Sept 11th - one year anniversayr

[miteyak 0]

I guess the Arabs learned valuable lessons from the post ww2 creation of the Israeli state, were Israeli 'freedom fighters' blew up British, Jewish and Arab civilians on a grandiose scale to attain a glorious end. I believe it could be argued that they set the trend.

 

One man's terrorist...

[miteyak 0]

No one here, I believe, is in any was making excuses for 9/11, merely pointing out that things are not as simple as they seem.

 

As NoFakie suggests, laws should never be transgressed. Violence is the tool of the weak and disenfranchised, it's a state of pity not power, and the developed nations of the world have no call to resort to it.

 

That's not to say force cannot be used to counter violence but It must always stay within the bounds of law, and those laws should show absolutely no bias.

[Ocean11 0]

miteyak,

 

> No one here, I believe, is in any was making excuses for 9/11

- Good, although there are grounds for doubts...

 

 

> I guess the Arabs learned valuable lessons from the post ww2 creation of the Israeli state

- As if they were living in a state of pure innocence before... The birth of the Middle Eastern states was rife with Muslim on Muslim warfare.

 

 

> I believe it could be argued that they set the trend.

- That would make an ... interesting read...

 

 

> Violence is the tool of the weak and disenfranchised

- That's so vague as to be meaningless. It sounds very nice though. Weren't the people on the planes disenfranchised with Stanley knives?

 

So, how would you have the US deal with 9/11? Let's not have a partial historical review, let's consider what should be done...

[miteyak 0]

If you read what NoFakie, myself and others are saying, rather than picking apart bits of what we say (lots of the picking was possible only because we wrote lines not essays) you'll see the answers.

[cal 6]

Sorry for not adding my own essay right now, but where are you guys who are posting in this thread from? Any of you from the US?

[Ocean11 0]

miteyak, answers not seen. Just a lot of rather vague and haughty criticism. What would YOU do? To get more specific, do you think the situation in Afghanistan is looking better or worse than before 9/11?

 

cal, I'm from England. How 'bout you? First I thought you were from the States, but then you use a lot expressions from Blighty, so now I don't know...

[NoFakie 45]

> The 'thinking' and 'culture' of the Taliban is surely not a product of CIA training...

 

Of course not. But the USA supported them. It gave them weapons and taught them to kill. It was fully aware of what they were like. Not arming them, training them and financing them was a perfectly good option.

 

> There is evidence that Saddam had a hand in financing the first attack on the WTC.

 

Most European leaders do not support an attack on Iraq. Even if secret to you and I, such "evidence" will have been shown to them. From their viewpoints, the evidence has obviously failed to convince them that Iraq should be attacked.

 

> - Afghanistan didn't look particularly powerful on 9/10 either, but the 'forces' centered there managed a very destructive attack the next day.

 

Does this mean every country in the world should be invaded for what it might do?

To counter potential threats, most countries use espionage. It would be more sensible to examine why western espionage failed to predict 9/11 and to look at why airport security was so lax, thereby facilitating the attacks. Even post 9/11, a guy was able to almost set fire to his explosive shoes. With smoking banned on planes, why are lighters allowed? This page presents one theory

 

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/stupidwhitemen/onlinechapters/part01.php

 

Maybe this guy's talking rubbish. Garbage. Nonsense. However, the reality is that lighters and matches are still allowed.

 

> This is the message bin Laden sends out in those videos.

- With which you seem to be in perfect agreement.

 

Israel has a record of paying little attention to international law. To deny this is to show extreme ignorance of events in the Middle East. In spite of the Gulf War ending a long time ago, the US has not pulled its forces out of Saudi Arabia. For these reasons, many Arabs have sympathy with bin Laden's messages while rightfully deploring barbaric acts like 9/11. Dismissing all muslims as fanatical, barbaric, and belligerent is pure prejudice. This is real life with real people, not one of those B movies that Ronald Reagan used to star in where everything the heroes do and say is right and everything the villians do and say is wrong. To assume someone who criticizes Israel or the USA is some kind of raghead, nonce, or Arafat-lover is to debase the whole discussion. Idiotic "You're either with us or against us" type comments that people like Ashcroft make belong only in B-movies.

 

A recent No.1 seller at Amazon was "Stupid White Men ...and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!" (see above link) a funny but ultimately serious look at the malaise in the US government. It's popularity strongly suggests many Americans do not like what is going on in their country. There is no need for non-Americans horrified by 9/11 to automatically support the actions of the US government either.

 

The USA is playing a very dangerous game in the Middle East, quite possibly to satisfy its Jewish and oil lobbies and its perceived geopolitical needs. Its aims appear to be irreconcialable, and pursuing them destabilizes the region even further.

 

>Whenever I find myself in perfect agreement with freelance mass murderers, I stop and ask myself 'Is this right?'

 

Who said I or anybody else agrees with them? I repeat, to dismiss all muslims as ignorant is blind prejudice. The USA itself has talked to "mass murderers" in the past. It was at the USA's behest that the UK government finally started listening to Sinn Fein and their grievances. The UK government had been unable to see past the "but they're terrorists" position. Thanks to the USA, some kind of peace in Ireland now seems possible. I don't know whether it is (we are), but Britain should be genuinely grateful for American assistance in this matter. The course America recommended was inclusion and reconcilation within a legal framework.

 

Remember many Irish people have held republican beliefs without ever having supporting the IRA. Muslims are the same. Lots of Israelis don't support Sharon.

 

> the blind support given by the USA to Israeli transgressions has understandably alienated many Saudis

- Understandable if'n you accept the Arab's blind, ignorant hatred of Israel, and all the anti-history that accompanies it.

 

NO! Understandable if you look at the explicit terms of the Oslo agreement. Israel has not stuck to the agreement. Dismissing all criticism of Israel as pro-Arab is blind and ignorant.

 

>wouldn't it be simpler for the US just to buy oil from Iraq?

 

It's not simply a matter of buying oil. It's all about concessions, rates, guaranteed stability of supply. Geo-politics. Though not the biggest (narcotics), oil is the most important commodity in the world. It's not a non-essential product simply bought and sold like a snowboard. Read Daniel Yergin's book "The Prize" to learn more.

 

> I'm not sure how the best example would be set actually.[/b]

 

A couple of steps would be

 

1. Force Israel to pull out of the Occupied Territories in keeping with Oslo. An embargo on weapons to the Middle East would also be extremely helpful.

 

2. Stop supporting brutal corrupt regimes (Saudi, Egypt, Iraq pre-1980, etc), thereby giving legitimacy to any fanatical group that feeds on anti-US sentiment. Propping up the Shah, for example, lead to a popular revolt in Iran that was ultimately hijacked by the clerics who had the most vitriolic anti-US stance. Instead reward moves towards genuine democracy. This will probably mean US corporations lose concessions granted by such the incumbent corrupt regimes. Accept it. Move on.

 

3. Lift sanctions on Iraq. A weakened Iraqi population will never be able to stop Hussein. All sanctions do is to legitimize Hussein further and cause incredible suffering among ordinary Iraqis.

 

4. Pay their dues to the UN. The USA has a massive arrears, and seems disinterested in making the organization work.

 

I think the above four policies simply amount to respecting international law and playing fair. The EU and the separate European countries do not interfere in other countries to anything like the extent the USA does. If anyone can tell me how the USA made the world a better place by its actions in Chile, Nicaragua, Indo-China, Indonesia (viz a viz Timor) etc. I'd love to hear it.

 

Post 9-11, the USA should learn from Britain's experience with the IRA in the 1970s. The British government chose to bring in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, suspending habeas corpus (no imprisonment without trial) in the process. We don't have a Bill of Rights in the UK, so this was possible. To be seen to be doing something, the British authorities responded to terrorist attacks by beating confessions out of the first Irish scallies it could find and by simply inventing evidence, resulting in the wrongful imprisonment of numerous Irish citizens and in more anti-Britain sentiment in Ireland.

 

As a depressing aside, the case made against the Libyan imprisoned for the Lockerbie bombing seems as dubious as those made against the Guilford Four or the Birmingham Six. Even Mandela's been to visit him in prison.

 

What the USA needs to do is to rise above the temptation to give into mob clamourings and knee-jerk reactions. Why not operate within the rule of law? There are certainly enough lawyers in the USA and that's how Americans treat each other. The perpetrators of the second biggest terrorist act in the USA in recent years (Oklahoma) got what was presumably a fair trial. A fundamental principle of "civilized" countries is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Even if the guilty parties can't be found by legal means, at least it wouldn't bring suffering to innocent parties. Military action so far has brought no-one to justice. It has killed many Afghani bystanders. How can it be said to be "working"?

 

[This message has been edited by NoFakie (edited 13 September 2002).]

[sachiko 0]

This is really difficult forr me to understand. But i want to know. Why is US not talking much about Bin laden now? And why all suddenly they become want to war with Iraq. Sometimes US thinking for me is scary. sorry bad english, hope you understand.

[Ocean11 0]

> the evidence has obviously failed to convince them that Iraq should be attacked

- That wouldn't be the first time perfectly good evidence has been ignored by people who ought to know better, either out of simple folly or a refusal to face up to the potential consequences.

 

> Does this mean every country in the world should be invaded for what it might do?

- Obviously not. It depends what a country might do, and the degree of likelihood. I'm not necessarily in favour of invading Iraq either, but I'm willing to consider the possibility.

I agree that better security would be a good thing all round, and that the security assumptions before 9/11 were stupid, and probably still are.

 

> Israel has a record of paying little attention to international law. To deny this is to show extreme ignorance of events in the Middle East.

- And nor do I. But many of Israel's neighbours are known for not being big abiders either.

International law is a fine thing, but it doesn't have a good record as a guarantee of much. I agree that the US and the UK have a big slice of the blame here.

 

> Dismissing all muslims as fanatical, barbaric, and belligerent is pure prejudice.

- And nor do I. But enough of them are to be of concern. Note too that I don't suggest that others of different intensely held religious beliefs are necessarily any better.

 

> To assume someone who criticizes Israel or the USA is some kind of raghead, nonce, or Arafat-lover is to debase the whole discussion.

- Indeed. And nor do I.

 

> Dismissing all criticism of Israel as pro-Arab is blind and ignorant.

- Indeed. And nor do I. And the opposite is also true. I just thought I detected a willingness to accept bin Laden's version almost at face value. I'm glad some of us have come out against that.

 

> oil is the most important commodity in the world. It's not a non-essential product

- Yes, I know that. I get tired of hearing people say 'It's only for the oil' as if they never used a drop to keep their house warm, power their snowboard iron &tc. Certainly I'd like to see the energy alternatives developed so that oil doesn't play such a big role in geopolitics, but we're not there yet. Nor, unfortunately, are we headed in that direction.

 

I have my doubts about your suggested remedies, and your comparison with Ireland. While there were certainly intractible, irrational elements amongst the IRA, with their own poisonous ideology, they were at least a coherent group with the makings of a reasonable agenda. Can this be said of the Middle East? And "A weakened Iraqi population will never be able to stop Hussein."? In a terror dictatorship like Saddam's the populace doesn't rise up even when it's armed to the teeth. When the country as a whole is strong, the dynamics of its stunted polity means it simply goes on the rampage, as it did in fighting Iran and invading Kuwait. It's with an appreciation of this that I think it might actually be a mercy to put a stop to it. Think Pol Pot and the Vietnamese for want of a more wholesome analogy.

 

Finally, to answer your last question, I'd say the jury is still out. A long-term engagement with Afghanistan is clearly required to nurture it as sovereign country, if that is still possible. There's not much room for optimism I'm afraid. Failing that, there will be a need to ensure that it doesn't become a training ground for terrorists again, while we try not to take lighters on planes (I will though).

[blinkin'ek 0]

An excellent read, intellectuals

 

Has anyone else noticed the disappointed tone of the news today, with Iraq saying they're gonna let in inspectors.

 

?

[enderzero 0]

Quite a thread here. It’s a little surprising that so many progressive views are expressed. I wonder (at least in Americans’ case) if someone that is willing to leave their homeland and live abroad is more likely to be less supportive, or at least more skeptical, of the actions that person’s country’s government takes.

 

A few thoughts:

 

- Most Americans are clueless as to what is really going on. The majority of Americans just don’t care. I talk to them everyday. On top of that, I would say the majority of those that do care, or are at least interested, are misinformed. They get their daily dose of world politics from sensationalized broadcasts on Fox News Channel, MSNBC, and the likes. There is a world of difference between reporting the news and analyzing what is going on in the world. These channels are slanted, no matter how you slice it. They are the fresh tomatoes in the corporate-patriotic turkey club of our (my) post-9/11 society.

 

- GWB has an agenda. He has had one since he stole the election. He was able to get away with the Bush Corporation/Family coup d’etat because once again, the majority of Americans do not care. George W. Bush, Al Gore…who cares? At the time no everyday American thought anything important would be happening in the next four years that would put the president in a position that would really make that much difference. So what if a few conservative leaning judges get appointed.

 

The Bush agenda is corporate, corporate corporate. Do what is needed to advance the interests of the corporations that are funding his career and that are making his family rich. I am not saying that Bush’s only reasoning for going into Afghanistan or Iraq is oil, although there is some legitimacy there in part. But you better believe that that is the only issue at hand when you talk about the Kyoto Protocol or the bevy of other environmental issues his administration has hammered.

 

So how do things get better? It has always been my belief that we have to start on a local level. Do things that make the world a better place (you know like get together and hold hands on a grassy mountaintop ). I’m big on the whole idea of one person making a difference. One person can’t do everything, but as long as they are working towards the common good, they are making a difference. I talk to my friends about these things. When someone expresses an opinion that I think is way off base, I talk to them about it, see where they are coming from, and try to leave them with a different point of view.

 

The people that decided to kill on September 11th did so because they hate Western (or more specifically American) society. To them it stands for the unfairness and inequality around the world. And why not? I get a little hot under the collar when I think about the atrocities my country has committed in my name in the last 60 years. That’s what I think about when I see one of the 600 billion American flags in my neighborhood (seriously for those of you that have not been to the states in the last year, there are flags everywhere—3 out of every 4 cars has at least two bumper stickers with “Proud to be an American,” or “Power of Pride.”). But is the answer to this problem to go out and kill everyone that doesn’t like us? Or kill everyone that may want to harm us? Or trample our rights as citizens to try to find the dissenters that may want to change us? How about having some compassion? How about trying to make a positive change in the way the world is run?

[green 0]

A great read, folks.

 

There's not really much to add, but I'm finding some of the recent thinking re: attacking Iraq, attacking DrEvil, etc going down more than a little disturbing. No idea what 'the answer' is, but doesn't anyone else?

[IIIII 2]

.