How bad was 9/11 really

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

Duskwaith:
"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.

Not to mention the four other people, including his unarmed teenage son and the wife of his couriers brother who happened to be in the wrong place a the wrong time.

"For god and country" indeed.

ComradeJim270:

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.

Making a terrorist is actually pretty is. First you start off with some young idealistic kid, preferably a student (so basically the Middle Eastern equivalent of a Ron Paul fanatic) then convince them that most or all of societies ills are caused by the West who is arrogant and wants to oppress Muslims and steal all the oil (which is basically how your average Middle Eastern dictator keeps the people united against the evil west). Throw in a large helping of pseudo-religious extremism and you have yourself a terrorists, all set and ready to justify killing civilians to teach the Imperialist west and their Zionist puppet/master a thing or two.

If you find reason in that then it worries me, and yes I did tweak a few things for comic value but that is basically it. Very little of the criticisms Al Qaeda or similar groups make against the USA or the west or whoever has any basis in fact.

Duskwaith:

Seekster:

Duskwaith:

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.

And may Bin Laden rot in hell. You are damn right taking him out was the right thing to do and I won't hear a word otherwise.

You keep saying you arent justifying the attacks and I kinda know what you are trying to say but whether you realize it or not you are attempting to create a false equivalency when there is none. Yes America did a bunch of stuff we arent proud of and a bunch of stuff that have been twisted and lied about by radical nutjobs in certain parts of the world who are sore about Israel and will take any half-truth or outright lie they can find and use against the US. I am not exaggerating when I say that Al Qaeda's justifications for its actions are about as credible as Hitler's justification for going after land in Czechoslovakia.

I think it is a despicable and twisted thing to try and find fault with the actions of the victim to try and excuse the actions of the criminal. Really what you are doing is little different than trying to find fault with a rape victim because she was out in a bad part of town at night wearing a provocative outfit. No I am not exaggerating a bit.

I'm sorry, but how is America the victim?
It's funding of terrorist orginisations, and general assholery around the area came back to bite it in the ass.
How does that make it the victim? It's the one who provoked it....

Magical029:
I'm sorry, but how is America the victim?
It's funding of terrorist orginisations, and general assholery around the area came back to bite it in the ass.
How does that make it the victim? It's the one who provoked it....

America was the one attacked, we provoked that in the same way that a woman in provocative clothing provokes her own rapist (she does not).

Seekster:
America was the one attacked, we provoked that in the same way that a woman in provocative clothing provokes her own rapist (she does not).

The US did train, fund and equip Bin Laden.

The US did supply Sadam with WMD, arms, intel and funds.

Even when the US knew Sadam was using US supplied WMD on civilians, the US did not stop supplying Sadam WMD.

Seekster:

Magical029:
I'm sorry, but how is America the victim?
It's funding of terrorist orginisations, and general assholery around the area came back to bite it in the ass.
How does that make it the victim? It's the one who provoked it....

America was the one attacked, we provoked that in the same way that a woman in provocative clothing provokes her own rapist (she does not).

The only way that analogy would make accurate sense is if the woman (America) was wearing provocative clothing, and then purposely went out and grinded against the first man she conveniently saw in an obvious sexual mannerism (the middle east), and then immediately stopped after a few moments and told the man she had satisfied herself with him and it was time to leave (end of the cold war). And then cries rape when the man tosses a rock through her window the next morning in anger for being used and violated (9/11).

Not to say that America deserved 9/11, of course, but is not always American's whom tout that personal responsibility is paramount in one's life? If you don't want to be attacked by former allies/enemies, don't fuck around with them and then leave them cold turkey and expect them to never want revenge. Quite simple a concept to remember, really.

Seekster:
image

Nothing personal, but every time I see that image macro my first thought is, "Then feel free to leave and don't let the planet hit you on the ass on the way out."

ShadowsofHope:
The only way that analogy would make accurate sense is if the woman (America) was wearing provocative clothing, and then purposely went out and grinded against the first man she conveniently saw in an obvious sexual mannerism (the middle east), and then immediately stopped after a few moments and told the man she had satisfied herself with him and it was time to leave (end of the cold war). And then cries rape when the man tosses a rock through her window the next morning in anger for being used and violated (9/11).

Not to say that America deserved 9/11, of course, but is not always American's whom tout that personal responsibility is paramount in one's life? If you don't want to be attacked by former allies/enemies, don't fuck around with them and then leave them cold turkey and expect them to never want revenge. Quite simple a concept to remember, really.

These analogies are getting pretty labored and a little creepy.

My personal opinion is pretty simple. Innocents don't deserve to be killed.

TechNoFear:

Seekster:
America was the one attacked, we provoked that in the same way that a woman in provocative clothing provokes her own rapist (she does not).

The US did train, fund and equip Bin Laden.

The US did supply Sadam with WMD, arms, intel and funds.

Even when the US knew Sadam was using US supplied WMD on civilians, the US did not stop supplying Sadam WMD.

The US did train, fund, equip, hunt down, and kill Bin Laden.

The US did supply Saddam against Iran, with arms, intel, and funds, and when Saddam acted like a rabid dog he was deposed, captured, turned over to the Iraqis, tried and executed.

If you are going to make statements like that at least get your facts straight and complete the statement.

The USA...we clean up our messes*.

*Messes that become too much of a problem to ignore.

ShadowsofHope:

Seekster:

Magical029:
I'm sorry, but how is America the victim?
It's funding of terrorist orginisations, and general assholery around the area came back to bite it in the ass.
How does that make it the victim? It's the one who provoked it....

America was the one attacked, we provoked that in the same way that a woman in provocative clothing provokes her own rapist (she does not).

The only way that analogy would make accurate sense is if the woman (America) was wearing provocative clothing, and then purposely went out and grinded against the first man she conveniently saw in an obvious sexual mannerism (the middle east), and then immediately stopped after a few moments and told the man she had satisfied herself with him and it was time to leave (end of the cold war). And then cries rape when the man tosses a rock through her window the next morning in anger for being used and violated (9/11).

Not to say that America deserved 9/11, of course, but is not always American's whom tout that personal responsibility is paramount in one's life? If you don't want to be attacked by former allies/enemies, don't fuck around with them and then leave them cold turkey and expect them to never want revenge. Quite simple a concept to remember, really.

You can't be serious.

LOL I love the brinksmanship in this discussion, you keep backing away from just comming out and saying that America deserved 9/11. I am starting to think at least some of you do think that. Well if you do just come right out and say it.

