How bad was 9/11 really

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

For the love of, WHY DO PEOPLE EVEN TALK ABOUT THIS!? Why would anybody look at ANY tragedy in ANY country where ANY number of people died and say "Oh was it really that bad?" What's next? Asking if Columbine was really that bad? Asking if the IRA was that bad?

erttheking:
For the love of, WHY DO PEOPLE EVEN TALK ABOUT THIS!? Why would anybody look at ANY tragedy in ANY country where ANY number of people died and say "Oh was it really that bad?" What's next? Asking if Columbine was really that bad? Asking if the IRA was that bad?

Er...there's a big difference between "Was it bad?" and "Exactly how bad was it?".

The point of 9/11 was to scare America and mess with our heads.

They did that. Better than they should of.

Not much else to say on the subject that hasn't been done to death.

im not american, it was a horrific act of mass murder simple as that.

but whats come from it is horrible. erosion of rights, justification for so many things. hate for a group on an unprecedented level not seen since the second world war. the usa has taken on a war mentality of us and them ruled by fear and thats a scary place for an individual to be in let alone most of a country

Connor Lonske:
They did that. Better than they should of.

Yeah. The terrorists wanted to destroy as much freedom as possible and they succeeded with the aid of the US government.

Seekster:
I wasnt claiming that immigration in America is somehow different than immigration everywhere else, well outside of there being no indigenous "American culture". Its a mixture of many different cultures all melted down and put together.

But there were indigenous cultures in America, and having a mixture of cultures in our country "melted down and put together" (setting aside disagreement that this may not actually be the case) is not unique either.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
I wasnt claiming that immigration in America is somehow different than immigration everywhere else, well outside of there being no indigenous "American culture". Its a mixture of many different cultures all melted down and put together.

But there were indigenous cultures in America, and having a mixture of cultures in our country "melted down and put together" (setting aside disagreement that this may not actually be the case) is not unique either.

Read what I said very carefully please because it was written very carefully. I said there is "no indigenous American culture". Culture, singular. I know you arent one of those who thinks of all native Americans as being the same so don't fall into the trap of thinking of them in that way. The various cultures of Native American tribes were also tossed into the metaphorical melting pot. Their influence on American culture is distinct.

American culture is unique, that is why its called "American culture". Are all individual aspects of American culture unique to America? No of course not.

The more I read this "melting pot" talk the more I get the feeling it's just another rhetorical tool designed to provide a ground for saying "Notice this and be in awe of our awesomeness!"

Seekster:
I know you arent one of those who thinks of all native Americans as being the same so don't fall into the trap of thinking of them in that way.

I never said anything to suggest I did think that way. However my point still stands. Most other countries are amalgamations of separate cultures. France, for example, was not just a plot of land that was always full of French people. There were various Gallic tribes who were conquered by Rome, then invaded by the Franks (who were themselves a confederation of Germanic tribes). You'll see this in nearly every nation. Take a long enough view of history and eventually you will see that every nation is populated by immigrants.

Their influence on American culture is distinct.

Perhaps you could mention some influence on mainstream American culture that Native American tribes have had.

American culture is unique, that is why its called "American culture". Are all individual aspects of American culture unique to America? No of course not.

Every culture is unique, so pointing out that one culture is unique is rhetorically pointless unless one's goal is to cast other cultures as "less unique".

By western standards (i.e. the ones that actually mattered when the response was to be chosen)?

Exceedingly bad. Particularly for a country that thought itself invincible on its home soil.

By global scale standards?

Not much more than a large drop in the sea. Although its ripples certainly spread far and wide anyway.

Vegosiux:
The more I read this "melting pot" talk the more I get the feeling it's just another rhetorical tool designed to provide a ground for saying "Notice this and be in awe of our awesomeness!"

There is no point in pointing out how awesome we are, it is as readily apparent as the sun in the sky. (needling non-Americans with American exceptionalism; one of the small joys on this forum).

Seriously though I am half kidding with you...half.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
I know you arent one of those who thinks of all native Americans as being the same so don't fall into the trap of thinking of them in that way.

I never said anything to suggest I did think that way. However my point still stands. Most other countries are amalgamations of separate cultures. France, for example, was not just a plot of land that was always full of French people. There were various Gallic tribes who were conquered by Rome, then invaded by the Franks (who were themselves a confederation of Germanic tribes). You'll see this in nearly every nation. Take a long enough view of history and eventually you will see that every nation is populated by immigrants.

If you go far back enough yeah sure but saying every country is populated by immigrants kind of destroys the point of having words like "indigenous" or "native". For example you could even call the Native American tribes immigrants if you went back far enough.

As for your other point, note the names for countries like England and Germany. England is derived from Engla land which means "land of the Angles" (yes this is from wikipedia, lay off). The Germans call Germany "Deutschland", literally "Land of the Deutch" or "The People's Land" refering to themselves. France likewise derives its name from the Frankish people.

So what is my point? All of these countries like most European countries were founded as being the land or nation of the native population. The native culture was influenced over time by outsiders but this built off of what was already there. In contrast America has no similar native culture as a nation. Our culture is an amalgamation of various cultures, if you removed all of these influences you would be left with nothing.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
Their influence on American culture is distinct.

Perhaps you could mention some influence on mainstream American culture that Native American tribes have had.

