• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Reasons for the crashing in WTC

FredLC

A Lawyer as You Can See!
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Messages
5,461
Location
Vitória, ES, Brazil
Ok, before i beguin, let me make some absolutelly necessary statements:

1- Nothing justify the slaughtering of civilians. The terrorists responsible are worse than regular criminals; they are WAR criminals and deserve the most harsh punishment possible;

2- I DON'T support terroism in ANY WAY. I believe in peaceful and reasonable solutions.

3- I am not american or afeghan and i don't have any relatives with the slightest relationship with any aspect of those cultures.

4- I'm extremely sympathetic to the victims of the crashing and their relatives, i sincerely hope that they find some way to rebuild their lifes and forget what happened.

I think that making it clear was absolutely necessary not only to avoid being crucified but also to make very clear that the goal of this message is to achieve people's opinions about what was the terrorist's motivation behind the crash.

Due to the excellent quality of the posts i've been reading, i think it's a fine place to have this discussion, and i'm opening it because i really imagined that i'd find it here already and became very surprised when i didn't.

Well, I know that we all have seen in the Media that the Al Quaeda did what they did because they are evil and evil and even more evil and because Bin Laden is the encarnation of the devil.

We also know that they say they are only defending themselves from the "Great Satan", as they put it.

Its a war (can it really be called a war? it's so diferent from anything we have called "war" vefore...) of the "good" against the "bad", each side claiming to be the "good".

But of course it's a very simple-minded approach. I mean, throwing an airplane in 2 civilian buildings (and a military too, i didn't forget the pentagon) out of the blue does show signes of insanity, but the Talibans didn't run into the bullets screaming for Alla after the USA started their military operation, and it shows that they have at least a minimum sense.

Also, it's true that USA keeps a strong presence in that area since the desert storm, and it is a provocation, yes, even if it's not what USA intend.

What i want to know is; just how much the USA military presence and USA external policy worked as triggers to what happened? And if it was a trigger in any sense, what would be a reasonable alternative to what the afeghans did? Let's try to measure just how oversized in the gap their actual act in comparison to what it should have been.

And of course there are also the economical reasons, the clash of cultures, etc...

I'm trying to think with insention, to forget my indignation with the lost of lives and see only the political and historical picture, that is, after all, the porpose of this forum.

please share your insights, fellows.:)
 
The main reason for terrorist acts, namely mass killing of innocent civilians, is simply to gain (usually political) power thru fear. That appears to be the goal. I'm sure there would be no shortage of smug feelings among america haters if the US begins to restrict freedoms in the name of safety.

In the case of islamic extremists killing americans, they take a stab at the hated enemy, kill some infidels (apparently better to kill them than to convert them :confused: ), and supposedly go straight to god. Clearly this is lunacy. Not only do islamic teachers the world over wonder where the crazies get the idea they will go straight to Allah, they accomplish nothing except to fan the flames of hatred.

Why is the US so vilified? I suspect it's both political and cultural. Many of the traits abhorred by the crazies are accepted by western people - from allowing women to be humans to relaxed sexual attitudes, and anything in between. If the US was a dirt poor country with little international influence, but the same exact society it has, they would probably ignore it. But as the bully in the world, it is an easy target for hatred among the world's discontent. If it was the same political and military bully, but an islamic state, they would probably ignore it.

Many terror groups, be they al-Qaida, the KKK, the IRA, or the PLA, recruit angry youth. They provide an outlet - a group that can be hated with some twisted justification - for venting blame and unhappiness. Instead of growing up, these losers keep alive a strange hate - peace can rarely be negotiated because that removes the entire reason for hating. Without that, they end up faced with real lives and responsibility, a much harder task to take on than blaming some group for whatever it is that so incites them.
 
As far as the reasons go, they are many, varied, and mostly off the wall. At least from a rational standpoint. If a group is mad about US troops in Saudi Arabia, there are much better ways to call attention to the problem and get a desired outcome than by attack. At the core, the terrorist miscalculated. There may be many reasons to explain this miscalculation, but it does not change the error. Bombing of barracks in Beruit led to withdrawal. Perhaps that was the logic the terrorists used. Unfortunately they did not and do not understand their enemy. The US is an extremely complex animal that cannot be pigeon-holed on the basis of one or two experiences.

You can argue the right and the wrong of it all day long, but the average American sees themselves as a compasionate person with high moral beliefs. They have a tremendous pride in their nation. We also have an extreme amount of faith in our government (I know you are laughing, but think in terms of the nation slipping into anarchy, or the country defaulting on its debts). All of these are differences from what goes through a terrorist's mind. The terrorist doesn't see the US as a nation of compasionate people. They don't understand the tremendous cohesion that we have when threatened. They misread us at every turn. What lesson did they take from the presidential election problems? Was it that America is so strong and secure that the people weren't nervous. That there was not even a shred of consideration that the army might take over, or rebel bands spring up? The message terrorists likely took was that America lacked basic faith in our government.