How about former allies/enemies not fuck around with us and we wont have to put them down.

Seekster:
You can't be serious.

I am completely serious. I apologize if behind the wall of "Seekisms" and other arrogances you tend to exhibit, the concept offends you.

Seekster:
LOL I love the brinksmanship in this discussion, you keep backing away from just comming out and saying that America deserved 9/11. I am starting to think at least some of you do think that. Well if you do just come right out and say it.

I do not think so in the slightest, but I also do think that actions have consequences and that even the United States is not exempt from the retaliation of others when they are destabilized and/or used by the United States in pursuit of it's self-interests.

Seekster:
How about former allies/enemies not fuck around with us and we wont have to put them down.

Interesting double standard we have set up here, Hm? If you instigated the reaction that led to the later incident, the initial victim should nut up/shut up and learn to deal with it (or "put them down"). If on the flip-side, however, the United States is completely within it's rights to firebomb/bomb/invade/"put down" whomever dared to strike at it. Because.. United States?

Seekster:
The US did supply Saddam against Iran, with arms, intel, and funds, and when Saddam acted like a rabid dog he was deposed, captured, turned over to the Iraqis, tried and executed.

You forgot WMD as per the Riegle Report by the US Senate.

You do understand that the reason that so many US veterans have Gulf War Syndrome is because of US actions?

Seekster:
If you are going to make statements like that at least get your facts straight and complete the statement.

OK.

The US exported 771 shipments of WMD to Iraq, even though the GWB (snr) knew for years that these WMD were being used on civilians (Kurds in Habjala). This is according to the US Senate Riegle Report into Gulf War Syndrome.
These exports were some very nasty stuff including methods and precursors to make sarin, botulism, gangrene and anthrax.
It also included the delivery methods (crop spraying choppers) under the US Farm Aid scheme.

ShadowsofHope:

Seekster:
LOL I love the brinksmanship in this discussion, you keep backing away from just comming out and saying that America deserved 9/11. I am starting to think at least some of you do think that. Well if you do just come right out and say it.

I do not think so in the slightest, but I also do think that actions have consequences and that even the United States is not exempt from the retaliation of others when they are destabilized and/or used by the United States in pursuit of it's self-interests.

Yeah that argument would fly here if the terrorists attack of 9/11 were an attack on some base overseas. Sure we would be pissed but not enough to go nuts and grind Al Qaeda to a pulp and not care who gets in the way. Americans are not accustomed to being attacked on our own shores and it pisses us off immensely when it happens, particularly when the targets are civilians.

ShadowsofHope:

Seekster:
How about former allies/enemies not fuck around with us and we wont have to put them down.

Interesting double standard we have set up here, Hm? If you instigated the reaction that led to the later incident, the initial victim should nut up/shut up and learn to deal with it (or "put them down"). If on the flip-side, however, the United States is completely within it's rights to firebomb/bomb/invade/"put down" whomever dared to strike at it. Because.. United States?

Nothing the United States did could have reasonably provoked what happened on 9/11. Yet again you try and act like it was somehow America's responsibility to not offend the terrorists and the fact that we did so brought the attack on ourselves.

Its not because we are the United States that it pisses us off, its that they attacked us. It is baffling to me how people in European countries like the UK and Spain just shrug off terrorists attacks like its no big deal. In other words, I don't think Americans overreact to terrorist attacks on our own country, I think Europeans under-react to terrorist attacks against their own countries.

TechNoFear:

Seekster:
The US did supply Saddam against Iran, with arms, intel, and funds, and when Saddam acted like a rabid dog he was deposed, captured, turned over to the Iraqis, tried and executed.

You forgot WMD as per the Riegle Report by the US Senate.

You do understand that the reason that so many US veterans have Gulf War Syndrome is because of US actions?

Seekster:
If you are going to make statements like that at least get your facts straight and complete the statement.

OK.

The US exported 771 shipments of WMD to Iraq, even though the GWB (snr) knew for years that these WMD were being used on civilians (Kurds in Habjala). This is according to the US Senate Riegle Report into Gulf War Syndrome.
These exports were some very nasty stuff including methods and precursors to make sarin, botulism, gangrene and anthrax.
It also included the delivery methods (crop spraying choppers) under the US Farm Aid scheme.

The retarded genius of bureaucracy.

You did make an error of fact though. The Riegle Report shows that the United States government approved the sale of potentially lethal biological agents that could be using in biological warfare between the years of 1985 and 1989. However the Halabja attacks occurred in 1988. You said that President George HW Bush knew about the attack for years. Its impossible for that to be the case. At most he knew about it for one year but even this is unlikely. At the time the US and Iraq were still allies and Saddam blamed the attack on Iran. The United States government for some time went along with the idea that Iran was responsible and said that the images of the attack could not be verified to be the responsibility of Iraq. I imagine this stance was not changed for months and when it finally was the US Government stopped supplying Saddam with those biological agents.

In short, once America was forced to admit that Saddam had been using biological and chemical weapons against his own people we stopped selling them to him. It was a mistake to sell those things to him in the first place but you assertion that we knowingly sold Saddam WMDs after knowing that he had used them on his own people is simply false.

Seekster:
The US did train, fund, equip, hunt down, and kill Bin Laden.

The US did supply Saddam against Iran, with arms, intel, and funds, and when Saddam acted like a rabid dog he was deposed, captured, turned over to the Iraqis, tried and executed.

If you are going to make statements like that at least get your facts straight and complete the statement.

The USA...we clean up our messes*.

*Messes that become too much of a problem to ignore.

No, we don't. We sweep them under the carpet and pretend they're not there anymore. Killing Bin Laden and ending the Baath regime have not made made America safer and more American lives have been lost in the process than died on 9/11. Oh, and we also alienated our allies (including one with nuclear weapons) and galvanized our enemies.

Seekster:
You can't be serious.

LOL I love the brinksmanship in this discussion, you keep backing away from just comming out and saying that America deserved 9/11. I am starting to think at least some of you do think that. Well if you do just come right out and say it.

How about former allies/enemies not fuck around with us and we wont have to put them down.

Nobody here thinks America "deserved" 9/11. Nobody here has made that claim, except your straw men.