Well lets see, my home state of Texas is just one of many examples of proper names that are rotted in the language of various Native American tribes. In fact from what I could find in a brief google search there are over 2000 Native American words that have contributed to or helped develop words in the English language (at least American english). Food is also an often overlooked area where various native American foods were adopted. There are even some people that say the founders drew some pointers from the Iroquois Confederacy in forming our system of government.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
American culture is unique, that is why its called "American culture". Are all individual aspects of American culture unique to America? No of course not.

Every culture is unique, so pointing out that one culture is unique is rhetorically pointless unless one's goal is to cast other cultures as "less unique".

I have no intention of insulting other cultures.

Seekster:
As for your other point, note the names for countries like England and Germany. England is derived from Engla land which means "land of the Angles" (yes this is from wikipedia, lay off). The Germans call Germany "Deutschland", literally "Land of the Deutch" or "The People's Land" refering to themselves. France likewise derives its name from the Frankish people.

So what is my point? All of these countries like most European countries were founded as being the land or nation of the native population.

Um, no. Absolutely untrue. The original peoples of these lands were mixed with immigrants from other countries. In the case of the English the Britons were invaded by waves of Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes (these last three were from what is now Germany), followed by Danes and Normans (this last group people from modern day France). The concept of England as a unified people didn't exist until the middle ages. Trust me, I'm an English teacher, and a good chunk of the complexity of my job comes from the fact that the language was an inconsistent mish-mash of at least 3 other languages well before America was even conceived of. Meanwhile the German people come from a mingling of various Germanic tribes (named as such by Romans, the Germanic peoples didn't always see themselves as a single group) and Romans and Gauls. Like England, the concept of a German identity didn't really arise until the middle ages. A name does not change history.

Well lets see, my home state of Texas is just one of many examples of proper names that are rotted in the language of various Native American tribes. In fact from what I could find in a brief google search there are over 2000 Native American words that have contributed to or helped develop words in the English language (at least American english).

Place names are a pretty uninfluential impact if you ask me.

Food is also an often overlooked area where various native American foods were adopted.

Ah, now this is true, and Native American foods were vital in revolutionizing western cuisine. But then, they also revolutionized nearly every other cuisine in the world, so to say that they are a meaningful part of making America unique is untrue. Tomatoes are a vital part of many Indian dishes, and corn is served as Japanese food. And of course it seems like everyone in the world (apart from the Chinese maybe judging by consumption statistics) loves chocolate.

There are even some people that say the founders drew some pointers from the Iroquois Confederacy in forming our system of government.

You're going to need to put this in less "weasel-words" and explain in more detail if you want me to buy it.

I have no intention of insulting other cultures.

It doesn't matter if that was your intent or not, that was the effect. Your whole post is the equivalent of a Frenchman saying, "Uh-huh-huh! We French are truly a great people- after all, we use ze fork!"

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
As for your other point, note the names for countries like England and Germany. England is derived from Engla land which means "land of the Angles" (yes this is from wikipedia, lay off). The Germans call Germany "Deutschland", literally "Land of the Deutch" or "The People's Land" refering to themselves. France likewise derives its name from the Frankish people.

So what is my point? All of these countries like most European countries were founded as being the land or nation of the native population.

Um, no. Absolutely untrue. The original peoples of these lands were mixed with immigrants from other countries. In the case of the English the Britons were invaded by waves of Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes (these last three were from what is now Germany), followed by Danes and Normans (this last group people from modern day France). The concept of England as a unified people didn't exist until the middle ages. Trust me, I'm an English teacher, and a good chunk of the complexity of my job comes from the fact that the language was an inconsistent mish-mash of at least 3 other languages well before America was even conceived of. Meanwhile the German people come from a mingling of various Germanic tribes (named as such by Romans, the Germanic peoples didn't always see themselves as a single group) and Romans and Gauls. Like England, the concept of a German identity didn't really arise until the middle ages. A name does not change history.

Well lets see, my home state of Texas is just one of many examples of proper names that are rotted in the language of various Native American tribes. In fact from what I could find in a brief google search there are over 2000 Native American words that have contributed to or helped develop words in the English language (at least American english).

Place names are a pretty uninfluential impact if you ask me.

Food is also an often overlooked area where various native American foods were adopted.

Ah, now this is true, and Native American foods were vital in revolutionizing western cuisine. But then, they also revolutionized nearly every other cuisine in the world, so to say that they are a meaningful part of making America unique is untrue. Tomatoes are a vital part of many Indian dishes, and corn is served as Japanese food. And of course it seems like everyone in the world (apart from the Chinese maybe judging by consumption statistics) loves chocolate.

There are even some people that say the founders drew some pointers from the Iroquois Confederacy in forming our system of government.

You're going to need to put this in less "weasel-words" and explain in more detail if you want me to buy it.

I have no intention of insulting other cultures.

It doesn't matter if that was your intent or not, that was the effect. Your whole post is the equivalent of a Frenchman saying, "Uh-huh-huh! We French are truly a great people- after all, we use ze fork!"

Honestly Kat, I'm not even sure what we are talking about anymore.

Katatori-kun:

Perhaps you could mention some influence on mainstream American culture that Native American tribes have had.