These qualities are continuously misread by people who twist history and reality to serve their political ends (This can happen both ways of course)

As far as appropriate responses for their grievances, it is too bad these terrorists can't figure out that a better way might be to take a page from the Indian's book. Try passive resistance. Make your weapon the video camera with which you record the attrocities to show the world's people. Instead of fighting the Israelis, take the passive course and if the Israelis abuse the peace, record it for the world to see. I can't promise that this will produce immediate results, or 100% victory, but terrorism isn't going to work.
 
An interesting, inflamatory topic. :)

My belief is that the Arabic world has lost it's way. Islam has been hijacked by what are essentially "special interest" groups and the moderates have been cowed into silence.

What I'm going to say will undoubtedly sting any Arabic readers. It is not my intent to insult. However, I do think that this is a fair assessment of the situation.

1) With the exception of Turkey, the Arabic world is dominated by non-democratic, military dictatorships or theocracies.

2) I don't have the hard facts in front of me, but I recall reading recently that economic growth in the Arabic states has trailed behind almost all other parts of the world for the last decade or more.

If there has been one lesson in the last century, it is that the answer to hunger, unrest, and turmoil is open, democratic governments, free economies, and a secular society. Small wonder that the Arabic world has seen so much strife. And since the U.S. is the torch bearer for this solution, little wonder that it is the focus of anger for many that prefer tightly controlled societies.

A few words about the U.S. and Israel. As a Canadian, I have more opportunity than most to observe Americans. You might say that to be Canadian is to be a full time American watcher. Americans may be annoying, arrogant, ignorant, rude, whatever. But there are a few things that seem to be misunderstood by the rest of the world.

1) For reasons that aren't totally clear, Americans still feel a kind of guilt over the Holocaust. This is an underpinning of their relationship with Israel.

2) For all it's faults, Israel is a democracy. The U.S. will not easily abandon another democracy, especially to military dictatorships or theocracies.

3) America might look soft to outsiders. To some extent they can become overly involved in their navel gazing. Americans can be awfully confusing at times. Sometimes they'll run with their tails between their legs at the least bloody nose (Somalia). Everything they do in the world is endlessly argued internally in the context of Viet Nam. All of this can make them appear weak. But to mistake that appearance for reality can be fatal, as some have found recently.

One of our Prime Ministers once described living next to the U.S. like sleeping with an elephant: one was affected by every grunt and groan. And, of course, it just gets worse if the elephant is pissed off.

Bottom line: Many Arabs still believe they can resolve their issues with Israel through military force. Until that feeling is finally overcome, there won't be any peace in the area.

Btw, I spent a year in the middle east in 1974, when I was 12. We spent 8 months in Kuwait, then toured the remaining countries. What's interesting is that most of the people we met in Kuwait were displaced Palestinians. Kuwaiti's were really not that involved in the day to day running of their country. Much of that was handled by Palestinians. The Palestinians we met were educated, worldy, sophisticated, and very friendly. I spent far more time with Palestinian children than western children as the British and American families tended to stay in the embassy housing compounds. What was sad was that Kuwait would not allow the Palestinians to become citizens.

I count myself lucky in that I was able to see Beirut before they blew it all to hell. It was truly a beautiful city. Beautiful enough that I still remember it 25 years later. Too bad.

/bruce
 
Bruce, overall a good analysis but I have to address a couple of points.

I don't think it's the "Arab World" as such that has lost its way, just a few heartless and irrational people who are giving good religions (i.e. Islam) and ethnic groups (i.e. Arabs) a bad name.

Yes, countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Iraq are non-democratic and in some ways oppressive. But their leaders, despite their unfriendliness to the United States, would never order or condone terrorist acts like September 11th. Even Saddam, I think, would think twice about such a direct attack. The September 11th events were the kind of thing that Arab leaders probably think about when they sit back by themselves and say, "Now if I could get away with it, here's my dream scenario for sticking it to the Americans..." but as a matter of policy they know it would be utter disaster.

That's where rogues like Osama bin Laden come in. He couldn't have run his terrorist operations from Saudi Arabia. Even before September 11th, the Saudi government would have been smart enough to realize that, if a terrorist attack on the US (or even Israel) was traced back to Saudi Arabia, the political consequences would be dire. Maybe we wouldn't have bombed Saudi Arabia the way we bombed Afghanistan, but we certainly would have made life hell for the Saudi leaders.

So Osama heads for Afghanistan or one of the other states where government has effectively broken down. There's no one to pursue him locally -- what did the Taliban care if America discovered an anti-American plot on their soil? They already saw us as their enemy. And when he does strike at America, the Saudi and Kuwaiti leaders say "Tut-tut, that was bad, not all Muslims are like him," but they don't lift a finger to help root out terrorism. At least not of the anti-American variety. Allah forbid someone should bomb a Palestinean village, the Saudis will be the first to stand up in the UN denounce the evil Zionists. (Not that I am trivializing the deaths of Palestineans -- I am against terrorism in any form -- just pointing out some hypocrisy.)