What people here have said, and what many Americans (rather disconcertingly) refuse to believe, is that the 9/11 attacks were a response. They were a reaction. Al Qaeda is not a cartoonishly evil organization like SPECTRE from the Bond films, or comic book villains. They did not kill all those people for shits and giggles. Many, many people are outraged with US foreign policy and have good reason to be, and it was only a matter of time before some of those people became extremists and responded with horrible acts of violence.

The US did not "deserve" 9/11... but if you play with fire, sooner or later you're going to get burned. If you push people around (for any reason) sooner or later they're going to push back, and you shouldn't be all that surprised when they push back hard.

Seekster:
In short, once America was forced to admit that Saddam had been using biological and chemical weapons against his own people we stopped selling them to him. It was a mistake to sell those things to him in the first place but you assertion that we knowingly sold Saddam WMDs after knowing that he had used them on his own people is simply false.

No the US did not. Please link me to reports stating this.

Or google Joost Hiltermann

His report shows clearly that the US government knew in 1988 was Sadam (not Iran) using the WMD (supplied by the US).

Also Halabja was not the first and only occassion Iraq used WMD on civillians (or troops), it is the best known and most egregious example.

Also Rumsfeld visited Sadam in 1983 and 1984.

US documents make it clear that the US knew Sadam was using (banned) WMD from 1983 on Iranians and Kurds. [GWB srn being vice pres from 1981 - 1989 before he became pres]

ComradeJim270:

Seekster:
The US did train, fund, equip, hunt down, and kill Bin Laden.

The US did supply Saddam against Iran, with arms, intel, and funds, and when Saddam acted like a rabid dog he was deposed, captured, turned over to the Iraqis, tried and executed.

If you are going to make statements like that at least get your facts straight and complete the statement.

The USA...we clean up our messes*.

*Messes that become too much of a problem to ignore.

No, we don't. We sweep them under the carpet and pretend they're not there anymore. Killing Bin Laden and ending the Baath regime have not made made America safer and more American lives have been lost in the process than died on 9/11. Oh, and we also alienated our allies (including one with nuclear weapons) and galvanized our enemies.

Seekster:
You can't be serious.

LOL I love the brinksmanship in this discussion, you keep backing away from just comming out and saying that America deserved 9/11. I am starting to think at least some of you do think that. Well if you do just come right out and say it.

How about former allies/enemies not fuck around with us and we wont have to put them down.

Nobody here thinks America "deserved" 9/11. Nobody here has made that claim, except your straw men.

What people here have said, and what many Americans (rather disconcertingly) refuse to believe, is that the 9/11 attacks were a response. They were a reaction. Al Qaeda is not a cartoonishly evil organization like SPECTRE from the Bond films, or comic book villains. They did not kill all those people for shits and giggles. Many, many people are outraged with US foreign policy and have good reason to be, and it was only a matter of time before some of those people became extremists and responded with horrible acts of violence.

The US did not "deserve" 9/11... but if you play with fire, sooner or later you're going to get burned. If you push people around (for any reason) sooner or later they're going to push back, and you shouldn't be all that surprised when they push back hard.

Fine, then Afghanistan and Iraq were a reaction to what Al Qaeda did (while we are making false equivalencies) so maybe Al Qaeda should stop and think about what it did.

Al Qaeda is plenty evil. Captain Planet villian evil? Probably not, but we could much more easily talk with Iran before we could talk with Al Qaeda.

If those extremists attack the United States or our allies they will be dealt with. Yes we can do better on foreign policy but when it comes to terrorists there is only one solution, kill them and try to create an environment where terrorism does not flourish.

TechNoFear:

Seekster:
In short, once America was forced to admit that Saddam had been using biological and chemical weapons against his own people we stopped selling them to him. It was a mistake to sell those things to him in the first place but you assertion that we knowingly sold Saddam WMDs after knowing that he had used them on his own people is simply false.

No the US did not. Please link me to reports stating this.

Or google Joost Hiltermann

His report shows clearly that the US government knew in 1988 was Sadam (not Iran) using the WMD (supplied by the US).

Also Halabja was not the first and only occassion Iraq used WMD on civillians (or troops), it is the best known and most egregious example.

Also Rumsfeld visited Sadam in 1983 and 1984.

US documents make it clear that the US knew Sadam was using (banned) WMD from 1983 on Iranians and Kurds. [GWB srn being vice pres from 1981 - 1989 before he became pres]

Hey you havnt linked a bloody thing since you started making these claims and you have already made one error of fact so you post some links to support your claims and I promise you will give them consideration.

What month in 1988? When did we approve the sale of weapons and when did we finally realize it was Saddam (thats with two Ds, not going to be a grammar nazi but seriously who is Sadam)?

Of course Rumsfeld vistited Saddam back then, he was our ally at the time after all. In World War II US officials visited with Soviet officials. That means about the same thing as Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam.

Is this the same US intelligence community that new Saddam had WMDs prior to the 2003 invasion?

Seekster:

Its not because we are the United States that it pisses us off, its that they attacked us. It is baffling to me how people in European countries like the UK and Spain just shrug off terrorists attacks like its no big deal. In other words, I don't think Americans overreact to terrorist attacks on our own country, I think Europeans under-react to terrorist attacks against their own countries.

Pearl Harbor and 9/11 hold far more significance in the American public eye because they're so unique. The American homeland doesn't get attacked.

Britain has become rather used to being attacked on its homeland by foreign influences (First and Second World Wars in particular); it's not something new to us. Speaking a little more recently, we only have to look at The Troubles (which I'm sure I needn't remind you was partly American funded).

Think of it this way: America's response to 9/11 is rather like that of a young bear stung by a wasp for the first time. The sting (9/11) is a pretty minor injury, but the bear responds by thrashing around, howling in pain and trampling all over everything else. It hasn't experienced that kind of pain before; it can't understand how anything could be worse.

Britain's more like an old, feral cat. It's had chunks of flesh taken out of it (WW1), it's scrapped with other feral cats (WW2) - it's had the works. Is it that surprising, then, that when the cat gets stung by a wasp, it only winces?

I guess with this analogy, the bear had a past of intruding into beehives (Middle East) for honey (oil) and then decides to take out its frustration at being stung by a wasp (bin Laden) by stamping on some bees (2003 Iraq War). Something along those lines.

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:

Its not because we are the United States that it pisses us off, its that they attacked us. It is baffling to me how people in European countries like the UK and Spain just shrug off terrorists attacks like its no big deal. In other words, I don't think Americans overreact to terrorist attacks on our own country, I think Europeans under-react to terrorist attacks against their own countries.

