Reasons for the crashing in WTC

[DingBat]

Ok, fair enough. I retract that statement.

I was sort of working from the view that the U.S. did nothing militarily, or physically to help with the establishment of Israel. However, I see your point that that may not be as important as the moral and political support.

/bruce

 

[Ryan]

To Dingbat,
First of all thanks for replying to my post in a rational manner.

I disagree with you when you stated that the US didnt have any influence over the establishment of Israel. The Zionist movement within the US prior to WW2 was always present. The influence through political party members, as well as funding them increased that influence. Yes the US wasnt the one to be responsible in the creation of Israel, the UN was. However the amount of influence the US has within the UN at that time was staggering.

Yes, sorry the Peace Keeping mission in Lebanon.

You miss my point with American bases within Middle Eastern nations. You are perfectly correct in saying at that time the US was welcomed with open arms by those countries governments. How about the rest of the population? In fundamentalist governments, or "monarchies" (Syria and Saudi Arabia) that the voice of the people is reflected by the government. That is not the case, unlike a democracy. We vote those politicians in, they must adhere to the majority of the population or else they can kiss their next term goodbye.
The point i am making, is that there is always a certain portion of the population within those countries that disagree and even resent the involvement of the US, in what they perceive as internal matters. It didnt take many people to take down 3000-5000 lives

OBL uses the reason of American bases in Saudi Arabia as the forefront for those attacks on the WTC. Them being within one of the most, or Holiest cities of Islam (Mecca). You also state that i am wrong when i say that these above reasons create an environment for terrorism. Then i ask you, why does OBL have such a great following. Why is there such an anti-US, an anti-west feeling.

Yes the extremists will always manufacture something, but it is the actions of US foreign policy that is at the forefront of what the terrorist perceive as an injustice to them and their people.

No i am not confusing the cause and effect, i am merely stating a point from the other point of view.

BTW your last paragraph stating the terrorists methods and their goal is oversimplifying a problem prevalent for 50 years. If it can only be attributed to those two things, it would have been solved by now.

If you live in Australia, please watch the documentary on SBS tonight called, the Cutting Edge - The Saudi Time Bomb 8:30 EST. The sentiments felt on this program have roots within all Middle Eastern and North African countries.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by DingBat
Ok, fair enough. I retract that statement.

I was sort of working from the view that the U.S. did nothing militarily, or physically to help with the establishment of Israel. However, I see your point that that may not be as important as the moral and political support.

It is mostly true. At the time President Truman didn't take any interest in the Middle East whatsoever (he had many more important things to worry about). He didn't understand anything about the Palestinian/Israeli issue, and didn't support statehood as a kneejerk reaction because the Soviets did. However, one of Ben Gurians close American contacts was a former business partner of Truman, who had a private meeting where he asked Truman to recognize Israel in 1946. Truman agreed and passed his policy decision down to his State Department, which for some reason considered it important and lobbied other U.N. members to help.

Basically, the U.S. supported the creation of Israel because Truman trusted his old friend. In principle he was right, but nobody in the State department could have forseen the long term consequences.

Originally posted by Ryan
OBL uses the reason of American bases in Saudi Arabia as the forefront for those attacks on the WTC. Them being within one of the most, or Holiest cities of Islam (Mecca). You also state that i am wrong when i say that these above reasons create an environment for terrorism. Then i ask you, why does OBL have such a great following. Why is there such an anti-US, an anti-west feeling.

Searching for reasons behind irrational feelings will lead in an endless circle. First of all, Westerners aren't allowed near Mecca, much less American bases. The American bases in Saudi Arabia are hundreads of miles away from Mecca, and aren't allowed near it. OBL said they were in the holy territory, which to him is anywhere in Saudi Arabia, and probably the middle east, or whatever else suits his diabolical vision of the world at the time.

Why is there strong Western resentment? The same reason Germans resented the Jews in the 1930's. They were blamed, often unfairly, for the impotency of the governmental and social institutions to solve their nations problems. There is some rational arguement as to why there is such an anti-Western feeling amongst Arabs, but most of it is grown upon the fear and rhetoric of their leaders rather than actual grievences imposed by any Western power. If those leaders actually took responsibility for the misery of their people they would be the ones who were under constant fear of their life. Much easier to deflect the blame to some far away enemy.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by DingBat
Ok, fair enough. I retract that statement.

I was sort of working from the view that the U.S. did nothing militarily, or physically to help with the establishment of Israel. However, I see your point that that may not be as important as the moral and political support.

/bruce

The US didnt do anything directly, but they did help. To keep Israel in place kept the spread of Communist/Soviet influence in check. Arab countries had a lot of Soviet equipment.

The establishment doesnt automatically mean the start. The connotations derived can be the further strengthening and refining of a state and its government and people.( through social, political, economic aid). Israel was founded in 1948 (i think or early 50's). Up until the Israeli's beat the Arab nations in the Yom Kippur War; cement the fact that a. Israel was established and b. here to stay.

Militarily- Post WW2 (a few years after), the French was the major supplier of military equipment to Israel. Still the US has supplied and continued to supply equipment. Eg the F-16, AH-64, bombs and rockets for those planes. The M-16 rifles, and soon the M4 (M-16 with a shorter barrel). Training their troops through joint exercises.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Greadius


Searching for reasons behind irrational feelings will lead in an endless circle. First of all, Westerners aren't allowed near Mecca, much less American bases. The American bases in Saudi Arabia are hundreads of miles away from Mecca, and aren't allowed near it. OBL said they were in the holy territory, which to him is anywhere in Saudi Arabia, and probably the middle east, or whatever else suits his diabolical vision of the world at the time.

Why is there strong Western resentment? The same reason Germans resented the Jews in the 1930's. They were blamed, often unfairly, for the impotency of the governmental and social institutions to solve their nations problems. There is some rational arguement as to why there is such an anti-Western feeling amongst Arabs, but most of it is grown upon the fear and rhetoric of their leaders rather than actual grievences imposed by any Western power. If those leaders actually took responsibility for the misery of their people they would be the ones who were under constant fear of their life. Much easier to deflect the blame to some far away enemy.

Very nice points.
Yes it would lead into endless and irrational points trying to find the actual cause. One flaw of circular reasoning. But i was replying to a thread that asked for some of those reasons. .

I know that "infidels" arent allowed anywhere near Mecca or Holy sites in general, but it doesnt lessen some people's view that it is "spoiling" that site.
We as ratitional people can see that, but those people saying otherwise hold a greater influence. I am not talking about us, more the people who are willing to do things in pursuit of immoral and unethical things. People who murdered 3000-5000 lives and willing to do so again.

 

[Blitz79]

Okay, I am not being inflammatory cos this is a dodgy topic, however;

Americans are nice people, I know they have the best of intentions, but

a) 500,000 Iraqi children have been killed by US sanctions in the last ten years

b) In a list of 22 countries compiled by amnesty international that engaged in serious torture against their population, the only thing they all had in common was that their police forces were trained and equipped by America

c) Every year since World War Two America has been involved in actively attempting to overthrow foreign governments - nicaragua, chile, iran, cuba, vietnam, laos - many of which were elected and democratic

d) World debt (the financial system of which WTC was a part) kills SIXTY THOUSAND people EVERY DAY. (NOT in the newspapers, though).

I am NOT saying the WTC was justified or right, and I don't want to be misquoted on this, however;

e) Three times as many people have been killed (ie civilians, that is) in bombing of Afghanistan than in WTC. Each of them, and the victims listed above, is a valuable, unique human being.

As we are looking at the reasons, perhaps this needs to come into the equation. I disagree with ALL violence of ALL forms. I totally symapthise with the WTC victims and do not support the action in any way. I am not anti-American in any way.

 

[allhailIndia]

I am sorry for the late post but I was caught up in CIV3.

Anyway, yes I do belong to an urban middle class which is finally learning to stand on its own two feet,economically at least. This has been because the US has pressured our goverments in the past to open up, let free economy principles rule and give the rising middle class greater opportunities.

Why should the US owe anything to the world?? Let me illustrate this with an analogy. Let us assume that there is a rich man in a village who is pretty influential. The rest of the village is in awe of his wealth and will occasionally ask for his assistance in money matters and may be to be an impartial judge. Can he say that he does'nt care as long as it does not affect him or that he is under no obligation to help anybody? Of course not!! THe US is the Headman in the Global village.

About the Cat food argument. If US consumers can spend so much, why cant their government??

About Islam. It is bigots like Dingbat who cause further complications. Just when the importance of understanding and tolerance emerges, we have dingbats like Dingbat ruining it all. If we judge all religions by their fundamentalists, Christians are aggressive converters, totally intolerant slaughtering those they cannot convert, Jews are scheming villains who are up to no good always and Hindus are rabid Mosque destroyers and cow-urine drinkers. We need to get rid of this attitude everywhere.

There is greater fallacy in not spreading "Freedom, Equality and Globalization" than making a mistake spreading it. Why point fingers at caste issues when even in the US a headscarf is enough to set of Alarm bells or a brown tan means imprisonment. No country is free from Racism. Some hide it better than others. At least we in India agree that we have a problem.

The media always seems to give as a wrong impression to conform to peoples misgivings. yes they provide a lot of information, but how they present it is crucial. Even BBC and CNN were at Afghanistan, with US troops, but why does nobody point fingers at them, calling them jigoistic??

The Crux of the matter is that the last ten years' invincibilty has made the US unready for such a catastrophe and are doing anything to say that their government has brought this on them. It is true that the sins of fathers are suffered by their sons.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by allhailIndia

About Islam. It is bigots like Dingbat who cause further complications. Just when the importance of understanding and tolerance emerges, we have dingbats like Dingbat ruining it all. If we judge all religions by their fundamentalists, Christians are aggressive converters, totally intolerant slaughtering those they cannot convert, Jews are scheming villains who are up to no good always and Hindus are rabid Mosque destroyers and cow-urine drinkers. We need to get rid of this attitude everywhere.

My, you seem to have read a lot more into my post than was actually there. If you read it at all.

Here's what I said:

Right now, Islam IS the problem because Islam has been hijacked by militants. The Islam that the Koran represents largely does not exist in the real world anymore.

If the Pope all of the sudden called for another Crusade and ordered all good Catholics to take up arms to liberate the Holy Land and purge those that occupy it, I am quite sure said Pope would be replaced before the week was out. Christians, and especially Catholics would be quick to deny him.

Now, there were many individual muslims who denied Osama and his gang. But there really was no such message from the imams and Islamic leaders at large. For years now the militants have been usurping these positions and have twisted the message of Islam until it is unrecognizable. The fact that many Islamic nations do not enjoy the same secular organization as many western nations makes this trend even more dangerous.

We have to attack the message of the Islamic militants. I'm sure that a great many muslims would also like to have their religion back.

Should we blame muslims in general? Of course not. But to try to maintain that the current state of Islam is not an issue merely to appease our politically correct sensibilities is dangerous and stupid.

Please note the last paragraph. Truly the rantings of a despicable bigot, eh?

I stand by what I said. Islam has been hijacked by the militants. For years, imams and other positions of influence have been slowly corrupted by militants to the point that they no longer reflect the majority, who are peaceful people like those found in any other religion.

Muslims are not "bad" people. But their primary method of representation in the world, Islam, has been twisted by a few into an agent of repression, intolerance, and aggression. The few are giving the whole a bad name. This is a bad thing and it needs to be addressed.

You, apparently, would rather ignore this and use labels to stifle debate.

Hope you have better success reading this post.

/bruce

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by allhailIndia

The Crux of the matter is that the last ten years' invincibilty has made the US unready for such a catastrophe and are doing anything to say that their government has brought this on them. It is true that the sins of fathers are suffered by their sons.

Interesting idea.

I wonder what sort of suffering will befall the sons of Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah fighters?

Or the sons of Indian troops fighting in the Kashmir?

Or is this one of those rules that only applies to Americans?

/bruce

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Ryan

Militarily- Post WW2 (a few years after), the French was the major supplier of military equipment to Israel. Still the US has supplied and continued to supply equipment. Eg the F-16, AH-64, bombs and rockets for those planes. The M-16 rifles, and soon the M4 (M-16 with a shorter barrel). Training their troops through joint exercises.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

It's true that the French were the primary arms supplier to Israel in the 50's. This was in response to Egyptian support for Algerian separatists. This is where all those Shermans the Israelis modified (they're often referred to as the Dr. Frankenstein's of armor) came from.

/bruce

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Blitz79
Okay, I am not being inflammatory cos this is a dodgy topic, however;

Americans are nice people, I know they have the best of intentions, but

a) 500,000 Iraqi children have been killed by US sanctions in the last ten years

Yeah, this is stupid. Historians will look back, if they aren't already, at the decision not to invade Iraq during the Gulf War as a terrible mistake. Yet, at the time, there were so many factors involved: the support of Arab allies, a counter-balance to Iran, etc.

However, the fact remains that Hussein is trying to get his hands on weapons of mass destruction. Maybe you and I can sleep well at night knowing this, but I don't blame the Americans for being concerned.

b) In a list of 22 countries compiled by amnesty international that engaged in serious torture against their population, the only thing they all had in common was that their police forces were trained and equipped by America

Are you trying to say that Americans train police to use torture? I'd also like to see a reference here. I doubt that North Korean or Chinese police officers were trained by Americans.

c) Every year since World War Two America has been involved in actively attempting to overthrow foreign governments - nicaragua, chile, iran, cuba, vietnam, laos - many of which were elected and democratic

No argument here. But all of the examples you have submitted occured over 25 years ago. Can you site which government the Americans tried to overthrow last year?

d) World debt (the financial system of which WTC was a part) kills SIXTY THOUSAND people EVERY DAY. (NOT in the newspapers, though).

Ok, so now that the WTC is gone, do you think that number will be smaller or greater?

I am NOT saying the WTC was justified or right, and I don't want to be misquoted on this, however;

No worries, I know what you're trying to say.

e) Three times as many people have been killed (ie civilians, that is) in bombing of Afghanistan than in WTC. Each of them, and the victims listed above, is a valuable, unique human being.

The duty of the American government is not to the people of Afghanistan. Their duty is to their own citizens.

I think the idea is that, in the long run, fewer Afghani's will die now that the Taliban has been removed. No one knows for sure.

Some could argue that the Americans themselves caused this to happen by not lowering the boom on terrorism a long time ago. bin Laden watched the Americans turn tail in Somalia and he thought they were moral cowards. He misjudged the American people badly and the Afghani's suffered as a result.

[/B]
As we are looking at the reasons, perhaps this needs to come into the equation. I disagree with ALL violence of ALL forms. I totally symapthise with the WTC victims and do not support the action in any way. I am not anti-American in any way. [/B]

While I feel that your beliefs lead to greater casualties in the long run, I wouldn't try to prevent you from voicing them. And I wouldn't label you anti-American for merely writing this.

I, myself, have been labeled a bigot and racist for floating the idea that there may be something wrong with Islam at the moment that requires attention. Some people resort to this tactic when confronted with issues or ideas they would rather not entertain.

/bruce

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I have been following this thread very carefully, and so far, for the most part, it has remained civil, so keep it that way.
This post caught my eye, for it is full of dis-information and something that must be challenged:

Originally posted by Blitz79
a) 500,000 Iraqi children have been killed by US sanctions in the last ten years

Your logic is flawed.
Saddam is the cause, not US sanctions.
As soon as he complies, no sanctions.
Very simple.

b) In a list of 22 countries compiled by amnesty international that engaged in serious torture against their population, the only thing they all had in common was that their police forces were trained and equipped by America

I'm aware of the way AI has been swinging the last few years, which is why I resigned from it.
Training and equiping (both questionable, BTW) is not controlling them, nations are responsible for themselves and their people, not from whom trained them or sold them equipment.
This is a good example of the current trend: "I didn't kill him, he MADE me do it!!!"

c) Every year since World War Two America has been involved in actively attempting to overthrow foreign governments - nicaragua, chile, iran, cuba, vietnam, laos - many of which were elected and democratic

I have seen this accusation for years, and yet it has NEVER been substanicated.
I wonder why?

d) World debt (the financial system of which WTC was a part) kills SIXTY THOUSAND people EVERY DAY. (NOT in the newspapers, though).

World debt...you mean money given on the promise it will be used responcibly and eventually repaid?
I grow weary of people who constanly have their hands in my pocket, and I for one, want the money back.
If they couldn't repay, they shouldn't have borrowed it in the first place.
This goes back to personal responciblity.
As an American taxpayer with a family, every penny of my money given to another nation (most of which are ingrates who demand more and continually default) gauls me no end.
How about we tend to the USA, and they can tend to their own nations.
The EU can afford the burden of the third world, the USA can no longer, our economy cannot handle it anymore.

e) Three times as many people have been killed (ie civilians, that is) in bombing of Afghanistan than in WTC. Each of them, and the victims listed above, is a valuable, unique human being.

This is a flat out lie.
99% of all losses where to Taliban/El Quida, that BS that the bombings were civilain has already been discredited, do not repeat those lies here, if you please.

As we are looking at the reasons, perhaps this needs to come into the equation. I disagree with ALL violence of ALL forms. I totally symapthise with the WTC victims and do not support the action in any way. I am not anti-American in any way.

The reason for the attack was simple:
OBL hates the west, and all it stands for.
The feeling is mutual.

 

[FredLC]

As I am the one who proposed this potentially dangerous discussion, I think that i should add a few lines in this particulary intense moment.

As some people have already noticed by my posts and the two topics that i opened, I am more devoted to discussing motivations and attitudes and reactions trought history than the history itself.

Discussing of the facts, tought raises many moral questions, can be solved by simply showing them. The fact happened, it was that way, period. Now, discussing motivations is, in my opinion, much more inflamatory and interesting.

When I first found this forum, and begun to read the messages, i was amazed with the high quality of the posts, how hard themes were reasonably discussed and all opinions were respected.

That's why i felt safe to open such discussion. Because i assumed that it wouldn't end up in bitter comebacks.

And it didn't so far, but tempers seens to be raising in the last posts, at least enought to make one of the moderators stand up against it.

And i agree with him and think he did it in the right moment.

Please, people, don't let me down; keep my first impression. Let's avoid labeling people with diferent opinions and posting agressive lines.

We are here to talk, not to argue.

Regards .

 

[Blitz79]

Dingbat/Alcibiades, thank you for a mature and reasoned reply to my post. I respect your right to disagree with me and also appreciate your not becoming over-emotive on a difficult issue. I reply here with no intention of offending anyone.

Firstly, is there a problem with Islam?

As indicated in my post, I do not feel the WTC was primarily about religion. I do feel that the Islamic faith was used to mobilise and motivate the Al-Qaida fighters, or whoever they were. Islam - and religion - are seperate issues. All ideologies have been used in one way or another to justify some historical wrong.

Secondly, I should have mentioned that the AI study was taken outside the communist block, during the cold war (mid-80's). Is that relevant now? Probably, because actions do not occur in a vacuum, history is a component part also.

Thirdly, what governments has America tried to overthrow in recent years?

Serbia
Cuba (continuing)
Iraq

Also, nascent States (through assistance, finance and so forth);

East Timor
Kurdistan
Lebanon/Palestine

Alcibiades, Bin Laden didn't fly the planes into the WTC, yet he is held responsible. Similarly, America does not openly torture people, but it trains and equips those that do. How is this terrorism any different? Why is Bin Laden responsible for terrorists he trains but we are not responsible for ours.
Let's judge ourselves in the same way that we judge our enemies.

Why is this relevant to the WTC?

People are motivated by events in their environment. All legal and legitimate means of restoring the (perceived) detrimental actions to the Third World and Islamic countries (Iraq, Palestine) had been scuppered (the USA and Israel were the only countries to vote AGAINST a UN motion calling on all States to renounce terrorism - the implication would have been an Israeli withdrawl from Palestine, by calling for an end to State terrorism).

Secondly, all 'legitimate' military means were skewed against these people, because of their acute conventional powerlessness. However, this is hardly the point as I disagree with all war.

However, it does suggest reasons for the cause and the nature of the attack.

The attack happened to be carried out against America but was really directed against all First World governments - not because we are 'free' and they hate it, but because to a certain extent a lot of live and act in a dreamland where we deny others their freedom and ignore their sufferings - not intentionally, of course - but by implicitly supporting systems and actions that we should not.

Studies vary, but there has probably been more killed in Afghanistan than the WTC, possibly by several factors. I am not saying there is some quantitative or qualitative degree to suffering. I have sympathy for people who suffer wherever they are. A human life is a human life.

Finally, has there been any attempt at a cool, logical, non-emotional debate in our papers and televisions? Why is this? Why do we need to proceed in such a fashion - a noble cause stands by the light of its own reasoning. Are we so democratic and mature that we can no longer think and reason clearly and cooly?

The WTC was wrong, but that does not imply logically that everything we do is right. Everything has a cause. September 11th was a crossroads where many historical lines of force in the World converged in a violent manner.

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by Blitz79
Okay, I am not being inflammatory cos this is a dodgy topic, however;
[...]
a) 500,000 Iraqi children have been killed by US sanctions in the last ten years

What group states this? I have heard someone say this before on CFC and he said it was UNICEF. I went to their website, www.unicef.org, and spent literally hours looking for any statement by them that said US was responsible or that 500,000 children have been killed b/c of sanctions. At least also post about how many Kurdish (sorry if this it the wrong term) children have been killed directly by Saddam Hussein with chemical or conventional weapons, which is part of the reason there are sanctions against Iraq.

I also strong encourage everyone to keep a level head as this is a good thread and would hate to see it closed b/c of a few knot heads.

 

[Evie]

Sanctions against Iraq, in themselves, aren't a bad idea - or weren't - but it's obvious now the sanctions are hurting the people and not affectiong Hussein one tiny bit. America made a good move suggesting a new sanctions system a few months ago, but it should have been done years ago.

As it is, the US govt finally is realizing the mistake it made with Iraq and tryign to correct it, and showing how much of an ******* Hussein is through his reaction to that. But man, they could and should have done that YEARS ago.

 

[Vrylakas]

AllHailIndia wrote: I am sorry for the late post but I was caught up in CIV3.

Now it's my turn to apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I had a very nasty stomach virus Sunday night and yesterday!

I agree with most of what you've posted AHI, but the problem is...well, read all the other posts in this thread. Some are arguing that the problem is that the U.S. doesn't do enough, and others argue that it does too much. Who should the U.S. listen to? To make matters worse, there's a fool in the White House now who thinks it's 1972. But that aside, I stand by my original statement that whatever Washington does, it will little influence what Al Qaeda does or other Islamic extremists. They have their own agenda and they see the U.S. as a means, not an end.

Some have argued here that all religions are the same, that they all have their extremists - and that's true. But religions, like all human organizations, are susceptible to ideological hijackings, and have been known to have periods when the extremists come to power and wreak havoc; a Christian example would be the religious wars after the Protestant Reformation throughout Europe from 1517-1648. Islam is sliding into just such a period now, a time when disaffected intellectuals with extremist agendas are using the religion to agitate for revolution in the Islamic world and rule by their own extremist brand of it. And who do you suppose they picture ruling this perfect Islamic empire...? I don't like to cross-post but here is a sampling of the quotes I had posted elsewhere on another forum. These are quotes by Islamic scholars around the world reacting to the WTC attacks, and the larger issues at hand:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Amir Taheri, an Iranian journalist in Paris, in his article "Islam Can't Escape Blame for September 11th": There is more. All but one of the world's remaining military regimes are in Muslim countries. With the exception of Turkey and Bangladesh, there are no real elections in any Muslim country. Of the current 30 active military conflicts in the world no fewer than 28 concern Muslim governments and/or communities. Two-thirds of the world's political prisoners are held in Muslim countries, which also carry out 80% of all executions each year.

Anyone familiar with textbooks in most Muslim countries would know the twisted view of the world they propagate and the hatred they promote. Anyone who follows the media in the Muslim world would know that the verbal version of the September 11 attacks is an almost daily fare. Go to the internet and check the editorials of virtually any Muslim paper on September 10 and see what they were saying about the West in general and the U.S. in particular. Anyone listening to a sermon in virtually any Mosque, including many in the West, woulde be shocked by the vehemence of the anti-Western, especially anti-American, sentiments expressed.

It is both dishonest and dangerous for Muslims to remain in a state of denial. And yet a state of denial is what we have. When Iran's Khomeinists burned 600 people alive in a cinema, the whitewashers said it had nothing to do with Islam. When the same gang took the American diplomats hostage in Tehran, again the whitewash party insisted that had nothing to do with Islam. And when the suicide bombings bloodied Beirut we were told that Islam had nothing to do with them.

The Muslim world today is full of bigotry, fanaticism, hypocracy and plain ignorance - all of which create a breeding ground for criminals like bin Laden. The principal victims of these criminals are Muslims, who are prevented from developing a modern political culture without which they cannot reform their societies and rebuild their economies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Muqtedar Khan in his article "Some Muslims Give Islam a Bad Name":
Another imam, Fawaz Damra of the Cleveland Islamic Center, was videotaped speaking in 1991 to an Islamic jihad fundraiser in Chicago. He urged the audience to direct "a rifle at the first and last enemy of the Islamic nation, and that is the sons of monkeys and pigs, the Jews." After a local TV station recently aired this videotape, he apologized for making "deplorable" statements in the past.

Such statements are more than "deplorable". They make Muslims look irrational, hateful and kooky. When such statements are made by Islamic scholars, who hold or have held important religious positions, it only gives Islam a bad name but also raises the question, what have these scholars been teaching their congregations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Khaled Abou el Fadl, in his article "What Islam teaches about tolerance":
In Islamic law, terrorism (hirabah) is considered cowardly, predatory and a grand sin punishable by death. Classical Islamic law explicitly prohibits the taking or slaying of hostages or diplomats even in retaliation against unlawful acts by the enemy. Furthermore, it prohibits stealth or indiscriminate attacks against enemies, Muslim or non-Muslim. One can even say that Classical jurists considered such acts to be contrary to the ethics of Arab chivalry and therefore fundamentally cowardly.

It would be disingenious, however, to propose that this Classical attitude is predominant or even that familiar in modern Arab-Muslim culture.

[...]

It is disheartening to hear contemporary Arab news agencies, for example, refer to acts of terrorism in neutral terms such as guerilla attacks (amal fida'i) and to suicide bombers as martyrs (shuhuda).

[...]

Most important, a dogmatic, puritanical and ethically oblivious form of Islam has predominated since the 1970s. This brand of Islamic theology is largely dismissive of the classical juristic tradition and of any notion of universal and innate moral values.

[...]

This contemporary orientation is anchored in profound feelings of defeatism, alienation, frustration and arrogance. It is a theology that is alienated not only from the institutions of power in the modern world but also from its own heritage and tradition...

 

[Vrylakas]

Oda Nobunaga wrote: Sanctions against Iraq, in themselves, aren't a bad idea - or weren't - but it's obvious now the sanctions are hurting the people and not affectiong Hussein one tiny bit. America made a good move suggesting a new sanctions system a few months ago, but it should have been done years ago.

As it is, the US govt finally is realizing the mistake it made with Iraq and tryign to correct it, and showing how much of an ******* Hussein is through his reaction to that. But man, they could and should have done that YEARS ago.

1. Hussein has withheld funds the UN had earmarked for the civilian population and poured those moneys into rebuilding the Iraqi military. If he had followed the UN mandate, Iraqi civilians would not be in the starving conditions they are today. This is the same dictator who has gassed thousands of his own peoples.

2. The U.S., seeing the public relations disaster the sanctions were creating, did attempt to create new "targeted" sanctions last year that would have better ensured Iraq could not obtain components for weapons of mass destruction while completely freeing up all other commodities. Hussein rejected this and demanded all or nothing, and convinced France and Russia - both of whom have pending contracts for oil development in Iraq *after* all sanctions are lifted - to scuttle the plan in the UN Security Council.

 

[Greadius]

This thread is getting testy? I thought it was just getting interesting

Originally posted by Blitz79
Thirdly, what governments has America tried to overthrow in recent years?

Serbia
Cuba (continuing)
Iraq

I thought you said some were democratic? Maybe I was sleeping when those states had open elections. Rather, you just listed three states ran by despots whose grip to power was more important than the well being of their people, and have as a matter of policy killed thousands of their own people. I'd consider the U.S. morally bankrupted if we did anything BUT antagonize those nations.

Originally posted by Blitz79
Alcibiades, Bin Laden didn't fly the planes into the WTC, yet he is held responsible. Similarly, America does not openly torture people, but it trains and equips those that do. How is this terrorism any different? Why is Bin Laden responsible for terrorists he trains but we are not responsible for ours.
Let's judge ourselves in the same way that we judge our enemies.

I agree, lets judge ourselves the same way we judge our enemies. Since, by your logic, we are as guilty as Osama, let us not restrain ourselves, since he didn't restrain them. Let us shed a nuclear winter on those we hate through unreasoned misperception. Then, perhaps, you will understand the profound difference between America's conduct and those of terrorists.

What you're doing is implying that the people who were trained and equipped had their morality implanted in America. Torture is NOT an American export. I don't believe we DO train and equip people with the specific intent to torture. Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, and the evidence does not exist.

Originally posted by Blitz79
People are motivated by events in their environment. All legal and legitimate means of restoring the (perceived) detrimental actions to the Third World and Islamic countries (Iraq, Palestine) had been scuppered

Palestine is not a country. There are always non-violent means. India didn't employ suicide bombers to remove the British, and neither did Israel when it was formed. Those 'nations' choose violence, it is not a choice made for them.

Originally posted by Blitz79
The attack happened to be carried out against America but was really directed against all First World governments - not because we are 'free' and they hate it, but because to a certain extent a lot of live and act in a dreamland where we deny others their freedom and ignore their sufferings - not intentionally, of course - but by implicitly supporting systems and actions that we should not.

This is absolutely ludicrus deflection of blame and vague accusations. They want to kill US because WE support regimes that cause them misery? Aren't we skipping the most important middle man in the process?
Who denies Iraqis their freedom? THEIR Dictator
Who denies Saudis their freedom? THEIR King
Who denies Iranians their freedom? THEIR Ayatollah
Who denied Afghans their freedom? And who delivered it to them?
Negative actions of the U.S. government? There were 3 major military operations in the 1990's. The Persian Gulf War, and the actions in Somalia and Serbia. In all three cases, the U.S. was trying to save MUSLIM PEOPLE from their despotic rules.
Despotic regimes deflect their failures to the Western world because it WORKS. Not because there is an underlying factor or truth to it, but because it allows THEM to maintain power effectively. They hate our freedom, because they don't have it, and instead of blaming their own government they blame ours. They hold the hand that holds them down.

Originally posted by Blitz79
Studies vary, but there has probably been more killed in Afghanistan than the WTC, possibly by several factors. I am not saying there is some quantitative or qualitative degree to suffering. I have sympathy for people who suffer wherever they are. A human life is a human life.

Sources? Who has gone into Afghanistan to do 'studies'?

Originally posted by Blitz79
Finally, has there been any attempt at a cool, logical, non-emotional debate in our papers and televisions? Why is this? Why do we need to proceed in such a fashion - a noble cause stands by the light of its own reasoning. Are we so democratic and mature that we can no longer think and reason clearly and cooly?

There would be a debate if there really was anything TO debate. For most Americans, including most of the educated and intelligent ones, its really a clear issue. The small minority that thinks otherwise is dependent on vague accusations, questionable 'facts', and a beligerent willingness to legitimize the enemy.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Greadius

This is absolutely ludicrus deflection of blame and vague accusations. They want to kill US because WE support regimes that cause them misery? Aren't we skipping the most important middle man in the process?
Who denies Iraqis their freedom? THEIR Dictator
Who denies Saudis their freedom? THEIR King
Who denies Iranians their freedom? THEIR Ayatollah
Who denied Afghans their freedom? And who delivered it to them?

One of the lessons of Somalia is that, to a certain extent, the people involved are often the authors of their own misery.

In Somalia, everyone mouthed words about how terrible the fighting was and how terrible it was that all these people were starving. Yet when it came right down to it, no one was willing to see their clan share any power with any other.

As you stated, the Palestinians could have easily put Israel in a very tough spot by employing the same pacifist tactics that the Indians employed to win their own independence. In fact, given the enormous qualitative and quantitative strength of the IDF, it's the ONLY choice.

However, they chose a different course, which was to look to terror tactics for redress. It is clear that many in the Arab world still believe that military victory over Israel is possible. These people actively discourage any peaceful intercourse with Israel. Hence they are, in some ways, authors of their own misery.

/bruce