I think the statement that "Americans still feel guilt over the Holocaust" is a bit inaccurate. Most Americans are barely aware that the Holocaust took place. Some loony hatemongers are even trying to deny that it ever existed. But what we do have in the US are a lot of Jewish families with strong ties to Israel. Many of these families fled from Europe before, during, or after the Second World War. Europe's loss was America's gain, as many of these immigrants built businesses and prospered. And many of them lost family members or friends in the Holocaust. If you have the resources, and feel strong ties to your family and your ethnic group (as many Jewish families do), and you live in an open and media-oriented society like America, you're going to devote some of those resources to making sure no one forgets what happened in the Holocaust. So we have a small, but vocal and powerful, group of Americans keeping the national consciousness focused on Israel. And that's not entirely a bad thing. Still, there is somewhat of a double standard at work in this country when it comes to remembrance and prevention of genocide. Israel gets the full backing of the US government. Bosnians get half-hearted, uncoordinated support. Rwandans get nothing.

Finally, regarding the sometimes deceptive view of Americans as "soft": historically, Americans have wanted to stay out of world affairs as much as possible. But there is one major exception. We won't tolerate a direct attack on our homeland. When this happens, you can guarantee that the whole country will unite in calling for revenge. Osama bin Laden made the same mistake that Admiral Yamamoto made in 1941. The Japanese figured that if they bombed a few military bases and kicked us around the Pacific for six months, we'd fold up and go home. Instead, we shifted our war machine into high gear and didn't stop until we'd dropped a couple of atomic bombs on them.

The bottom line on Americans: you can make fun of us, you can protest our intervention, you can even take pot shots at our military. We'll respond sluggishly, and some of us will even say you were right to do so. But if you attack us on our own soil, we won't stop until we've pounded you flat.
 
I'm not underestimating any of the excelent opinions posted above, but i really expected that i'd find a much larger response due to the fact being so recent that it's direct consequences are still taking place.

I trully wished to see more opinions before i actually posted mine, but since the most expected outcome to an apparently abandoned discussion is to end up in ostracy, i'll add my own spice right now.

A few years ago, i used to collect comic books, and the main source were the Marvel and DC works. One of the last i got was an "Incredible Hulk" edition where the main caracther was invited to join an international paramilitary organization (hehehe... now THAT'S what i call reinforcement).

In order to convince Hulk to join, they showed him an infirmary loaded of war victms of the religious tyrant of a small fictionary country. The very next image was a close up in Hulk's face of indignation, while he said in fury: "Did the USA goverment allow that?".

Ok, so what the hell does that have to do with anything? Simple. Think of the huge doutrination that is envolved in that small, naive comic book.

The message is: Wherever there's something that does not follows USA standarts of behavior, USA is legitimate to interfere. And it's directed to children, to make sure that it's easily accepted within a simple soul full of national pride and little discernment.

Worse than that, it didn't come out of the government, but from a simple citzen working with a minor form of media. Shows that the propaganda is deeply rooted within the USA's citzen's heart and they spread it spontaniously.

Talking in chat rooms of english language (i oftenly do that), i've met many, MANY USA citzen's who really trully deeply believed that every single time that America acted militarely was merely to help suffering people, without any other interest whatsoever.

Now, i'm not saying that the breaking of Civilian Rights is something to be easily tolerated. And i couldn't agree more that Democracy is likely to be the most perfect form of organization ever created, and that it must be encouraged everywhere.

However, in the very heart of Democracy lies a right that is even more basic. The free will. And it applies to nations as well as individuals. If a nation tends to organize itself in any way other than a Democracy, its excercizing it's free will and must be respected, unless threatens others.

Now i imagine that people must be thinking: but in a dictatorial society, the disrespect of free will is the rule. I agree. But, when we see things historically, we see that an imposed form of government rarely works. The values of freedom must grow within a society, not be imposed militarely, otherwise they won't stand long.

I think it's one of the reasons why ultimately Russia's so called "comunism" didn't work. Because it didn't follow the development rules and steps enunciated by Marx. Even being somewhat of a general consent there at the time, it was a brutal overnight change with a high armed interference.

Can we really say that a theocracy isn't the peoples desire in a fanaticaly religious society?

I think that doutrination of "legitimate interference" (that resembles an active variant of the long abandoned term "fair war") is a legacy of the cold war, when the superpowers fought morally for supremacy all around the world.

In this point, i expect people to be coming with two replies: "Moral and Militar responses aren't quite the same" and "we can accept a small evil in order to achieve a greater good".

I think those would be misguided opinions.

After the world war II, it was largely due to USA's "Marshall Plan" of echonomical help that Western Europe and Japan could raise again so fast, therefore avoiding the comunism to have a great appeal there. If Japan and the whole Europe had turned communists, God knows how the world would be today?

That proves very well just how profound a non-military interferecence can be. But that's not even my best example.

It's now public knowledge that the USA intelligent agencies had major rules in the arising of the Military Governments that took over almost the totality of South America in the 50's - 80's (90's had a few remains too) decades. Just look for it and you will find that it's openly admitted now. It was an cheaper, alternative way of keeping comunism away; by closing universitys,censuring debates and killing political dissidents.

That solution wouldn't work on Europe, both due to facism trauma and due to the "importance" of european citzens. A respect that south americans didn't share.

Without that two protecting factors, we here lost our hardly achieved democracies (yes, most of south-americans were democracies back than, yet young and still vulnerable ones) due to the external suport gave to some lunatic generals.

Now,that's another proof of how cruel and perverse that non-military interference can be. because the fact that not a single USA soldier step in our land didn't make a diference in the killing sprees conducted by the military.