Pearl Harbor and 9/11 hold far more significance in the American public eye because they're so unique. The American homeland doesn't get attacked.

Correct

hardlymotivated:
Britain has become rather used to being attacked on its homeland by foreign influences (First and Second World Wars in particular); it's not something new to us. Speaking a little more recently, we only have to look at The Troubles (which I'm sure I needn't remind you was partly American funded).

No I know and its something America never should have done.

hardlymotivated:
Think of it this way: America's response to 9/11 is rather like that of a young bear stung by a wasp for the first time. The sting (9/11) is a pretty minor injury, but the bear responds by thrashing around, howling in pain and trampling all over everything else. It hasn't experienced that kind of pain before; it can't understand how anything could be worse.

Its more like waking a sleeping giant, the same thing the Japanese did in 1941. Though I suppose in 2001 the giant had been awake for a long time and was ready to go back to sleep with the Soviet Union gone and then Al Qaeda pissed it off. America just needs for the world to leave us alone so we can go back to freaking sleep.[/quote]

hardlymotivated:
Britain's more like an old, feral cat. It's had chunks of flesh taken out of it (WW1), it's scrapped with other feral cats (WW2) - it's had the works. Is it that surprising, then, that when the cat gets stung by a wasp, it only winces?

I guess with this analogy, the bear had a past of intruding into beehives (Middle East) for honey (oil) and then decides to take out its frustration at being stung by a wasp (bin Laden) by stamping on some bees (2003 Iraq War). Something along those lines.

Well that is an interesting way of putting the matter and while I would phrase it differently you are not wrong.

As a military historian I would like to make one observation about the reaction of the British towards being attacked. For centuries Britain has followed a slow and gradual method of fighting. Remember that as an island Britain cannot be invaded unless you can get past the British Navy and for that purpose (as well as the fact that for the longest time Parliament feared that a strong army could be used by the king to oppress people or enforce his will while a navy could not be used in this way) led to a strong navy and a strong naval tradition and a military doctrine that focuses on the use of sea power. This doctrine usually involves blockading an enemy and starving them into submission. In the meantime the British merchant-marine ensures that Britain herself will be able to outlast their enemy. This idea of outlasting an enemy to defeat them is one of the factors that contributes to Britian's trademark stubbornness (the fabled "stiff upper lip"). Win light of this its easy to understand why the British people will not react so decisively against attackers. Its not a point against the UK really just an explanation for why they react to terrorism in a way that Americans tend to find odd and leads to the misconception that the British are not as serious about fighting terrorism.

America in contrast is a country that is a long way away from most of the world and as a result we not accustomed to an enemy being able to attack us. This combined with the relative aggressiveness of US military thinking and general culture is a good explanation for why America reacts much more aggressively to attacks against it. The British people are known for their stubbornness, the American people are known for a strong sense of individualism and as a result American society and culture is highly competitive (this also explains why America in general is a poor loser because American culture favors winners, as the saying goes, nobody remembers who lost the Super Bowl). When we are attacked the natural response is to hit back at our enemies (see Doolittle raid for a prime example of this mindset). The fact that more Americans have died in responding to 9/11 than those who actually died in 9/11 is not very relevant to this mindset. Its the principle of the action that is relevant.

chuckman1:
snip

I will let Mr. Worley say what I think:

I was old enough to get what was going on that day, and it was horrible. Those image are still burned into my memory, and I will never forget. And I dont want us to rest until every last one of the SOB's that attacked my country are dead or captured and put to death.

Seekster:

Its more like waking a sleeping giant, the same thing the Japanese did in 1941. Though I suppose in 2001 the giant had been awake for a long time and was ready to go back to sleep with the Soviet Union gone and then Al Qaeda pissed it off. America just needs for the world to leave us alone so we can go back to freaking sleep.

Yeah, sleeping giant works quite well, too. I suppose if one looks at America's foreign policy with regard to countries like Iran, Nicaragua, Vietnam et al., it's a bit like America treading over the little guys on the way to his bed and then wondering why the villagers keep climbing up his beanstalk and demanding reparations.

With that analogy, I'd argue that America needs to realize that whilst it would be ideal to finally go to sleep, it needs to stay up for a while longer and take responsibility for its past misdeeds.

Of course, I'm not going to sit here and try to argue that America deserved 9/11 or any of that nonsense. British history is equally as bloody and haphazard. The British and American governments - as institutions - need to begin to take responsibility, not necessarily the people themselves. According to your profile, you were born in 1988. I can't hold you responsible for US foreign policy in the Middle East in the 20th Century; terrorists seem to think they can. Their tactics of killing innocents to make a point is abhorrent.

Seekster:

Well that is an interesting way of putting the matter and while I would phrase it differently you are not wrong.

As a military historian I would like to make one observation about the reaction of the British towards being attacked. For centuries Britain has followed a slow and gradual method of fighting. Remember that as an island Britain cannot be invaded unless you can get past the British Navy and for that purpose (as well as the fact that for the longest time Parliament feared that a strong army could be used by the king to oppress people or enforce his will while a navy could not be used in this way) led to a strong navy and a strong naval tradition and a military doctrine that focuses on the use of sea power. This doctrine usually involves blockading an enemy and starving them into submission. In the meantime the British merchant-marine ensures that Britain herself will be able to outlast their enemy. This idea of outlasting an enemy to defeat them is one of the factors that contributes to Britian's trademark stubbornness (the fabled "stiff upper lip"). Win light of this its easy to understand why the British people will not react so decisively against attackers. Its not a point against the UK really just an explanation for why they react to terrorism in a way that Americans tend to find odd and leads to the misconception that the British are not as serious about fighting terrorism.

America in contrast is a country that is a long way away from most of the world and as a result we not accustomed to an enemy being able to attack us. This combined with the relative aggressiveness of US military thinking and general culture is a good explanation for why America reacts much more aggressively to attacks against it. The British people are known for their stubbornness, the American people are known for a strong sense of individualism and as a result American society and culture is highly competitive (this also explains why America in general is a poor loser because American culture favors winners, as the saying goes, nobody remembers who lost the Super Bowl). When we are attacked the natural response is to hit back at our enemies (see Doolittle raid for a prime example of this mindset). The fact that more Americans have died in responding to 9/11 than those who actually died in 9/11 is not very relevant to this mindset. Its the principle of the action that is relevant.

All true.

I would add that I think America's (as a generalization here, of course) attitude towards the rest of the world needs to change. The world is becoming increasingly globalized, and I don't think that America can maintain its isolationist-but-simultaneously-aggressive stance for much longer.

There's a bit too much of an us vs. them mentality to America's attitude, and it need not be the case. All countries have that, to an extent, but in America it seems to be the mainstream view despite its melting-pot of cultures. It's not that I don't like America - I do - I just find it disappointing.

ShadowsofHope:

America was the one attacked, we provoked that in the same way that a woman in provocative clothing provokes her own rapist (she does not).

The only way that analogy would make accurate sense is if the woman (America) was wearing provocative clothing, and then purposely went out and grinded against the first man she conveniently saw in an obvious sexual mannerism (the middle east), and then immediately stopped after a few moments and told the man she had satisfied herself with him and it was time to leave (end of the cold war). And then cries rape when the man tosses a rock through her window the next morning in anger for being used and violated (9/11).

Not to say that America deserved 9/11, of course, but is not always American's whom tout that personal responsibility is paramount in one's life? If you don't want to be attacked by former allies/enemies, don't fuck around with them and then leave them cold turkey and expect them to never want revenge. Quite simple a concept to remember, really.[/quote]

I love this analogy!

I was thinking this was going to be a long and difficult reply post to make, but found that so many people actually shared and described how I saw the incident, and it makes me think that the world is not so screwed up after all.

I don't think the U.S. deserved 9.11.

I am Japanese/Aussie and have been educated about WW2 in two different cultures, but at the end of the day, innocent civilians should not be victimized, and 9.11 did just that.
But the U.S. has to also learn from this that what they did to the Japanese and how they ended the war using the atomic bomb (and probaly in many other countless occasions everywhere else too) cannot and should not be justified in anyway, and if they had not been aware of that already, they need to learn from 9.11.

Seekster:

America in contrast is a country that is a long way away from most of the world and as a result we not accustomed to an enemy being able to attack us. This combined with the relative aggressiveness of US military thinking and general culture is a good explanation for why America reacts much more aggressively to attacks against it. The British people are known for their stubbornness, the American people are known for a strong sense of individualism and as a result American society and culture is highly competitive (this also explains why America in general is a poor loser because American culture favors winners, as the saying goes, nobody remembers who lost the Super Bowl). When we are attacked the natural response is to hit back at our enemies (see Doolittle raid for a prime example of this mindset). The fact that more Americans have died in responding to 9/11 than those who actually died in 9/11 is not very relevant to this mindset. Its the principle of the action that is relevant.

I agree to your analysis of the American mindset and culture.

I think as a Japanese /Aussie I feel that the Japanese are closer in culture to the British you described. The cultural ideal is to "gambaru" which means to do ones best, as well as being courteous, and being proud (think bushido/ last samurai)
So even when they get bombed or suffer from huge earthquakes, they just shut the f@@k up, and try to move forward rather than blame people or bitch about it.

But, I also need to point out that it not only the U.S.
The Japanese generally feel that Korea and China are holding grudges against Japan for too long and feel "enough about that too. Get over it already".
Of course the victim will always be the ones asking for a proper apology or whatever it is that they are looking for.
But Japan was bombed with an atomic bomb, but in general, they do not hate the U.S. for it as much as the Koreans and Chinese hate the Japanese, and the Americans hate the terrorists.

This is probably one of the main reasons why Japan was able to become a economic power house after WW2, and will bounce back from the 3.11 earthquake much much faster than the U.S.
I mean, its easy to imagine that the damage and destruction from the 3.11 earthquake will be taken care of and cities rebuilt and back stronger than it was in ten years from now.

So yeah, I think the bottom line is, quit being a sore loser, and strap on a pair.
You can be competitive and individualistic all you want, but that does not need to go hand in hand with acting like a little kid.

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:

Its more like waking a sleeping giant, the same thing the Japanese did in 1941. Though I suppose in 2001 the giant had been awake for a long time and was ready to go back to sleep with the Soviet Union gone and then Al Qaeda pissed it off. America just needs for the world to leave us alone so we can go back to freaking sleep.

Yeah, sleeping giant works quite well, too. I suppose if one looks at America's foreign policy with regard to countries like Iran, Nicaragua, Vietnam et al., it's a bit like America treading over the little guys on the way to his bed and then wondering why the villagers keep climbing up his beanstalk and demanding reparations.

With that analogy, I'd argue that America needs to realize that whilst it would be ideal to finally go to sleep, it needs to stay up for a while longer and take responsibility for its past misdeeds.

Of course, I'm not going to sit here and try to argue that America deserved 9/11 or any of that nonsense. British history is equally as bloody and haphazard. The British and American governments - as institutions - need to begin to take responsibility, not necessarily the people themselves. According to your profile, you were born in 1988. I can't hold you responsible for US foreign policy in the Middle East in the 20th Century; terrorists seem to think they can. Their tactics of killing innocents to make a point is abhorrent.

*sigh* Fine but we are going to need a lot of coffee. *sips* By the way if you want to go back then Israel is at least partially Britian's fault. You just couldn't take care of that little mess before retiring could you Dad? (Just being funny, dont take that too seriously).

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:

Well that is an interesting way of putting the matter and while I would phrase it differently you are not wrong.

As a military historian I would like to make one observation about the reaction of the British towards being attacked. For centuries Britain has followed a slow and gradual method of fighting. Remember that as an island Britain cannot be invaded unless you can get past the British Navy and for that purpose (as well as the fact that for the longest time Parliament feared that a strong army could be used by the king to oppress people or enforce his will while a navy could not be used in this way) led to a strong navy and a strong naval tradition and a military doctrine that focuses on the use of sea power. This doctrine usually involves blockading an enemy and starving them into submission. In the meantime the British merchant-marine ensures that Britain herself will be able to outlast their enemy. This idea of outlasting an enemy to defeat them is one of the factors that contributes to Britian's trademark stubbornness (the fabled "stiff upper lip"). Win light of this its easy to understand why the British people will not react so decisively against attackers. Its not a point against the UK really just an explanation for why they react to terrorism in a way that Americans tend to find odd and leads to the misconception that the British are not as serious about fighting terrorism.

America in contrast is a country that is a long way away from most of the world and as a result we not accustomed to an enemy being able to attack us. This combined with the relative aggressiveness of US military thinking and general culture is a good explanation for why America reacts much more aggressively to attacks against it. The British people are known for their stubbornness, the American people are known for a strong sense of individualism and as a result American society and culture is highly competitive (this also explains why America in general is a poor loser because American culture favors winners, as the saying goes, nobody remembers who lost the Super Bowl). When we are attacked the natural response is to hit back at our enemies (see Doolittle raid for a prime example of this mindset). The fact that more Americans have died in responding to 9/11 than those who actually died in 9/11 is not very relevant to this mindset. Its the principle of the action that is relevant.

All true.

I would add that I think America's (as a generalization here, of course) attitude towards the rest of the world needs to change. The world is becoming increasingly globalized, and I don't think that America can maintain its isolationist-but-simultaneously-aggressive stance for much longer.

There's a bit too much of an us vs. them mentality to America's attitude, and it need not be the case. All countries have that, to an extent, but in America it seems to be the mainstream view despite its melting-pot of cultures. It's not that I don't like America - I do - I just find it disappointing.

Of course, whenever anyone (including myself) talks about an entire people it goes without saying that a generalization is being made.

*makes a whiny groaning sound* But we dont wanna change, we dont wanna be a citizen of the world. We are ok dealing with the world but we would rather do our own thing and let the world do what it wants so long as it doesnt bother us. Washington was right, we should have listened but nooooo. Oh we got to go to Europe and stop the Hun...and then Churchill comes over and goes "Congratulations son, now you get to be in charge, have fun with that". (yes I am exaggerating what actually happened because its funny, I am referring to the Iron Curtain speech btw).

Angie7F:

Seekster:

America in contrast is a country that is a long way away from most of the world and as a result we not accustomed to an enemy being able to attack us. This combined with the relative aggressiveness of US military thinking and general culture is a good explanation for why America reacts much more aggressively to attacks against it. The British people are known for their stubbornness, the American people are known for a strong sense of individualism and as a result American society and culture is highly competitive (this also explains why America in general is a poor loser because American culture favors winners, as the saying goes, nobody remembers who lost the Super Bowl). When we are attacked the natural response is to hit back at our enemies (see Doolittle raid for a prime example of this mindset). The fact that more Americans have died in responding to 9/11 than those who actually died in 9/11 is not very relevant to this mindset. Its the principle of the action that is relevant.

I agree to your analysis of the American mindset and culture.

I think as a Japanese /Aussie I feel that the Japanese are closer in culture to the British you described. The cultural ideal is to "gambaru" which means to do ones best, as well as being courteous, and being proud (think bushido/ last samurai)
So even when they get bombed or suffer from huge earthquakes, they just shut the f@@k up, and try to move forward rather than blame people or bitch about it.

First let me say that I have nothing but respect for the Japanese and I like the Aussies too (its like a British guy attempting a Texas accent).

Well yes I agree with that but an Earthquake is a natural disaster, a terrorist attack is not. Also the US didnt just bitch about 9/11 we did something about it. You can argue all do on whether or not we should have done what we did but the fact is we did do something about it...and we feel a lot better now, tired, but better.

Angie7F:
But, I also need to point out that it not only the U.S.
The Japanese generally feel that Korea and China are holding grudges against Japan for too long and feel "enough about that too. Get over it already".
Of course the victim will always be the ones asking for a proper apology or whatever it is that they are looking for.
But Japan was bombed with an atomic bomb, but in general, they do not hate the U.S. for it as much as the Koreans and Chinese hate the Japanese, and the Americans hate the terrorists.

You can say that again, ok the Chinese I can sort of understand because that happened recently and the Chinese have an ego (which all things considered is rather ironic) that wont allow them to move on unless Japan behaves the same way towards them as Germany behaves towards the Jews...which isnt going to happen because that is a completely different set of circumstances and the Japanese arent about to kow tow to China just because China has a chip on its shoulder, at least I hope not.

As for Korea, yeah I would assume that some Koreans still don't like the Japanese over the occupation in the first half of the 20th Century but given that Korea has a bigger problem to its immediate north I would think the Koreans would be less hostile towards the Japanese than say China. Are they not?

As for the Atom Bombs, it was a different time and Japan's government at the time was basically controlled by the military who refused to surrender no matter what. As I understand it Japan only surrendered when the Emperor himself said "look guys, we either do this or we are going to be destroyed". Even then Japan did not surrender unconditionally and historically the Japanese can rightfully be called the best fighters of any country America has ever gone to war with (excluding the Confederate States of America). One evidence of this is that we made a point to keep Japan from actually having a military or waging offensive war (the rational being that we dont EVER want to have to fight you again).

More to the point today the American view of Japan is overwhelmingly positive (somewhat bemused due to the whole East-West culture difference but that is a minor factor). The Atomic Bombings are something that many Americans honestly regret but under the circumstances at the time they can be justified. In the end the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved far more lives than they destroyed, not just from the civilians and soldiers who would have died during an invasion that likely would have destroyed large parts of Japan including priceless cultural and historical sites, but also because those Atomic Bombings made people realize just how destructive the weapons were and this may very well have been a critical reason why the Cold War never went hot.

Angie7F:
This is probably one of the main reasons why Japan was able to become a economic power house after WW2, and will bounce back from the 3.11 earthquake much much faster than the U.S.
I mean, its easy to imagine that the damage and destruction from the 3.11 earthquake will be taken care of and cities rebuilt and back stronger than it was in ten years from now.

If history has proven anything its that the Japanese adapt very rapidly when they have to. Just look at how much Japan changed after Commodore Perry. Just about fifty years later and Japan is making Russia look like a push over. Japan's ability to adapt and adopt new ways of doing things when it has to is unmatched (even by the United States) so I have no doubt Japan will bounce back. If you guys don't mind making China the 3rd economy on Earth in the process that would be fantastic.

Angie7F:
So yeah, I think the bottom line is, quit being a sore loser, and strap on a pair.
You can be competitive and individualistic all you want, but that does not need to go hand in hand with acting like a little kid.

Sore loser? Who lost now? *looks at Al Qaeda..or what is left of it*. Americans are very very bad losers, so we try and avoid it whenever possible.

Seekster:
you have already made one error of fact so you post some links to support your claims

I did not make an error, you did not realise GWB srn was vice pres under Regan, and so knew what was happening.

This stuff is no longer secret. The world has know for decades that the US caused its own troops to be poisoned (Gulf War Syndrome), supplied Iraq with WMD and ingnored Saddam's use of WMD on Iranians / Kurds.

Could you be specific on what you can't find and need me to link you to?

Seekster:
Is this the same US intelligence community that new Saddam had WMDs prior to the 2003 invasion?

Hence the joke;

How did the US know Saddam had WMD?

They checked the receipts.

Seekster:
Of course Rumsfeld vistited Saddam back then, he was our ally at the time after all. In World War II US officials visited with Soviet officials. That means about the same thing as Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam.

That is an 'error of fact' as you put it.

Iraq was a USSR ally under a treaty signed in 1972.
Iraq was on the US list of 'State Sponsored Terrorism'.

Iran under the Shah was the US ally, till 1980 embassy incident after the Shah was deposed in 1979.

Iraq attacked Iran to start the war (1980-1988) trying to take advantage of political instability after the Shah was deposed.

At the start of the Iran-Iraq war the UNSC was calling for a ceasefire and for an arms embargo.

The USSR cut of arms sales to Iraq.

When Iran started to win the war in 1982, the US stepped in supplying Iraq.

In Feb 1982 Regan removed Iraq from the list of 'State Sponsored Terrorism' and started supplying finace, WMD, intel and arms (mostly via 3rd party fronts). [according to NSC director Howard Teicher's affidavit in 1995]

Regan sent in Runsfelt and Teicher to Iraq in 1983 and 1984.

In 1983 Iran started reporting Iraq was using chemical weapons banned under the geneva convention.

Iran again complains to the UN of Iraq using chemical weapons in October 1983.

In Nov 1983 Iran demands the UN investigate Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

The US started offically supporting Iraq after Regan issues National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983.

On 5th March 1984 the US tells the UNSC "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons"

Rumsfelt again visits Iraq in late March 1984.

It is clear that the US knew Iraq was using WMD on Iran and Kurds from 1982 (and so GWB srn knew for years, as I stated).
But still the US started supplying Iraq with arms, finance, intel and WMD from 1983.
The US started officially supplying Iraq with arms, finance, intel and WMD (including nuclear precursors) in 1985. These sales are detailed in the Riegle Report.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Riegle_Report

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

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

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12158923

Seekster:

If those extremists attack the United States or our allies they will be dealt with. Yes we can do better on foreign policy but when it comes to terrorists there is only one solution, kill them and try to create an environment where terrorism does not flourish.

As long as you keep saying stuff like this, I'll keep bringing up the IRA. You were okay with your citizens publicly supporting a terrorist organisation which was attacking one of your closest political allies. You didn't support Britain, indeed you were all too happy to play the neutral party so you didn't have to take a side and risk pissing off the Irish-American immigrants.

And for the record, your "one solution" still isn't right. Britain did not need to "kill them and try to create an environment where terrorism does not flourish".

But you knew that, because I've mentioned it to you before. So it's kind of odd that I have to write this post really.

The horror of 9/11 was not the number of lives lost, but that this was an unprovoked attack, in which all but 2 of the lives lost were civilians... and those two were the terrorists themselves.

Quite honestly, 9/11 is really more of a shock and awe thing. For America, our civilian population being killed in battle rather than soldiers is a completely new thing. Nuking a U.S. military base causing all-military deaths would've been less shock than 9/11, solely because of the all-civilian death toll the latter ensued.

TechNoFear:

1. The US did train, fund and equip Bin Laden.

2. The US did supply Sadam with WMD, arms, intel and funds.

3. Even when the US knew Sadam was using US supplied WMD on civilians, the US did not stop supplying Sadam WMD.

#1 is factually true. However, this was for the express purpose that we hated the Russians, Bin Laden and Al Queida hated the Russians, and were currently fighting them, and we didn't want to get off our fat asses, and didn't realize we were next on Bin Laden's hit list.

#2 I really don't care

#3 I still don't care. Iraq was not something we should have gotten involved with. There are not many people who could honestly say that the world would mourn if the Iraquis just up and killed each other.

Spartan448:
There are not many people who could honestly say that the world would mourn if the Iraquis just up and killed each other.

The same can be said about Americans (with attitudes like yours).

Spartan448:
The horror of 9/11 was not the number of lives lost, but that this was an unprovoked attack, in which all but 2 of the lives lost were civilians... and those two were the terrorists themselves.

Really? So the number of lives lost wasn't the thing? It was the unprovoked attack part?

Would you care to explain the completely lackluster response to the 1993 World Trade Centre Bombing when compared to the September 11th attacks then?

Seekster:
saving space here

Seekster, at first I thought you were one of those super American assholes, but I am truly surprised at how you actually am not.
And I want to thank you for your thoughtful responses.

Although there are some things we may not totally agree on, I think you are someone who is willing to listen but still try to hold a good argument without taking things too personally.

I do have to mention that the Japanese were fortunate in someways when they lost the war, because the U.S. encouraged them to have national health insurance policies etc, which allow us to pop into any hospital we like, and still be taken care of and use our insurance.
It's ironical that the country that helped Japan make such useful policies have not been able to execute it themselves, and therefore, many poor people have problems getting to the doctor and getting proper medical care.
(Micheal Moore's movie touches on this a little it more)

Sometimes having to start from scratch, like post WW2, and post major natural disastersis beneficial in the end because its a chance to start over.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

If those extremists attack the United States or our allies they will be dealt with. Yes we can do better on foreign policy but when it comes to terrorists there is only one solution, kill them and try to create an environment where terrorism does not flourish.

As long as you keep saying stuff like this, I'll keep bringing up the IRA. You were okay with your citizens publicly supporting a terrorist organisation which was attacking one of your closest political allies. You didn't support Britain, indeed you were all too happy to play the neutral party so you didn't have to take a side and risk pissing off the Irish-American immigrants.

And for the record, your "one solution" still isn't right. Britain did not need to "kill them and try to create an environment where terrorism does not flourish".

But you knew that, because I've mentioned it to you before. So it's kind of odd that I have to write this post really.

I do not support private citizens supporting the IRA.

Britain handles things its way, America handles things its way.

Angie7F:

Seekster:
saving space here

Seekster, at first I thought you were one of those super American assholes, but I am truly surprised at how you actually am not.
And I want to thank you for your thoughtful responses.

Although there are some things we may not totally agree on, I think you are someone who is willing to listen but still try to hold a good argument without taking things too personally.

I do have to mention that the Japanese were fortunate in someways when they lost the war, because the U.S. encouraged them to have national health insurance policies etc, which allow us to pop into any hospital we like, and still be taken care of and use our insurance.
It's ironical that the country that helped Japan make such useful policies have not been able to execute it themselves, and therefore, many poor people have problems getting to the doctor and getting proper medical care.
(Micheal Moore's movie touches on this a little it more)

Sometimes having to start from scratch, like post WW2, and post major natural disastersis beneficial in the end because its a chance to start over.

Thank you I appreciate that.

Seekster:

Amnestic:

Seekster:

If those extremists attack the United States or our allies they will be dealt with. Yes we can do better on foreign policy but when it comes to terrorists there is only one solution, kill them and try to create an environment where terrorism does not flourish.

As long as you keep saying stuff like this, I'll keep bringing up the IRA. You were okay with your citizens publicly supporting a terrorist organisation which was attacking one of your closest political allies. You didn't support Britain, indeed you were all too happy to play the neutral party so you didn't have to take a side and risk pissing off the Irish-American immigrants.

And for the record, your "one solution" still isn't right. Britain did not need to "kill them and try to create an environment where terrorism does not flourish".

But you knew that, because I've mentioned it to you before. So it's kind of odd that I have to write this post really.

I do not support private citizens supporting the IRA.

Britain handles things its way, America handles things its way.

So when you said "there is only one solution" you meant "there is only one solution for America" and when you said "If those extremists attack [...] our allies they will be dealt with" you meant "We're going to sit on our hands and not actually do anything at all."

Just to be clear.

Do you support the arrest of those who support(ed) the IRA?

TechNoFear:

Seekster:
you have already made one error of fact so you post some links to support your claims

I did not make an error, you did not realise GWB srn was vice pres under Regan, and so knew what was happening.

This stuff is no longer secret. The world has know for decades that the US caused its own troops to be poisoned (Gulf War Syndrome), supplied Iraq with WMD and ingnored Saddam's use of WMD on Iranians / Kurds.

Could you be specific on what you can't find and need me to link you to?

Don't insult me by claiming I don't know something as simple as George HW Bush being Reagan's vice-president. I know that but it doesnt really change anything.

You make it sounds as if we directly poisoned our own troops. We sold Iraq WMDs, that I don't deny. We never should have done that but we did. We also overlooked a lot of what Saddam was doing because he was our ally against the Iranians and back then we hated the Iranians more than we do now (now its more of a serious annoyance) because the Hostage Crisis was still fresh in our minds.

Seekster:
Of course Rumsfeld vistited Saddam back then, he was our ally at the time after all. In World War II US officials visited with Soviet officials. That means about the same thing as Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam.

That is an 'error of fact' as you put it.

Iraq was a USSR ally under a treaty signed in 1972.
Iraq was on the US list of 'State Sponsored Terrorism'.

Iran under the Shah was the US ally, till 1980 embassy incident after the Shah was deposed in 1979.

Iraq attacked Iran to start the war (1980-1988) trying to take advantage of political instability after the Shah was deposed.

At the start of the Iran-Iraq war the UNSC was calling for a ceasefire and for an arms embargo.

The USSR cut of arms sales to Iraq.

When Iran started to win the war in 1982, the US stepped in supplying Iraq.

In Feb 1982 Regan removed Iraq from the list of 'State Sponsored Terrorism' and started supplying finace, WMD, intel and arms (mostly via 3rd party fronts). [according to NSC director Howard Teicher's affidavit in 1995]

Regan sent in Runsfelt and Teicher to Iraq in 1983 and 1984.

In 1983 Iran started reporting Iraq was using chemical weapons banned under the geneva convention.

Iran again complains to the UN of Iraq using chemical weapons in October 1983.

In Nov 1983 Iran demands the UN investigate Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

The US started offically supporting Iraq after Regan issues National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983.

On 5th March 1984 the US tells the UNSC "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons"

Rumsfelt again visits Iraq in late March 1984.

It is clear that the US knew Iraq was using WMD on Iran and Kurds from 1982 (and so GWB srn knew for years, as I stated).
But still the US started supplying Iraq with arms, finance, intel and WMD from 1983.
The US started officially supplying Iraq with arms, finance, intel and WMD (including nuclear precursors) in 1985. These sales are detailed in the Riegle Report.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Riegle_Report

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

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

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12158923[/quote]

Yes because we would totally believe Iran when it went to the UN claiming Iraq was using chemical weapons. The US isnt exactly in the habit of believing our enemies and Iran in particular isnt exactly known for its honesty. Still as it happened they were telling the truth about Saddam, it just took us a few years to realize that and when we did we stopped selling Saddam chemical weapons.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

Amnestic:

As long as you keep saying stuff like this, I'll keep bringing up the IRA. You were okay with your citizens publicly supporting a terrorist organisation which was attacking one of your closest political allies. You didn't support Britain, indeed you were all too happy to play the neutral party so you didn't have to take a side and risk pissing off the Irish-American immigrants.

And for the record, your "one solution" still isn't right. Britain did not need to "kill them and try to create an environment where terrorism does not flourish".

But you knew that, because I've mentioned it to you before. So it's kind of odd that I have to write this post really.

I do not support private citizens supporting the IRA.

Britain handles things its way, America handles things its way.

So when you said "there is only one solution" you meant "there is only one solution for America" and when you said "If those extremists attack [...] our allies they will be dealt with" you meant "We're going to sit on our hands and not actually do anything at all."

Just to be clear.

Do you support the arrest of those who support(ed) the IRA?

If the extremists attack our allies we will offer our allies whatever aid we can.

I do support the investigation and arrest of those who are found to have offered monetary or other tangible support to the IRA. Those who spoke out in favor of the IRA should be reprimanded but I don't think there is a law saying you can't speak out in favor of terrorists groups.

Seekster:
snip.

If the rape victim was a convicted rapist than they obviously dont have a leg to stand on. Your arguments just rely on the "But we are just good old America who didnt want to hurt nobody" as you fund terrorism/dictatorships. Everyone else can suffer except but when it comes to Americans sure lets just kill hundreds of thousands of more people since they arent Americans.

You should unwrap that American flag draped round your shoulders and set down the apple pie and accept the fact 9/11 was pretty much American foreign policy swinging right round to bite a lump out of America's ass for what they done. Could you honestly think America could shit on people for that long and have no one wanting to come back for revenge.

The IRA(of the 70s onwards) where born out of British based loyalist hostility towards a minority.

Half the people arrested for "supporting" the IRA where innocent. Look up internment of 1971 for the most blatant example.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked