutionary government that seized power relinquished it in a democratic election. As odious as they were, ya got to give them credit for that one.The reality is that extremely poor domestic agricultural, economic and social policies, the reduction and finally elimination of Soviet and Cuban aid, international economic sanctions, the splintering of the Sandinista party, AND the US-backed contra insurgency (which arguably never posed a serious threat to the Sandinistas) were what prostrated the country to the point the Sandanistas basically called it a wash. Interestingly, most projections show the FSLN will once again achieve power in Nicaragua - through elections.

Here's the full reply.I agree that many in the Islamic world resent the west's incursions and now associate things western, including democracy, with that. Generally, though, it's more pride than association with something western per se, that is the issue. Have you read Bernard Lewis? He argues that Islamic nations assumed for centuries that they were superior to the west, as ordained by Allah, It was an incredible shock to learn during wars with the west that they were weaker, that they had been surpassed. This pride is still in play. Accepting democracy means accepting something western, something huge, something that fundamentally alters their societies. And yet, there are budding Islamic democracies. They will find ways to decsribe their democratic movements as different and superior to western ones. Nonetheless, there are some pertinents facts in reply to your post:First, Islamic imperialism against the west has a much longer history than the reverse. Most of us have forgotten about that, because it is no longer relevant to our lives. At least it wasn't until 9/11. Now some of us are learning about it. But still, that's only to understand. The same can happen in reverse.Second, the US was never an imperialist nation in the ME. The Europeans were, for sure. But not for all that long.Third, the US didn't actually support Hussein against Iran, and to whatever degree it did, it had nothing to do with anger. The US had correctly recognized that Islamism was democracy's enemy, as was hussein. It was strategic, therefore, to balance them off against one another.The US has given Saudi Arabia a pass, but not entirely. There has been, in fact, some pressure for change. And pressure to withhold funding of Islamism. Yet, Islamism is so central to so much of the body politic, that, yes, you're right that the saudis have altered little. Ironically, were the west still imperialist, the US would have invaded after 9/11.It is also critical to understand that our "meddling" (in the post colonial period) as you call it, was, as much as it actually happened, a means of countering Communism. In fact, that was one motivation for undermining Iran's nascent democracy in the 50's. That is, it was believed that the Communists were getting the upper hand there, and might have fomented a Communist revolution. Which is not to deny that Iran's nationalization of oil interests was a factor in and of itself.Finally, we should not entirely associate Islam with the Middle East, as I'm sure you'll agree. In fact, most of the Islamic world is elsewhere. So when i say democratization of the Islamic world is essential, this matter goes beyond that region.One way or the other, no matter what ever other factors, democratization of the Islamic world is the only solution; it is the only means to defeat Islamism, a movement that explains Islamic imperialism against the west and elsewhere, for century after century, including at the very present, once and for all.

Remember when Hitler started out with his persecution of the Jews? Did not the initial, effectual aspects of his action hide the deeper untermensch philosophy behind a swallowable facade. The arguments used as bait were such things as the financial success of the Jews. That the Jews secretly held power and wielded it so as to suck properity from Germany (and the world).The symbols chosen for 9/11 have a parallel here. Strike at that which you are selling to the widespread, yet-to-be-converted public as the reason for your war (in this case "American decadence-in-wealth" and "abuse of power") But only as a step on the way to introducing the real philosophical (or in this case Religious) motivation. People need to be brought gradually if a world wide Islamic uprising is to achieved.Hitler showed how one achieves this. Radical Islam is simply applying the lessons of history.Maybe I'm wrong in thinking some are waving pieces of paper announcing "Peace in our time". Time will tellEdited by iano, : Put American decadence and abuse of power in "" so as not to point the finger specifically at America. We're ALL decadent and abusive of power. Every last one of us

Sounds to me like the well-rehearsed anti-American propaganda that was carefully crafted in the American Communist cells of the early 20th century and reworked for mass consumption by the New Left of the 60s, but what do I know? I suppose I'd be more certain if you'd tossed in the term "imperialist."Be that as it may, let me ask you a question.Can you quote Bin Laden to show that he ever said anything like what you are suggesting?Edit: And by the way, there's historical precedent for America- hatred by Islam because we're supposedly a Christian nation, nothing to do with America's actions. Such as in Washington and Adams' time, when they were dealing with the barbary pirates who kidnapped and enslaved American sailors simply because they were Christian and America a Christian nation. The proof that this was their motive is the Treaty of Tripoli signed by Washington which declared that America is not a Christian nation, which is held up by liberals to prove that we're not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19476

A good read, Steve, thanks.

So, your " personal opinion is that the U.S. had a "punch in the nose" coming."First, it is the US that, ultimately, made the differnece in protecting freedom from the Nazis and then the Communists.Second, if the Islamists, obl being merely one, gave the US what it deserved, perhaps you can tell me why Animists in Sudan, Hindus in india, atheists in China, Bhuddists in tailand, catholics in the philippines, and many others worldwide have incurred the wrath of the Islamists?The left likes to deman the US, likes to think the US is the source of so much of the world's ills, that it meddles as an imperialist. But when a global perspective is taken, the lie of this is revealed. The Islamists are striking for one reason, and one reason only: to conquer the world for Allah, like the koran instructs. But just as the US stood in the way of the Nazis and Communists from their goal to secure the world, so the US stands in the Islamists' way. and that is why they strike the US. They hope she'll retreat from the ME so they can take control of Arabia, then all the ISlamic world...and then they;re coming for us. Fortunately, the US knows this game plan and, please G-d, will not allow it to happen. The only way the US will falter will be if the leftists manage to undermine morale and conviction, in part by successfully spinning the lies about American intent.

Let me guess, you have absolutely no evidence for these ridiculous claims.I'm not a big fan of the UN, but your comments are just sillyEdited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : No reason given.

Not silly. The UN voting record is evidence, always pro Muslim nations and anti Israel. Africa is evidence, where UN allows holocaust of Christians by Muslims. Kofi Annan's shenanigans favoring Iraq et al more evidence.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Some stats on UN composition and voting