I myself have an uncle who was a militant student, that was arrested and tortured and just wasen't killed because his girlfriend's father was a friend of some coronel.

And even if you guys deny that the actual support of USA government helped those dictators, it's also true that there were NO real measure of any kind against them. No military threats. No echonomical embargos, like the one against Cuba. And why? Because it served USA's interests.

Now isn't it a deep scar in USA's "flawless" fight for democracy around the globe?

Now, after reading this, it may look like i hate USA. I don't. And i seriously doubt that, in the same situation, my country, Brazil, would have acted any diferently. And i do believe that USA is a model of internal organization and phylosophical principles. I just recognize a gap between the speach and the reality.

Also, it all must look a little off-topic, but it goes to the heart of the question in at least two aspects, one favorable and one unfavorable to USA:

1th - showing that USA interference wasen't not all that respectful, pacific and uninterested, and even it being a very diferent situation, the echonomic importance of the middle eastern's oil resources make it hard to belive that any act in that region does not have any imperialistc approach.

2th - A citzen of south-america (specially the less educated ones) could, as i explained above, historicaly justify the problems in the continent by the "Evil Interference of the Internatinal Rapines", and therefore hate USA. In some sense, the people in Argentina blaming IMF for it's moratory is doing exactly that. However, we don't bomb anyone or throw planes in buildings. Because that just makes matters worse.

It's true that the form of how the international debts are dealt make them impossible to pay. No Country in debt is able to deal with even the interests. It's a machinery designed to maintain the relations of dominance stable as they are now.

However, one can't solve such matters with terrorism. Attacks don't help. It's more sucide than actual homicide. We didn't have to wait to Afeghanistan to know that, and we don't even feel minimally compelled to act that way.

Together with all that, there's the factor of cultural clash, that i mentioned before and was also discussed within the other posts. I give it great importance, and i think it's a factor even more relevant than the economical and military disavences.

The present islamic theocracies are semi-feudal structures with high repression. The power of the leaders lies in there absolute control of every aspect of the lives of their subjecs.

Control of what he sees, what he does, what he hears, what he (or in this case, "she" fits better) wears, even control of the size of the beard.

To such a leaders, the very existance of a country where the civil freedom is so highly charished is an insult. The well-being of a USA citzen is accused of being libertinism, of offending the Gods, of coming to the price of the exploitation of others.

It's no more than a way to mask there own incapacity to produce. It's a way to keep minds busy in hating instead of thinking that their own misery and in how their leaders are truly guilty for it. And they take it to the ultimate consequences.

It's also the reason why fanatic versions of theier religion are incouraged. It makes the ones in charge inquestionable beings. And it also gives a escape to the population's suffering... Hey, iyt's bad now, but after you die, you'll go to heaven and live in a palace with Allah.

Like i mentioned in the topic "about the dark ages and stuff", when life is miserable and without perspective, the promisse of a heaven's paradise is much more appealing.

In short:

I can understand the Talibans, altough i don't justify them. I can understand why a thieve steals, but i don't justify it. It's all the same idea.

The USA is not the charity helper of the world, but i do think the world is a better place because of it.
 
Originally posted by DingBat
2) ... The U.S. will not easily abandon another democracy, especially to military dictatorships or theocracies.

While all that has been posted so far has been excellent, this particular line is laughably inaccurate. The US has a history of assisting the overthrow of democracies, presumably because they did not take an agreeable stance on some key issues. Fredlc explains this well. It would be far more accurate to state that the US will not easily abandon an ally or economic partner, regardless of government type.

An excellent thread, especially considering the topic could easily turn to sour exchanges...
 
Worse than that, it didn't come out of the government, but from a simple citzen working with a minor form of media. Shows that the propaganda is deeply rooted within the USA's citzen's heart and they spread it spontaniously.

Not quite sure why this is worse than if the propaganda came from a government instead of a citizen exercising free speech. The US got the role of protector of the free world as a result of the Cold War. America's mindset for the 50 years following WWII and even till today is deeply rooted in the concept that Soviet supremacy would be a terrible thing. The entire Cold War was a very intricate dance in a nuclear minefield. A million different factors entered into the equation for balance of power and maintaining this took many different forms. There were also many misconceptions along the way.

Communism was seen as one entity, when in reality it was not. Many of the communist nations were aligned, but this did not have to be the case. Hind-sight is a wonderful thing, but we have to keep in mind that those in the past didn't have it. When South Korea was invaded by the communist north, and then later, communist China joined the war and both countries were supplied in part from the Russians, it is understandable where the concept that communism was out to take over the world comes from. Also when various uprisings were put down by Soviet tanks in Eastern Europe, it also became apparent that communism did not intend to let go of what it captured.

Then Cuba comes along and becomes communist. The US tries to stop it, but screws it up. This of course pisses Castro off, and puts him firmly in the Soviet camp. Then they put missles there which looks like an offensive move. Now I know we already had missles in Turkey, but you have to keep in mind that the U.S. was convinced that it would not start a world war, so it saw those missle as merely defensive (narrowmindedness, but humans can be that way sometimes). Despite the rhetoric that calls the US imperialist, the US is not interested in conquest. It was also not interested in colonialism. In fact that is in large part why the French were not helped in 1954 in Vietnam.

So the US saw itself pitted against communism, a proven (To the US) agressor and repressor. In combatting this evil, methods not normally considered kosher would be considered. Because the US viewed all communism as connected, and because it saw it as an evil, expansive force, any instance of communism forming had to be squashed. This is the theory behind containment. In this context, a nation that would soon move to communism would be considered to be a serious threat. conflict blinders were on keeping the US from seeing that those pushing for communism were not necessarily linked to the 'evil emipre'. Thus a dictator that resisted the communists would be seen as a bettet alternative to a communist takeover, even a peaceful, democratic one.

The mission was not so much to spread democracy, but rather to stop communism. The rhetoric of freedom and self-determination was used for the later purpose rather than the former. It painted the US into the corner of hypocracy. The end result was the fall of communism, and the discreditting of the US.

Currently the US is still in the process of changing its mindset from Cold War to the new reality. The world has rarely known the type of situation that exists today; oe unquestioned superpower with no other nation in direct contention. It is relatively new ground, and the US needs to overcome the baggage of the past and learn and define its new place in the world. This is not going to be an easy process. Wealth is not unlimited and power is not in all cases, unchecked. The world is full of nations that have already realized that they do not need a policeman. I don't yet think that they have defined their place in the new world though.

I am rambling to beat hell, but perhaps that puts some kind of framework around US actions of the past, and the psychology of many Americans. Americans do have 50 years of propaganda that the world was divided into good and evil to get past. We also have to get past the notion that the Cold War was the war to end all wars. This flows into the good v. evil thing. For too manyh people in America the focus was so much on the USSR, that beating that opponent seemed like ultimate victory. Unfortunately the movie isn't over, and we do not get to ride off into the sunset. We are starting to realize this, and Sept 11th was an effective, if extremely painful lesson of this.
 
Very reasonable reply, with wich I could agree almost entirely.

The key word here is "almost".

1th - as to why it's worse to see propaganda coming from a citzen, there's a very simple reason. When a government throws it's propaganda, it does not necessarely believe in any of it. May be simply trying to build a believe, and it may work or not.

There's malicy in that act, yes, but there's always the chance that it will accomplish nothing, and that the misconcepts will not stand, will be forgotten before they do any real damage.

When you see it coming from a citzen, specially in such a situation described above (without any compromisse whatsoever), what you see is a mind already taken; one that already believes in the patriotic nonsense. A sign that the propaganda already worked.

It's a inocent clain that was twisted in order to meet someone's else interests. It's true that all society interfere in the minds of the citzens and shape them somehow, but the technologies that begun to spread in that period - television, mostly - made it reach a whole new level in the USA of a few decades ago.

So it's worse in the sense of showing a deeper stage of development of the "mind control apparatus".

2th - So US naively placed missiles in the soviet border ... with merely defensive porpouses ... meaning no threat whatsoever ... truly believing that it in no way could be seeing as provocation of any sort. PLUS, it was LATER, when the comunists did the EXACT SAME thing, that for the FIRST time one of the superpowers was teasing the other. Man... should we beguin to talk about propaganda AGAIN?

3th - USA is not interested in territory. I agree. And why it should? It's colonialism (a.k.a. - a country being the slave of other country). Very, very innefectve. It's expensive and obvious, and makes everyone who dislike the colonialist right without question.

Does simply that - having no interest in land - makes USA less imperialist? No. Because imperialsm can be expressed in many other ways. Conquering territory is one aspect that the russians used. USA simply imposed it's will, both by assisting the maintance of captalism in Europe and Japan and by overthrowing the democracies in South America.

It's cheaper than keeping tanks and building walls like the soviets did. And, being sutile, it don't give you an image of being a monster, so, it's also a much better political strategie.

3th - Now, about the building of a new kind of conscience within the minds of american citzens, it's truly a good point. The government, however, don't seen to be interested in that. It keeps the i"'m good and who is not with me is not good" policy. Just see how Bush dealt with the question after the crashing in the towers. He said exactly that.

Now, perhaps you can say that even elements of the government are still involuntarely infected by the 50 years doutrination. It is a good point. Also a sign that such a view can still reach the highest places on the government. So, it's a policy that i don't hope to see abandoned anytime soon.

4th - About the comunism threat. You are right, USA felt threatened that other countries might have turned comunist, and for a good reason. And you are right again, the goal was to prevent that rather than keeping the democracy.

Being right about that did nothing but to prove my previous point. How self-centered is that? "Our goal is to prevent communism. To do that, let's turn everybody else in military dictatorships. They don't want it? Screw them, let's do it anyway."

That my friend, is Imperialism all the way.

Now, perhaps you can imagine that it is justified. An american citzen could think that. The trick part will be to convince my uncle :) .

Regards.
 
Fredlc:

I understand the point you are trying to make on propaganda now. I don't necessarily see that it is quite the problem you see. Any view can be taken as the result of propaganda. Also, just about all political speach of any kind is propaganda. It is all around us and by in large we are powerless to avoid all of its effects completly. Because of this I think that we have to judge propaganda on a scale rather than consider all of it bad and wrong. Maybe in a perfect world their wouldn't be propaganda, but....well you know.

As far as the missles go, keep in mind that not every decision is given full consideration and put into its proper context. It would be nice, but between human failings, and political blinders, many decisions of that era were ill-concieved. From the US perspective the USSR was the evil agressor nation. putting missles in Turkey was a method of reminding the foul beast that there would be consequences for further agression. I really don't think that the thought that the USSR wasn't totally bent on world domination was seriously considered. Maybe it should have been, but things just weren't seen in those terms back then.

Point 3: While I support our war on terrorism, I do not like the type of rhetoric that we are using. I cringe at the term "evil-doers." Not that I don't think these people aren't evil, I believe they are, but that kind of talk doesn't go over well in the world. I don't think you are going to find too many people to argue that Bush is an eloquent speaker.

#4 Preventing communism of the Soviet model is not 100% self-centered. Ultimately, preventing communism from gaining enough power to conquer the world (US included) is self-interest, but you can make the same claim about WWII. Did the US serve its own interests in that war? Yes. Did it concern itself with other peoples and nations too? Yes again.

Convincing your Uncle that it was justified would be very hard. It comes down to a question of alternate realities and alternate perceptions. What would have happened without US interference. It is quite likely that things would have worked out better, and I freely admit that. But I don't think that was the view at the time. I think at the time the US thought that communists would take over and that that would be worse than US interference. This doesn't justify the action, but perhaps puts it in some context.
 
I think al-queda did it because they wanted Bush to end his allience with Israel and recognize the taliban.
 
I understand and i actually don't disagree to your point. specially because you didn't justify it, just tryed to put in context. and i never denyed that all those acts were commited within a context. remember, i said that the feeling of being threatened by the USSR was justifyed.

And i also think that the USA's present military act is justifyed, altough i disagree with some aspects i won't dig in.

Just one thing:

"It comes down to a question of alternate realities and alternate perceptions".

That, for saying that it was what the Nation felt as "right" at the time, also works for the Nazis and the Communists and even to the Talibans themselves.

Regards :) .
 
That, for saying that it was what the Nation felt as "right" at the time, also works for the Nazis and the Communists and even to the Talibans themselves.

Very true. That is why we maintain the record of history to learn from our mistakes. We also strive for an open society so that those lessons are available to those who want to see them. All we can hope is that the powers that be take the right lessons.:)
 
Originally posted by Sodak

While all that has been posted so far has been excellent, this particular line is laughably inaccurate. The US has a history of assisting the overthrow of democracies, presumably because they did not take an agreeable stance on some key issues. Fredlc explains this well. It would be far more accurate to state that the US will not easily abandon an ally or economic partner, regardless of government type.

An excellent thread, especially considering the topic could easily turn to sour exchanges...

The American's "history" isn't so bad as you would think. And, you have to be careful judging post-Viet Nam U.S. by pre-Viet Nam standards. A lot has changed since then.

I could also make a good argument that Chile, South Viet Nam, and any other country you feel the U.S. has "otherthrown" were not in fact democracies as they would normally be defined in North America.

Anyway, you are correct that your re-statement of my words is more accurate. :)

/bruce
 
Man, i can't speak for Chile or Viet Nan... but Brazil was a real, true democracy by the time of the military overthrown in 1964. Just check it up.

Not that the USA standarts for democracy are the only ones right or that the fact that some of the countries didn't met them could make them in any way less deserving of respect.

But NOW we are trully getting off-topic here.

Regards.:)
 
Originally posted by fredlc
Man, i can't speak for Chile or Viet Nan... but Brazil was a real, true democracy by the time of the military overthrown in 1964. Just check it up.

Not that the USA standarts for democracy are the only ones right or that the fact that some of the countries didn't met them could make them in any way less deserving of respect.

But NOW we are trully getting off-topic here.

Regards.:)

Brazil is a new one on me. Please enlighten me. What did the Americans do there?

As for standards, I personally don't have much use for that kind of term in this kind of discussion. :)

Standards, by definition, mean everyones playing with the same ground rules. The world doesn't work like that. Each and every country in the world owes it to their citizens to act with self interest. Any other policy and that government is failing it's citizens. So, while it may not be the idealistic solution, the U.S. government not only has every right to judge another democracy by it's own "standards", they would be failing in their responsibilities if they didn't.

We can argue all day about what is or isn't a democracy. My point was that, in most if not all the cases where there was involvement by the U.S., a case could be made that they were not considered legitimate by the Americans.

Agreed, we are way off topic. :)

/bruce
 
I'll be very general here:

Why? Because they are Islamic nutjobs that were told that the U.S. was the "great Satan" (remember, it was the Ayatollah Khomeini who first dubbed that term in 1979.) In terms of citizens (and not the governing dictatorship,) Iran is actually one of the most staunchly pro-Western countries in the Middle East, only second to Isreal.

Why else? They also hate the U.S. for providing help to the Jews, which the Muslim community has an almost Hitler-like hatred of the Jewish. If you don't believe me, take a gander at the Arab League.

Their religion commands them to kill in favor of Islam. People defending Islam as "peace" should read some Koran.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
I'll be very general here:

Why? Because they are Islamic nutjobs that were told that the U.S. was the "great Satan" (remember, it was the Ayatollah Khomeini who first dubbed that term in 1979.) In terms of citizens (and not the governing dictatorship,) Iran is actually one of the most staunchly pro-Western countries in the Middle East, only second to Isreal.

Why else? They also hate the U.S. for providing help to the Jews, which the Muslim community has an almost Hitler-like hatred of the Jewish. If you don't believe me, take a gander at the Arab League.

Their religion commands them to kill in favor of Islam. People defending Islam as "peace" should read some Koran.

If you think Islamist views are so bad, maybe, just maybe, you should change your custom rank. It is quite associated with Islam just now.

Of course, you might also want to inform yourself about the matter and stop seeing things in a "America sword of God, Arabs spawns of Hell" view of things.

FOR STARTERS :

1-There is no "good guy" or "bad guy" down in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Both sides have commited their fair share of attrocities, and both sides have their imbeciles among the leaders (leaders of the Hamas and such, Ariel Sharon (Is he just nuts, or trying to start a third world war?)). It's a complex situation, and simplifying it to antisemit arabs attacking poor jews is quite off-track.

2-Hence, it is perfectly understandable that some Arabs would hate anyone that support Israel, given that that side commited its fair share of atrocities. And the US have done QUITE a lot of support of Israel - including vetoing off many attempts by the UN to issue statements in regard to the crisis.

3-The Koran state that killing in defense of the faith is the only allowed form of killing, but certainly not that it will lead those who do so to heaven. It does not COMMAND then to kill in FAVOR of islam, it ALLOWS them to kill in DEFENSE of it - IE, if the religion of Islam is being attacked, killing in defense of it is less of a sin. However this had been perverted, namely from "killing those who directly attacked islam" (ie, Crusaders for example) to "killing those who pose a threat of some form to islam" (ie, Israeli who "threaten" Islamic people (keep in mind that they were forcibly moved in the region by the UN, without the Palestinian being asked what they thought of the idea) and their land) to "Killing to convince those threatening people to stop threatening us" (ie, slaughtering civilians to force governments to stop interfering with Islam - terrorism).
 
This thread has wandered off topic a bit so I'm going to return to and focus on Fredlc's original question(s):

I think it's a bit premature to bring the U.S. into any discussion on al Qaeda's motives, because I don't think they really considered the U.S. when they planned the whole attack. Rather said, I don't think al Qaeda understands the U.S. or cares much about it.

Bin laden's main concern in carrying out the attacks had more to do with his position in the Islamic world than with the real effects of the attack on the West. Not that he shed tears for his victims, but they were to him incidental, sort of necessary props. The Wall Street Journal noted that prior to the attacks, al Qaeda was seeing its funding begin to dry up and it was becoming more difficult to recruit willing members; the Middle East was quiet in the early and mid-1990s, and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process had taken some of the wind out of the extremists' sails. Bin Laden needed a spectacular stunt to help keep up both the donations and recruits. There's been speculation Bin Laden hoped to provoke the U.S. into an attack on Afghanistan (which he did) that would spark a wider Islamic uprising that would overthrow the Gulf kingdoms. Bin Laden himself would then be able to ride into Riyadh, al Madinah and Mekkah as ruler and liberator. From this perspective it seemed a win-win situation to bin Laden. The Americans would probably be defeated in Afghanistan as the Soviets had in the 1980s, especially since they seemed to be very squeamish about their military engagements; simple terrorist attacks in Lebanon in 1982 and especially in Somalia in 1990 seemingly sent the Americans packing for home. (That bin Laden under-estimated Americans in this regard is an old story in American history. A colleague once put it this way when he said that Americans tended to be very slow to war and almost always unprepared when it comes, but once Americans put their mind to war they won't stop until the enemy looks like Atlanta in 1865 or Hiroshima in 1945...)

Anyway, I am digressing down the same path others already have. There've been several threads asking what the heck is wrong in the Middle East and I've answered a few, one in particular in the "Off-Topic" forum where I quoted at length several modern Moslem writers & intellectuals who all basically say that modern Islam is very sick indeed. They're using the West as a scapegoat for the failures of the Islamic world, using historical Western injustices to justify the Islamic world's current injustices. The Islamic extremists peddle a historical worldview that is very self-serving, portraying Islam as a great and powerful and just civilization that florished until the evil Westerners came along and conquered it, and eventually installed a puppet in Islam's midst (Israel). (Never mind that much of early European history, in fact the very formation of Europe, derived from a common resistance to Moslem attempts to conquer Europe, or that my ancestors spent many centuries in medieval Poland fighting off Islamic Ottoman attempts to penetrate Central Europe from their Christian Balkan base, culminating in the Turkish defeat at Vienna in 1683.) Bin laden and his ilk are using the vocabulary of the 12th century to address 21st century problems. An Iranian writer among those I quoted mentions how when Khomeinists in Iran herded 600 non-extremists into a theater and burned it down, apologists throughout the Moslem world claimed that they didn't really represent Islam - when they do. In the same way that Western nations in their early age of exploration used Christianity to justify their deeds, so now do Moslems use Islam to justify murder and etc. This is the problem.

After the World Trade Center attacks the American President stood up and claimed the terrorists wanted to destroy America's freedoms. In the broader sense this was indeed true; the Islamic extremists (and many moderates, for that matter) would like to destroy whatever it is that makes America so powerful and prosperous. If its freedoms play a role in that equation, well then they have to go. But in reality the extremists don't understand America, the West, or Western concepts of freedom. The plane that slammed into the Twin Towers was attacking an archtype, a symbol of Islamic political and economic impotence. This is why Israel has become a cause celebre among Moslems world-wide, because it seems to represent the magical prosperity and power of the West, in the face of an Islamic world that is (according to some of the writers I quoted) the only major world civilzation in the past decade to see its average living standards fall. The Quran tells Moslems that Islam is the final religion, the ultimate expression of divine will in the physical world and faithful Moslems will rule the world - and yet in today's modern reality, living in the average Islamic state usually means living in a harsh police state with living standards comparable to medieval living standards, with muted single-product economies and impotent militaries. Chinese, Indians, Sub-Saharan Africans, Eastern Europeans, South Americans, and worst of all those damned Westerners - all have seen considerable economic development over the past decade and an expansion of rights and freedoms - but largely speaking (with noted exceptions) not the Islamic world.

Until this changes, you can expect continuous attempts by Moslem extremists to fly passenger jets into buildings. And remember - it's all your fault when they do it.
 
Despite our difference of opinion regarding the Israel issue, I think Vrylakas' last post was most insightful and excellent, and I agree with his conclusions regarding the motives behind and political conditions leading to the attack.

As we became aware this week that nuclear power plants may indeed have been considered as targets for these murderous henchmen, I began to wonder why they picked the WTC rather than a much more destructive target, such as the Indian Point Nuclear Plant, the meltdown of which could have led to the uninhabitability of much of the NY Metro area.

The answer I settled upon is that Al Qaeda wanted to prove the point that the USA is not invulnerable, and win as many hearts and minds in the Islamic world as possible. The belief is that if they could unite all of Islam, they will have an unbeatable force. By essentially NUKING the USA, they would be more likely to horrify and alienate many around the world, including those within the Islamic world, thus undermining their goal. But a few office buildings does not sicken the Islamic populace at large. Of course the problem is that we can't be *sure* of this, and to trust that they would not use nuclear attacks would be foolhardy.

As for the Koran's guidance with regard to infidels, I have never read the book, but I am told it is fairly literally against all non-Moslems, although much is ultimately left to interpretation. Heck, if we followed the Old testament literally, we'd be stoning a lot of people to death right now.

I do believe that one of the most crucial problems is US support of repressive regimes in the region. This ties into Fredlc's point about American meddling in international affairs. The USA has historically supported those regimes that make conditions better for US corporate interests, regardless of their policies towards their own citizens. I believe the US needs to stop supporting repressive regimes around the globe.

It should be mentioned at this point that the US initially (and Pakistan throughout) supported the Taliban because it believed that the Taliban in uniting Afghanistan (unfortunately by military and theocratic power) would make the country safe for oil pipelines such as those proposed by the Argentine company BRIDAS and the US company Unocal (USA's concern) and other trade routes benefiting smuggling operations based in Pakistan (Pakistan's interest). [The source of the above info is "Taliban" by veteran Pakistani reporter Ahmed Rashid]. If we were not so greedy as to further the oil interests represented in the US government by George Bush Sr and Jr (of Zapata), Dick Cheney (of Halliburton), and Condolleezza Rice (of Chevron or Mobil, I forget which), and all the officials paid off by Enron, we would not be supporting the house of Saud, and would be more aggressively developing alternate sources of energy. This sort of business-first policy has gotten the USA in some trouble.

I believe that ideally, we should *allow* theocracies to emerge in the Middle East, and withdraw support of dictatorships such as the house of Saud and Mubarak. We should not be fooled into thinking that demagogues like Osama Bin Laden want democracy for their bloc of countries--they want power themselves.

But the idea would be that common people will grow as tired of holier-than-thou, hypocritical, dictatorial Mullahs as they are of their current governments. This is already happening in Iran, where especially young people want high heels, designer veils, nice watches etc. This path would deprive the Bin Ladens of the opportunity to blame the US for their lack of freedom and for anti-Islamic attitude. The people themselves would ultimately reject religious authoritarianism.

The problem is that in the meantime, before the people have a chance to weary of their religious demagogues, these new theocracies, who would would be supported by the Osma Bin Ladens, may use weapons of mass destruction or support terrorism worldwide, and eventually, like in Afghanistan, the people may become so run-down by war and internal terror, that they cannot mount an effective revolution of their own.

So there is no easy solution even if we recognize and rectify our foreign policy problems.

Basically, I believe that much of the world's problems stem from some people believing they have the right to dictate how others live.

By the way Fred, please enlighten us as to US involvement in Brazil, since I have never heard any such thing before. And, when you list a series of disclaimers how you do not in any way support terrorist actions of a group, but think you "understand" or "identify with" their motivation, it is likely to be interpreted by others that you in some way sympathize with the terrorists. So jingoist reaction is to be expected.

Whoa, this post is *way* longer than I originally intended.
 
Top Bottom