Southern and Meso American tribes actually have pretty pronounced impacts on their areas. But considering Seekster was probably talking about Northern tribes which were ghettoized and the larger ones whitewashed, then you're basically right. The fact that I'm currently in a tribal nation and I can hardly tell the difference is a testament to that. There's just more Casinos, smoke shops and radio ads for various tribal functions (I think the Chicasaws had their inaugurations last week for instance)

Imperator_DK:
By western standards (i.e. the ones that actually mattered when the response was to be chosen)?

Exceedingly bad. Particularly for a country that thought itself invincible on its home soil.

By global scale standards?

Not much more than a large drop in the sea. Although its ripples certainly spread far and wide anyway.

I agree.
It was huge for the US, but not much for the rest of the world.
The US was so confident of the security etc, and then suddenly they lost all confidence so they went paranoid.

When you turn on TV, you see sooooo many documentaries about what happened, and the heroes of 9.11 and every other imaginable version of the incident and its sickening.
It just makes me want to say "Get over it already!!!".

Angie7F:
"Get over it already!!!".

Hey 9-11 happened a decade ago, the Arabs are still pissy about the freaking Crusades.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with American television but if you want to talk a subject that has been covered obsessively (but arguably has a proper amount of coverage given its magnitude), World War II, though in American documentaries it usually starts in 1941.

I just kinda had the realization while reading this that we have essentially turned the victims of the 9/11 attacks into a sort of aggregate (this is the only word I could think of to convey what I mean)martyr.

Seekster:

Angie7F:
"Get over it already!!!".

Hey 9-11 happened a decade ago, the Arabs are still pissy about the freaking Crusades.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with American television but if you want to talk a subject that has been covered obsessively (but arguably has a proper amount of coverage given its magnitude), World War II, though in American documentaries it usually starts in 1941.

Well, WW2 is covered extensively in most countries that was involved in it, including, Japan, US, Germany, Korea and other European countries.
I think WW2 is a topic worth covering because it has so many aspects to think about, like racism/ holocaust, imperialism, tactics etc and everyone involved has something to learn from it, and is interested in it.(hugely over simplifying because going into detail is way too much work)

But with 9.11, the coverage is so one dimensional and only the US is really interested in it.
What is there to learn? That all "Arabs" are dangerous?

Unless they come up with something that approaches the incident from both sides of the story, i dont think I will ever watch anything related to 9.11 again.

Angie7F:

Seekster:

Angie7F:
"Get over it already!!!".

Hey 9-11 happened a decade ago, the Arabs are still pissy about the freaking Crusades.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with American television but if you want to talk a subject that has been covered obsessively (but arguably has a proper amount of coverage given its magnitude), World War II, though in American documentaries it usually starts in 1941.

Well, WW2 is covered extensively in most countries that was involved in it, including, Japan, US, Germany, Korea and other European countries.
I think WW2 is a topic worth covering because it has so many aspects to think about, like racism/ holocaust, imperialism, tactics etc and everyone involved has something to learn from it, and is interested in it.(hugely over simplifying because going into detail is way too much work)

But with 9.11, the coverage is so one dimensional and only the US is really interested in it.
What is there to learn? That all "Arabs" are dangerous?

Unless they come up with something that approaches the incident from both sides of the story, i dont think I will ever watch anything related to 9.11 again.

Both sides of the story? Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization not a nation, I honestly do not care about their side of the story.

Seekster:

Angie7F:

Seekster:

Hey 9-11 happened a decade ago, the Arabs are still pissy about the freaking Crusades.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with American television but if you want to talk a subject that has been covered obsessively (but arguably has a proper amount of coverage given its magnitude), World War II, though in American documentaries it usually starts in 1941.

Well, WW2 is covered extensively in most countries that was involved in it, including, Japan, US, Germany, Korea and other European countries.
I think WW2 is a topic worth covering because it has so many aspects to think about, like racism/ holocaust, imperialism, tactics etc and everyone involved has something to learn from it, and is interested in it.(hugely over simplifying because going into detail is way too much work)

But with 9.11, the coverage is so one dimensional and only the US is really interested in it.
What is there to learn? That all "Arabs" are dangerous?

Unless they come up with something that approaches the incident from both sides of the story, i dont think I will ever watch anything related to 9.11 again.

Both sides of the story? Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization not a nation, I honestly do not care about their side of the story.

That is exactly the kind of attitude that I am sick of.

If that is how you perceive things, why should the Japanese be interested in the US, the Germans interested in the US, the US interested in the Germans etc when it comes to WW2.

Whether it is a nation or terrorist group, religious group, murderer or whatever, people do not attempt suicide bombing for no reason.
Unless the US are ready to try and understand why they were targeted and what the motive is for the attackers, every movie/song/tv drama/ documentary is in vein.

Hence, "Get over it all ready! It was not even that bad"

Angie7F:

Seekster:

Angie7F:

Well, WW2 is covered extensively in most countries that was involved in it, including, Japan, US, Germany, Korea and other European countries.
I think WW2 is a topic worth covering because it has so many aspects to think about, like racism/ holocaust, imperialism, tactics etc and everyone involved has something to learn from it, and is interested in it.(hugely over simplifying because going into detail is way too much work)

But with 9.11, the coverage is so one dimensional and only the US is really interested in it.
What is there to learn? That all "Arabs" are dangerous?

Unless they come up with something that approaches the incident from both sides of the story, i dont think I will ever watch anything related to 9.11 again.

Both sides of the story? Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization not a nation, I honestly do not care about their side of the story.

That is exactly the kind of attitude that I am sick of.

If that is how you perceive things, why should the Japanese be interested in the US, the Germans interested in the US, the US interested in the Germans etc when it comes to WW2.

Whether it is a nation or terrorist group, religious group, murderer or whatever, people do not attempt suicide bombing for no reason.
Unless the US are ready to try and understand why they were targeted and what the motive is for the attackers, every movie/song/tv drama/ documentary is in vein.

Hence, "Get over it all ready! It was not even that bad"

About what I expected, you are comparing Imperial Japan to a terrorist organization.

In Imperial Japan and in Nazi Germany for example you have a nation of people with different views and opinions (and in both those cases you have governments that suppress divergent views and opinions that they disagree with). Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization not a nation. It someone is a member of Al Qaeda it is because they volunteered which means they agree with what the organization is trying to do and can completely justify killing innocent civilians to achieve those goals.

We can deal with the Arab world and correct mistakes in our own behavior there but none of those mistakes justify what Al Qaeda is doing. Al Qaeda does not speak for the Arab World and God willing it never will. There is no peace that can be had with Al Qaeda, there is no treaty to sign, there are no concessions to make and there are no equivalencies to be made between their goals and ours. Please stop trying to make a false equivalency between a terrorist organization and actual sovereign nations. If you want to compare Al Qaeda to something then compare them to the SS, though even the SS had actual soldiers in it.

Seekster:
In Imperial Japan and in Nazi Germany for example you have a nation of people with different views and opinions (and in both those cases you have governments that suppress divergent views and opinions that they disagree with). Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization not a nation. It someone is a member of Al Qaeda it is because they volunteered which means they agree with what the organization is trying to do and can completely justify killing innocent civilians to achieve those goals.

I'd agree. With a nation like Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany or (for something closer to temporal home) present day Iran, you have entire populations on your hands, countless civilians, possible opponents and victims of the regime etc.. With a "select group" like Al Qaida, you don't really get the spectrum of people and views that you get within an entire nation.

Skeleon:

Seekster:
In Imperial Japan and in Nazi Germany for example you have a nation of people with different views and opinions (and in both those cases you have governments that suppress divergent views and opinions that they disagree with). Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization not a nation. It someone is a member of Al Qaeda it is because they volunteered which means they agree with what the organization is trying to do and can completely justify killing innocent civilians to achieve those goals.

I'd agree. With a nation like Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany or (for something closer to temporal home) present day Iran, you have entire populations on your hands, countless civilians, possible opponents and victims of the regime etc.. With a "select group" like Al Qaida, you don't really get the spectrum of people and views that you get within an entire nation.

Yes thats basically what I am saying. We can work out our differences with other countries but terrorist groups are another matter.

isometry:
It wasn't that bad. As you say, the authorities milked it as an excuse for funding wars and taking away liberties.

Already by 9/12 I could see the thing being blown out of proportion, and at no point did I believe any of this crap about needing wars or more security.

And it's for this reason that 9/11 was one of the worst, most significant events of our lifetime.

MoNKeyYy:

isometry:
It wasn't that bad. As you say, the authorities milked it as an excuse for funding wars and taking away liberties.

Already by 9/12 I could see the thing being blown out of proportion, and at no point did I believe any of this crap about needing wars or more security.

And it's for this reason that 9/11 was one of the worst, most significant events of our lifetime.

Its a wonder historians don't have higher suicide rates. Though I do see the irony in faster communication and the availability of more information leading to more widespread ignorance.

[Insert the "I don't want to live in this world anymore" image here]

Seekster:

MoNKeyYy:

isometry:
It wasn't that bad. As you say, the authorities milked it as an excuse for funding wars and taking away liberties.

Already by 9/12 I could see the thing being blown out of proportion, and at no point did I believe any of this crap about needing wars or more security.

And it's for this reason that 9/11 was one of the worst, most significant events of our lifetime.

Its a wonder historians don't have higher suicide rates. Though I do see the irony in faster communication and the availability of more information leading to more widespread ignorance.

[Insert the "I don't want to live in this world anymore" image here]

Was that in response to myself or isometry?

Also, something I saw earlier that I felt like jumping into

Seekster:

About what I expected, you are comparing Imperial Japan to a terrorist organization.

In Imperial Japan and in Nazi Germany for example you have a nation of people with different views and opinions (and in both those cases you have governments that suppress divergent views and opinions that they disagree with). Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization not a nation. It someone is a member of Al Qaeda it is because they volunteered which means they agree with what the organization is trying to do and can completely justify killing innocent civilians to achieve those goals.

We can deal with the Arab world and correct mistakes in our own behavior there but none of those mistakes justify what Al Qaeda is doing. Al Qaeda does not speak for the Arab World and God willing it never will. There is no peace that can be had with Al Qaeda, there is no treaty to sign, there are no concessions to make and there are no equivalencies to be made between their goals and ours. Please stop trying to make a false equivalency between a terrorist organization and actual sovereign nations. If you want to compare Al Qaeda to something then compare them to the SS, though even the SS had actual soldiers in it.

First, why stop at comparing Al-Qaeda to Imperial Japan? Why not compare Al-Qaeda to the US government during World War 2? Both organizations had/have goals. And both organizations have killed people. Innocent civilians no less. What were the incedniary carpet-bombing attacks on Japanese residential areas in 1945 if not a campaign of terror? 500,000+ civilians dead over a one month perdiod compared to 2100 civilians dead in a day. 9/11 would have to happen every day for 8 months to get the same death toll as the US carpet bombings. If you're talking stricly about the measurement of an attrocity, it's unfair to compare Al-Qaeda to the US government because it makes Al-Qaeda look worse.

But you aren't talkng about the measurement of an attrocity I see, you've mentioned the motives of individuals. Well, pilots in the US army hold the air-force equivilant of leutenant, which means they'er commisioned, which means they volunteered. The brass who ordered the bombings were soldiers by choice, and every member of the US army was working towards the goal of defeating both Nazi Germany and imperial Japan by any means nessisary. Basically, they "volunteered which means they agree with what the organization is trying to do and can completely justify killing innocent civilians to achieve those goals." Sound familiar?

Could there be peace with the United States? Not at all. The US issued an ultimatum to Japan stating that the only way the war was ending was on their terms, and when Japan asked for peace not on their terms their responce was to kill nearly 100,000 civilians in a day. When Japan sued for peace again under their terms, the US killed nearly another 100,000 civilians in another day and threatened to kill more. The United States accepted exactly no less than what they wanted, which sounds an awful lot like a terrorist organization to me.

Abandoning my comparison now. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, but you can't dismiss the motivations of people simply by their actions, to do so is to invite a repeat of the same actions that motivated them to kill in the first place. I saw a thread about some kid who killed a bully by stabbing him 11 times in the chest because the Bully was picking on him, and it represents a wonderful mirror image to the feelings expressed by terrorist organizations with regards to the Western world. In their eyes, they're stabbing that bully until he's dead and gone because if they don't he's just gonna go right on being a bully. Does that make them right? No, of course not. Did some kid die needlessly? In my opinion, yes. Is there a dialogue that comes into play when you're dealing with a group like Al-Qaeda? No, they can't be reasoned or bargained with but to dismiss their point of view represents a failure to accept the reason they exist in the first place. I accept that in an entire nation you get dissenting view points and things that don't exist within a selected group, but what is the US military if not a select group? What is any military if not a select group, the US in particular because it is a proffesional volunteer army.

MoNKeyYy:

Seekster:

MoNKeyYy:

And it's for this reason that 9/11 was one of the worst, most significant events of our lifetime.

Its a wonder historians don't have higher suicide rates. Though I do see the irony in faster communication and the availability of more information leading to more widespread ignorance.

[Insert the "I don't want to live in this world anymore" image here]

Was that in response to myself or isometry?

Also, something I saw earlier that I felt like jumping into

Seekster:

About what I expected, you are comparing Imperial Japan to a terrorist organization.

In Imperial Japan and in Nazi Germany for example you have a nation of people with different views and opinions (and in both those cases you have governments that suppress divergent views and opinions that they disagree with). Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization not a nation. It someone is a member of Al Qaeda it is because they volunteered which means they agree with what the organization is trying to do and can completely justify killing innocent civilians to achieve those goals.

We can deal with the Arab world and correct mistakes in our own behavior there but none of those mistakes justify what Al Qaeda is doing. Al Qaeda does not speak for the Arab World and God willing it never will. There is no peace that can be had with Al Qaeda, there is no treaty to sign, there are no concessions to make and there are no equivalencies to be made between their goals and ours. Please stop trying to make a false equivalency between a terrorist organization and actual sovereign nations. If you want to compare Al Qaeda to something then compare them to the SS, though even the SS had actual soldiers in it.

First, why stop at comparing Al-Qaeda to Imperial Japan? Why not compare Al-Qaeda to the US government during World War 2? Both organizations had/have goals. And both organizations have killed people. Innocent civilians no less. What were the incedniary carpet-bombing attacks on Japanese residential areas in 1945 if not a campaign of terror? 500,000+ civilians dead over a one month perdiod compared to 2100 civilians dead in a day. 9/11 would have to happen every day for 8 months to get the same death toll as the US carpet bombings. If you're talking stricly about the measurement of an attrocity, it's unfair to compare Al-Qaeda to the US government because it makes Al-Qaeda look worse.

But you aren't talkng about the measurement of an attrocity I see, you've mentioned the motives of individuals. Well, pilots in the US army hold the air-force equivilant of leutenant, which means they'er commisioned, which means they volunteered. The brass who ordered the bombings were soldiers by choice, and every member of the US army was working towards the goal of defeating both Nazi Germany and imperial Japan by any means nessisary. Basically, they "volunteered which means they agree with what the organization is trying to do and can completely justify killing innocent civilians to achieve those goals." Sound familiar?

Could there be peace with the United States? Not at all. The US issued an ultimatum to Japan stating that the only way the war was ending was on their terms, and when Japan asked for peace not on their terms their responce was to kill nearly 100,000 civilians in a day. When Japan sued for peace again under their terms, the US killed nearly another 100,000 civilians in another day and threatened to kill more. The United States accepted exactly no less than what they wanted, which sounds an awful lot like a terrorist organization to me.

Abandoning my comparison now. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, but you can't dismiss the motivations of people simply by their actions, to do so is to invite a repeat of the same actions that motivated them to kill in the first place. I saw a thread about some kid who killed a bully by stabbing him 11 times in the chest because the Bully was picking on him, and it represents a wonderful mirror image to the feelings expressed by terrorist organizations with regards to the Western world. In their eyes, they're stabbing that bully until he's dead and gone because if they don't he's just gonna go right on being a bully. Does that make them right? No, of course not. Did some kid die needlessly? In my opinion, yes. Is there a dialogue that comes into play when you're dealing with a group like Al-Qaeda? No, they can't be reasoned or bargained with but to dismiss their point of view represents a failure to accept the reason they exist in the first place. I accept that in an entire nation you get dissenting view points and things that don't exist within a selected group, but what is the US military if not a select group? What is any military if not a select group, the US in particular because it is a proffesional volunteer army.

image

Really? I mean really? You are actually trying to make Al Qaeda out to be the equivalent of the US Army in world war II? <censors self>

Before I go bang my head against the wall to try and destroy my memory of ever reading this...whatever it is...chew on this. One of the main differences between a terrorist organization and a military organization is that a terrorist organization typically tries to MAXIMIZE civilian casualties and avoid fighting conventional military forces. A typical military organization, particularly today, will try and MINIMIZE civilian casualties and will seek to find and destroy enemy military forces.

"but you can't dismiss the motivations of people simply by their actions"

Of course you can, no motivation can justify the terrorism.

"but to dismiss their point of view represents a failure to accept the reason they exist in the first place"

Ok this will be a lot easier if you would place post what Al Qaeda's point of view is.

Lilani:
I don't think it was as bad as it could have been, simply looking at the numbers. I mean, imagine if the planes had gone into someplace like Disney World on a busy day. The park capacity of the Magic Kingdom alone is 80,000. Had they crashed the plane there during any major holiday...well, things would have been much more devastating.

I think what makes 9/11 so bad for people is not just the number of lives lost, but what the attack means. The attack was unprovoked, and aimed at a civilian structure that was not in a war zone or during a time of war. A pot shot, basically. The only other attack we've ever had like that was Pearl Harbor. And ever since Pearl Harbor, we've built up a lot of patriotism and arrogance, and began to think we were the infallible paragon of a country. So I think it was simply the shock of coming to terms with just how vulnerable we really are, and how close these people who hate us so much are.

Yeah i dont agree with it being unprovoked. America was responsible for alot of dirty deals and for supplying the Mujahdeen in the Soviet-Afghan war before leaving the country to a civil war after they had inflicted the USSR's "Vietnam" on top of Operation Ajax etc. the American government arent really in a position to claim neutrality

The very fact they attacked the World Stock Exchange because it was an attack on American captialism, They attacked the Pentagon because it is the nerve system of the American Armed forces and they sought to attack the White House because its the head of the so called American Diplomacy..

America wasnt just sitting there eating sweet apple pie when it got attacked

Duskwaith:
America wasnt just sitting there eating sweet apple pie when it got attacked

No, but it wasn't the people in the World Trade Center who were causing those problems. It wasn't them who did those things, and there's nothing they could have done to stop them from happening. "America" as you call it and the actual people of America are two separate entities.

Duskwaith:

Lilani:
I don't think it was as bad as it could have been, simply looking at the numbers. I mean, imagine if the planes had gone into someplace like Disney World on a busy day. The park capacity of the Magic Kingdom alone is 80,000. Had they crashed the plane there during any major holiday...well, things would have been much more devastating.

I think what makes 9/11 so bad for people is not just the number of lives lost, but what the attack means. The attack was unprovoked, and aimed at a civilian structure that was not in a war zone or during a time of war. A pot shot, basically. The only other attack we've ever had like that was Pearl Harbor. And ever since Pearl Harbor, we've built up a lot of patriotism and arrogance, and began to think we were the infallible paragon of a country. So I think it was simply the shock of coming to terms with just how vulnerable we really are, and how close these people who hate us so much are.

Yeah i dont agree with it being unprovoked. America was responsible for alot of dirty deals and for supplying the Mujahdeen in the Soviet-Afghan war before leaving the country to a civil war after they had inflicted the USSR's "Vietnam" on top of Operation Ajax etc. the American government arent really in a position to claim neutrality

The very fact they attacked the World Stock Exchange because it was an attack on American captialism, They attacked the Pentagon because it is the nerve system of the American Armed forces and they sought to attack the White House because its the head of the so called American Diplomacy..

America wasnt just sitting there eating sweet apple pie when it got attacked

Nothing America did justifies what happened on 9/11 and its a sick and twisted mindset that tries to find that justification.

Seekster:
image

Really? I mean really? You are actually trying to make Al Qaeda out to be the equivalent of the US Army in world war II? <censors self>

Before I go bang my head against the wall to try and destroy my memory of ever reading this...whatever it is...chew on this. One of the main differences between a terrorist organization and a military organization is that a terrorist organization typically tries to MAXIMIZE civilian casualties and avoid fighting conventional military forces. A typical military organization, particularly today, will try and MINIMIZE civilian casualties and will seek to find and destroy enemy military forces.

"but you can't dismiss the motivations of people simply by their actions"

Of course you can, no motivation can justify the terrorism.

"but to dismiss their point of view represents a failure to accept the reason they exist in the first place"

Ok this will be a lot easier if you would place post what Al Qaeda's point of view is.

"...a terrorist organization typically tries to MAXIMIZE civilian casualties and avoid fighting conventional military forces."

And the US during World War 2 did exactly the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Village

Meet Japanese village. See also the German Village, both attemps by the US army to re-create typical Japanese and German residential areas to gain insight as to how to most effectively destroy the lives and homes of Japanese and German civilians so as to best wage a campagin of terror on the non-combatants of an enemy nation. I'm not trying to claim that modern armies do this sort of thing but I'm also not talking about modern armies, strictly about the actions of a western military institution during World War 2 and how it's actions corrospond with those of a modern day terrorist organization. Let's not forget who's handbook Al-Qaeda is reading. And in case you're going to mention that the United States was at war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan I'd remind you that Al-Qaeda issued their equivilant of a declaration of war in 1996, and the US has been waging it's so called War on Terror since 2001.

Also, I never claimed that any motivation justified terrorist activites. If my country was run by a totalitarian dictator I would immediately lose any sympathy for dissenting groups if they participated in terrorist activites. I'm merely trying to point out that any complete dismissal of a perspective that isn't in line with your own is willful ignorance and exactly the kind of behavior that radical groups encourage.

Al-Qaeda's perspective? The United States and other western nations are imperialist forces trying to impose their world view on the international community while repressing and villainizing Islam. To them the death toll of the United States and so called "coalition of the willing" vastly exceed their own death toll in their unlawful invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore by having army bases dotted throughout the region the US seeks to exert it's imperialist power in the middle east and bully the leaders of Muslim contries into cooperation. The only reason they attack citizens in their own countries is because they've thrown their lot in with the enemy in an albiet more radical version of the "Not with us than against us" perspective evident in the american PATRIOT act and the culture of fear that's arisen in post 9/11 america. Besides, to them they send the righteous to a glorious death and into the arms of God so even if some good guys die it's all good.

MoNKeyYy:

Seekster:
image

Really? I mean really? You are actually trying to make Al Qaeda out to be the equivalent of the US Army in world war II? <censors self>

Before I go bang my head against the wall to try and destroy my memory of ever reading this...whatever it is...chew on this. One of the main differences between a terrorist organization and a military organization is that a terrorist organization typically tries to MAXIMIZE civilian casualties and avoid fighting conventional military forces. A typical military organization, particularly today, will try and MINIMIZE civilian casualties and will seek to find and destroy enemy military forces.

"but you can't dismiss the motivations of people simply by their actions"

Of course you can, no motivation can justify the terrorism.

"but to dismiss their point of view represents a failure to accept the reason they exist in the first place"

Ok this will be a lot easier if you would place post what Al Qaeda's point of view is.

"...a terrorist organization typically tries to MAXIMIZE civilian casualties and avoid fighting conventional military forces."

And the US during World War 2 did exactly the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Village

Meet Japanese village. See also the German Village, both attemps by the US army to re-create typical Japanese and German residential areas to gain insight as to how to most effectively destroy the lives and homes of Japanese and German civilians so as to best wage a campagin of terror on the non-combatants of an enemy nation. I'm not trying to claim that modern armies do this sort of thing but I'm also not talking about modern armies, strictly about the actions of a western military institution during World War 2 and how it's actions corrospond with those of a modern day terrorist organization. Let's not forget who's handbook Al-Qaeda is reading. And in case you're going to mention that the United States was at war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan I'd remind you that Al-Qaeda issued their equivilant of a declaration of war in 1996, and the US has been waging it's so called War on Terror since 2001.

Also, I never claimed that any motivation justified terrorist activites. If my country was run by a totalitarian dictator I would immediately lose any sympathy for dissenting groups if they participated in terrorist activites. I'm merely trying to point out that any complete dismissal of a perspective that isn't in line with your own is willful ignorance and exactly the kind of behavior that radical groups encourage.

Al-Qaeda's perspective? The United States and other western nations are imperialist forces trying to impose their world view on the international community while repressing and villainizing Islam. To them the death toll of the United States and so called "coalition of the willing" vastly exceed their own death toll in their unlawful invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore by having army bases dotted throughout the region the US seeks to exert it's imperialist power in the middle east and bully the leaders of Muslim contries into cooperation. The only reason they attack citizens in their own countries is because they've thrown their lot in with the enemy in an albiet more radical version of the "Not with us than against us" perspective evident in the american PATRIOT act and the culture of fear that's arisen in post 9/11 america. Besides, to them they send the righteous to a glorious death and into the arms of God so even if some good guys die it's all good.

Yes I am aware of the flawed practice of trying to demoralize the enemy nation by bombing cities. It was a legitimate military theory at the time but I am glad its not in use anymore. As you said its way too close to being terrorism.

Anyway its because of stuff like this that I added "typically" to my distinction between military and terrorist organizations.

As for Al Qaeda's excuses and flawed justifications, screw it its Friday and I am getting off work now.

Also there is no freaking such thing as an illegal war in the first person.

Seekster:
"but you can't dismiss the motivations of people simply by their actions"

Of course you can, no motivation can justify the terrorism.

I don't think anybody here is trying to justify terrorism. But to dismiss the motivations of terrorists is folly. Asking "why did this happen?" and "why did they do this?" is critical if we want to stop it from happening again. We could kill every single Al Qaeda member and do all sorts of things to secure our borders and protect our citizens, but that would not end their cause, or those willing to kill innocents for it. We need to understand their motivation so we know how to take that motivation away.

Dismissing the motivations of groups like Al Qaeda is akin to a smoker getting lung cancer and dismissing the idea that quitting would make a difference. No treatment will be very effective if said smoker has this attitude.

Seekster:
Nothing America did justifies what happened on 9/11 and its a sick and twisted mindset that tries to find that justification.

That's a straw man, nobody here is trying to justify it. Nothing America did justifies it, but it was a reaction to things America did. The attacks were horrific and morally indefensible, but they were not senseless.

MoNKeyYy:
snip

Bear in mind there is considerable debate about whether "al-Qaeda" is actually an organization, or just a set of tactics which were adopted by a whole range of Islamist movements and cells.

But taking the normative view that al-Qaeda is an organization with clear leadership (which I think has become increasingly true), they actually really don't like most of the governments in the Islamic world. They hated Saddam Hussein, just as they hate the Iranian revolutionary government and the Saudi Monarchy. They see these governments much as we do, as corrupt, power-hungry bastards.

al-Qaeda's strategy has always been to goad Western powers into expensive, attrition based wars in Middle East. Why, because having foreign invaders come into your country, bomb the shit out of everything with little regard for civilian casualties and then leaving behind an unstable and corrupt government and a huge mound of corpses helps them recruit.

Sure, maybe we measure civilian casualties in thousands rather than millions nowadays, but it's not that different. Those people are all someone's parents, or children, or siblings, and those people are going to be pissed off. It's inevitable when you invade someone's country that you'll piss them off. When al Qaeda bombs civilians, it's to incite sectarian conflict and push the country deeper into chaos, because chaos, desperation, poverty and the feeling of persecution all feed al-Qaeda's recruitment, and all of this costs the invading Western powers money, huge amounts of money in fact. Osama once talked about "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy".

Bear in mind that the people who decided to take our countries to war knew all this from the beginning. It's written in al-Qaeda's tactical manuals and clearly expressed in broadcasts and interviews. I don't know about you, but I can't help but feel that maybe it's not been a fantastic success.. al-Qaeda is very much kicking around, particularly the Maghreb division which is really stepping up now what with things kicking off in the horn of Africa. There will almost certainly be a round 2, and unless the US radically changes its approach, probably many more rounds after that, and we're all going to be put at risk as a result.

It's really fucking grim, and the US and its allies have done remarkably little to make it less so.

Seekster:

Duskwaith:

Lilani:
I don't think it was as bad as it could have been, simply looking at the numbers. I mean, imagine if the planes had gone into someplace like Disney World on a busy day. The park capacity of the Magic Kingdom alone is 80,000. Had they crashed the plane there during any major holiday...well, things would have been much more devastating.

I think what makes 9/11 so bad for people is not just the number of lives lost, but what the attack means. The attack was unprovoked, and aimed at a civilian structure that was not in a war zone or during a time of war. A pot shot, basically. The only other attack we've ever had like that was Pearl Harbor. And ever since Pearl Harbor, we've built up a lot of patriotism and arrogance, and began to think we were the infallible paragon of a country. So I think it was simply the shock of coming to terms with just how vulnerable we really are, and how close these people who hate us so much are.

Yeah i dont agree with it being unprovoked. America was responsible for alot of dirty deals and for supplying the Mujahdeen in the Soviet-Afghan war before leaving the country to a civil war after they had inflicted the USSR's "Vietnam" on top of Operation Ajax etc. the American government arent really in a position to claim neutrality

The very fact they attacked the World Stock Exchange because it was an attack on American captialism, They attacked the Pentagon because it is the nerve system of the American Armed forces and they sought to attack the White House because its the head of the so called American Diplomacy..

America wasnt just sitting there eating sweet apple pie when it got attacked

Nothing America did justifies what happened on 9/11 and its a sick and twisted mindset that tries to find that justification.

Yeah take the moral high ground on the countless bodies America created in Afghanistan etc. prior to 9/11, but sure they are Americans and mean more than every other person in the world."Sick and twisted mind set" as sick and twisted as all the Americans that cheered and gathered to togeather to celebrate the death of an old man by people they have never met for a crime that he wasnt solely responsible for. Yeah stick the American flag on its "sick and twisted" good to see America didnt become a bigger monster in the process, than the monster they killed.

Im not supporting the attacks but people really need to get over the fact that America wasnt innocently attacked out of the blue, if you show inconsideration for the murder of other peoples then how can you expect them to respect your people? American intervention radicalised sects of Islam-a peaceful and beautiful religion- into anti-american Jihadists.

9/11 killed something like 3,000 people
The Subsequent "War on Terror" has cost 4,000 American lives and Hundreds of thousands of Innocent peoples through out the world. How many of them people deserved to die or is it the fact they dont live in America means they are simply numbers on a page or faces youll never see.

How can you justify that.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked