How bad was 9/11 really

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

Spartan448:
#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.

image

I am American, and I supported the Iraq war BECAUSE they were killing eachother off. I support us stepping in to EVERY country (yes, I mean EVERY) where terrorist hide and people die at the hads of twisted men, aka dictators. *is obviously pro-intervention*

Duskwaith:

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.

America most certainly isnt a convicted rapists, alleged rapist maybe but we havnt even been charged.

Yes America did a bunch of things in the Cold War we are not to proud of but which made something resembling sense at the time. We are currently in the process of rectifying those mistakes.

"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."

Let this be a lesson to everyone here, when someone alleges their opinion is fact, that should send up some red flags (incidentally if I do that I would appreciate if someone called me out on it so I learn not to do it again).

As for you Dusk, if you want to take the Jeremiah Wright approach to 9/11 thats fine you go right ahead and make an ass of yourself but don't go around claiming something is a fact when it is not.

Is America going to act differently towards the Middle East than we did in the days where we had a choice between supporting a dictator and overlooking his oppressive ways or risk allowing the Soviets to gain influence in perhaps the most important arena of foreign policy on Earth? Of course we are, but first Al Qaeda has let it be known that they have a death wish. Don't mind us, just finishing up a few things before we turn east and ask China why they think that basically the entire South China Sea belongs to them.

Dusk if you want to talk about the IRA then talk to Amne. As far as I am concerned any conversation about the IRA should start with clarifying which of the IRAs we are talking about.

Seekster:

America most certainly isnt a convicted rapists, alleged rapist maybe but we havnt even been charged.

You have been charged and convicted in one case for sure.

And you refuse to do your time for it, and your justification for not doing so is "We do not recognize this court". Incidentally that "defense" is the same as Slobodan Milosevic tried to play in Hague.

Incidentally, would you allow the Guantanamo prisoners to use that as a defense if they got a trial?

Double measures par exellence if you ask me.

Vegosiux:

Seekster:

America most certainly isnt a convicted rapists, alleged rapist maybe but we havnt even been charged.

You have been charged and convicted in one case for sure.

And you refuse to do your time for it, and your justification for not doing so is "We do not recognize this court". Incidentally that "defense" is the same as Slobodan Milosevic tried to play in Hague.

Incidentally, would you allow the Guantanamo prisoners to use that as a defense if they got a trial?

Double measures par exellence if you ask me.

And when would that be exactly?

Would I let the Gitmo prisoners use the "I'm not a convicted rapists" defense?

How many of the Gitmo prisoners were released as innocent by now? 600 or so? Not sure on the exact numbers, but it's pretty horrible and demonstrates well why a democratic country should not engage in indefinite detention without due process and the snatching of people on the flimsiest of suspicions.

Seekster:
snip

You most be the poster boy for the stereotypical arrogant,self-righteous yankee.

What im claiming is fact is a fact. What a surprise your taking the GWB approach then you can go right ahead and try to claim moral and cultural supremacy since your American and so god damn right all the time please come and give such savages as myself your democracy on the end of a bayonet.

Since when does rectifying equate to killing more people? Maybe your typing your responses inbetween breaks in FOX news but your argument is just down right absurd boiling down to "your saying it so its your opinion so then its wrong"

Its a fact your country's misdeeds are what led to the current "war on terrorism"

Noam Chomsky was right, the denazification of America is sorely needed

Duskwaith:

Seekster:
snip

You most be the poster boy for the stereotypical arrogant,self-righteous yankee.

What im claiming is fact is a fact. What a surprise your taking the GWB approach then you can go right ahead and try to claim moral and cultural supremacy since your American and so god damn right all the time please come and give such savages as myself your democracy on the end of a bayonet.

Since when does rectifying equate to killing more people? Maybe your typing your responses inbetween breaks in FOX news but your argument is just down right absurd boiling down to "your saying it so its your opinion so then its wrong"

Its a fact your country's misdeeds are what led to the current "war on terrorism"

Noam Chomsky was right, the denazification of America is sorely needed

If you want to destroy your own credibility by calling me a stereotype then knock yourself out. I don't have to do a thing.

Skeleon:
How many of the Gitmo prisoners were released as innocent by now? 600 or so? Not sure on the exact numbers, but it's pretty horrible and demonstrates well why a democratic country should not engage in indefinite detention without due process and the snatching of people on the flimsiest of suspicions.

ACLU

92% of Gitmo detainees were never Al Qaeda.
86% turned over to coalition forces for a bounty.
Youngest was 13. Oldest was 98.
Over 200 FBI Agents reported abusive treatments.
Bush released 532 prisoners
Obama: 68

171 left

Seekster:

Would I let the Gitmo prisoners use the "I'm not a convicted rapists" defense?

Considering those numbers above? "I'm not a convicted anything" defence works pretty well.

Seekster:

Duskwaith:

Seekster:
snip

You most be the poster boy for the stereotypical arrogant,self-righteous yankee.

What im claiming is fact is a fact. What a surprise your taking the GWB approach then you can go right ahead and try to claim moral and cultural supremacy since your American and so god damn right all the time please come and give such savages as myself your democracy on the end of a bayonet.

Since when does rectifying equate to killing more people? Maybe your typing your responses inbetween breaks in FOX news but your argument is just down right absurd boiling down to "your saying it so its your opinion so then its wrong"

Its a fact your country's misdeeds are what led to the current "war on terrorism"

Noam Chomsky was right, the denazification of America is sorely needed

If you want to destroy your own credibility by calling me a stereotype then knock yourself out. I don't have to do a thing.

Yep sure once again its someones fault other than your own. Seems oftly familiar

Amnestic:

Skeleon:
How many of the Gitmo prisoners were released as innocent by now? 600 or so? Not sure on the exact numbers, but it's pretty horrible and demonstrates well why a democratic country should not engage in indefinite detention without due process and the snatching of people on the flimsiest of suspicions.

ACLU

92% of Gitmo detainees were never Al Qaeda.
86% turned over to coalition forces for a bounty.
Youngest was 13. Oldest was 98.
Over 200 FBI Agents reported abusive treatments.
Bush released 532 prisoners
Obama: 68

171 left

Seekster:

Would I let the Gitmo prisoners use the "I'm not a convicted rapists" defense?

Considering those numbers above? "I'm not a convicted anything" defence works pretty well.

OK Amne, while I don't deny that things went on at Gitmo that should have gone on, the ACLU is an organization with an agenda. They are not a good source of impartial information. Rather they are a good source of one extreme.

But anyway yeah if they never did anything let them go and find out why they were arrested to begin with.

Seekster:

OK Amne, while I don't deny that things went on at Gitmo that should have gone on, the ACLU is an organization with an agenda.

No shit. Every organisation has an 'agenda'. Every person has an agenda. I have an agenda, you have an agenda, we all have agendas. It's just a set of goals, a 'mission plan', if you will. If you discard a group because they have an agenda, you discard every group - every person - on the planet.

TechNoFear:

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.

If they are from the Midwest or Deep South, or California, then yes, I concur.

Amnestic:

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?

Let's see: What was the one difference between the 1993 bombing and the 2001 bombing?

The correct answer is that two men essentially wiped out the greatest monument to American global economic dominance that had ever been constructed. It's all purely psycological.

Spartan448:

Let's see: What was the one difference between the 1993 bombing and the 2001 bombing?

The correct answer is that two men essentially wiped out the greatest monument to American global economic dominance that had ever been constructed. It's all purely psycological.

So it's not the casualties, it's the buildings?

I don't even know what that says about American culture, but it's certainly not anything positive.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

OK Amne, while I don't deny that things went on at Gitmo that should have gone on, the ACLU is an organization with an agenda.

No shit. Every organisation has an 'agenda'. Every person has an agenda. I have an agenda, you have an agenda, we all have agendas. It's just a set of goals, a 'mission plan', if you will. If you discard a group because they have an agenda, you discard every group - every person - on the planet.

Let me put it this way. Citing the ACLU on Gitmo is kind of like citing the NAACP on say Affirmative Action. That is the level of bias I am talking about when I say the ACLU has an agenda on this issue.

Seekster:

Let me put it this way. Citing the ACLU on Gitmo is kind of like citing the NAACP on say Affirmative Action. That is the level of bias I am talking about when I say the ACLU has an agenda on this issue.

Which would be interesting if they were offering a spin instead of hard numbers. Do you have anything - besides attacking the messenger - which would cause you to doubt the figures provided? An alternative source, perhaps?

Amnestic:

Seekster:

Let me put it this way. Citing the ACLU on Gitmo is kind of like citing the NAACP on say Affirmative Action. That is the level of bias I am talking about when I say the ACLU has an agenda on this issue.

Which would be interesting if they were offering a spin instead of hard numbers. Do you have anything - besides attacking the messenger - which would cause you to doubt the figures provided? An alternative source, perhaps?

No I don't question the raw numbers but there are two lines I do have questions about.

92% of Gitmo detainees were never Al Qaeda.

How on Earth could they know that?

"Over 200 FBI Agents reported abusive treatments."

What does the ACLU consider abusive treatments?

Spartan448:
If they are from the Midwest or Deep South, or California, then yes, I concur.

image

And What, kind sir, Is wrong with the Midwest and Deep South?! *lives in Kansas and likes the South, namely Texas*

And I DONT want to see the words "Westboro", "Racism", "Sexism", "Redneck", or "Homophobic" ANYWHERE in your argument.

EDIT: After looking at some of your other post, I am going to add "Gun Nuts", "Hicks", "Backward", and "Fasist Police State" to my list.

Spartan448:

TechNoFear:

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.

If they are from the Midwest or Deep South, or California, then yes, I concur.

Oh it is on, I concur with BOOM on this one. You don't level an insult like that and get away with it. Go on, explain yourself.

Seekster:

Amnestic:

Seekster:

Let me put it this way. Citing the ACLU on Gitmo is kind of like citing the NAACP on say Affirmative Action. That is the level of bias I am talking about when I say the ACLU has an agenda on this issue.

Which would be interesting if they were offering a spin instead of hard numbers. Do you have anything - besides attacking the messenger - which would cause you to doubt the figures provided? An alternative source, perhaps?

No I don't question the raw numbers but there are two lines I do have questions about.

92% of Gitmo detainees were never Al Qaeda.

How on Earth could they know that?

"Over 200 FBI Agents reported abusive treatments."

What does the ACLU consider abusive treatments?

The page Amnestic gave cites this as its source, which claims that:

"Only 8% of the detainees were characterized by the DOD as "al Qaeda fighters.""

Digging a little deeper, it these turn out to be US government statistics circa 2005.

As for your second query, the data is sourced to this.

The statistic given doesn't take what the ACLU believes to be "abusive treatments" into consideration; it's what the FBI and the Office of the Inspector General consider "abusive treatments".

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:

Amnestic:

Which would be interesting if they were offering a spin instead of hard numbers. Do you have anything - besides attacking the messenger - which would cause you to doubt the figures provided? An alternative source, perhaps?

No I don't question the raw numbers but there are two lines I do have questions about.

92% of Gitmo detainees were never Al Qaeda.

How on Earth could they know that?

"Over 200 FBI Agents reported abusive treatments."

What does the ACLU consider abusive treatments?

The page Amnestic gave cites this as its source, which claims that:

"Only 8% of the detainees were characterized by the DOD as "al Qaeda fighters.""

Digging a little deeper, it these turn out to be US government statistics circa 2005.

As for your second query, the data is sourced to this.

The statistic given doesn't take what the ACLU believes to be "abusive treatments" into consideration; it's what the FBI and the Office of the Inspector General consider "abusive treatments".

Well alright then.

I do have to wonder how the government could screw up with so many people. I mean really nobody thought to put together some kind of list that says "prisoner #_____ was detained on suspicion of ______" so we can know exactly what the reason for detaining them was.

Seekster:
Yes because we would totally believe Iran when it went to the UN claiming Iraq was using chemical weapons.
[snip]
it just took us a few years to realize that and when we did we stopped selling Saddam chemical weapons.

No the US did NOT!

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"

So the US (and GWB snr as I stated) knew before the US had started officially selling WMD to Iraq in 1985 (that the WMD would be used on Iranians and Kurds).

The US then continued to supply WMD (inc nuclear precursors) to Iraq for ~5 more years after this (according to the Riegle Report).

[links on previous post]

Seekster:
You make it sounds as if we directly poisoned our own troops.

I suggest you read the Riegle Report, it is about the cause of Gulf War Syndrome.

Seekster:

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:

No I don't question the raw numbers but there are two lines I do have questions about.

92% of Gitmo detainees were never Al Qaeda.

How on Earth could they know that?

"Over 200 FBI Agents reported abusive treatments."

What does the ACLU consider abusive treatments?

The page Amnestic gave cites this as its source, which claims that:

"Only 8% of the detainees were characterized by the DOD as "al Qaeda fighters.""

Digging a little deeper, it these turn out to be US government statistics circa 2005.

As for your second query, the data is sourced to this.

The statistic given doesn't take what the ACLU believes to be "abusive treatments" into consideration; it's what the FBI and the Office of the Inspector General consider "abusive treatments".

Well alright then.

I do have to wonder how the government could screw up with so many people. I mean really nobody thought to put together some kind of list that says "prisoner #_____ was detained on suspicion of ______" so we can know exactly what the reason for detaining them was.

Indeed.

When personnel started breaching the Geneva Convention and the USMJ, threw habeas corpus out of the window and began torturing prisoners, the terrorists had already succeeded.

hardlymotivated:
When personnel started breaching the Geneva Convention and the USMJ, threw habeas corpus out of the window and began torturing prisoners, the terrorists had already succeeded.

Don't forget Ex post facto (convicting people for something that was legal when you did it, but later became illegal).

ie David Hicks

TechNoFear:

Seekster:
Yes because we would totally believe Iran when it went to the UN claiming Iraq was using chemical weapons.
[snip]
it just took us a few years to realize that and when we did we stopped selling Saddam chemical weapons.

No the US did NOT!

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"

So the US (and GWB snr as I stated) knew before the US had started officially selling WMD to Iraq in 1985 (that the WMD would be used on Iranians and Kurds).

The US then continued to supply WMD (inc nuclear precursors) to Iraq for ~5 more years after this (according to the Riegle Report).

[links on previous post]

Seekster:
You make it sounds as if we directly poisoned our own troops.

I suggest you read the Riegle Report, it is about the cause of Gulf War Syndrome.

Wait a minute, where does it say that US knew that Iran's charges of Iraq using chemical weapons were true as of March 1984?

If its the Riegle Report then what page?

I did some more digging and if the US knew that Saddam was in fact using chemical weapons on Iran as early as you say then it leads me to conclude that we simply didnt care if Saddam used it on Iran. This is an understandable though inexcusable conclusion which could be drawn from this. Yet another thing we did during the Cold War which we regret. Iran was then and remains today a rogue state but this obviously does not justify the use of chemical weapons.

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:

hardlymotivated:

The page Amnestic gave cites this as its source, which claims that:

"Only 8% of the detainees were characterized by the DOD as "al Qaeda fighters.""

Digging a little deeper, it these turn out to be US government statistics circa 2005.

As for your second query, the data is sourced to this.

The statistic given doesn't take what the ACLU believes to be "abusive treatments" into consideration; it's what the FBI and the Office of the Inspector General consider "abusive treatments".

Well alright then.

I do have to wonder how the government could screw up with so many people. I mean really nobody thought to put together some kind of list that says "prisoner #_____ was detained on suspicion of ______" so we can know exactly what the reason for detaining them was.

Indeed.

When personnel started breaching the Geneva Convention and the USMJ, threw habeas corpus out of the window and began torturing prisoners, the terrorists had already succeeded.

The terrorists have a funny idea of what winning means then.

Seekster:

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:

Well alright then.

I do have to wonder how the government could screw up with so many people. I mean really nobody thought to put together some kind of list that says "prisoner #_____ was detained on suspicion of ______" so we can know exactly what the reason for detaining them was.

Indeed.

When personnel started breaching the Geneva Convention and the USMJ, threw habeas corpus out of the window and began torturing prisoners, the terrorists had already succeeded.

The terrorists have a funny idea of what winning means then.

The signature weapon of a terrorist is fear. If, as a terrorist, you inspire enough fear in a government to make them break domestic and international law and engage in torture in the name of security, your mission has been a success.

As a consequence of 9/11, the US government betrayed its principles out of fear, panic and a desire for security. The terrorists were, at least to an extent, victorious, and the legacy of that day has changed America irreparably.

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:

hardlymotivated:

Indeed.

When personnel started breaching the Geneva Convention and the USMJ, threw habeas corpus out of the window and began torturing prisoners, the terrorists had already succeeded.

The terrorists have a funny idea of what winning means then.

The signature weapon of a terrorist is fear. If, as a terrorist, you inspire enough fear in a government to make them break domestic and international law and engage in torture in the name of security, your mission has been a success.

As a consequence of 9/11, the US government betrayed its principles out of fear, panic and a desire for security. The terrorists were, at least to an extent, victorious, and the legacy of that day has changed America irreparably.

Now hold on, we just got through having a discussion about how the US was apparently breaking international law and betraying its principles during the Cold War. Where do the terrorists get off thinking that they are responsible for that?

If the terrorists want to claim victory for the current status quo then it means about as much as the Japanese claiming a victory because the Emperor did not have to step down after World War II. I suppose the terrorists need whatever victory they can claim.

If the terrorists mission was to make it so I have to take my shoes off when I go through security at the airport then Mission Accomplished I suppose. I hope it was worth all the lives they lost in the process and in the response.

Of course the reality is the America will not abandon our principles. One does not need to give up freedom for security and thanks to our Constitution we will be able to correct any momentary lapses of memory when it comes to our principles. The goal of terrorists, and Al Qaeda in particular is much more complex than simply scaring people (if they just wanted to do that then they should hire that blogger who keeps releasing Israeli credit card numbers). Sometimes I wonder if your average Al Qaeda member even understands what the goal of the organization is outside of some ephemeral slogan and intangible objective like defeat the Imperialst and arrogant west and the zionist entity that controls or is controlled by the west (I think they disagree over which it is). I can say this for certain, terrorism, no matter what form it takes, will never triumph.

Well I think 9-11 was pretty bad.

I think most attacks against civilians are pretty bad, regardless of who commits them.

Have there been worse things that have happened? Well sure, but I still think 9-11 was bad.

Bad bad bad.

Seekster:

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:

The terrorists have a funny idea of what winning means then.

The signature weapon of a terrorist is fear. If, as a terrorist, you inspire enough fear in a government to make them break domestic and international law and engage in torture in the name of security, your mission has been a success.

As a consequence of 9/11, the US government betrayed its principles out of fear, panic and a desire for security. The terrorists were, at least to an extent, victorious, and the legacy of that day has changed America irreparably.

Now hold on, we just got through having a discussion about how the US was apparently breaking international law and betraying its principles during the Cold War. Where do the terrorists get off thinking that they are responsible for that?

If the terrorists want to claim victory for the current status quo then it means about as much as the Japanese claiming a victory because the Emperor did not have to step down after World War II. I suppose the terrorists need whatever victory they can claim.

If the terrorists mission was to make it so I have to take my shoes off when I go through security at the airport then Mission Accomplished I suppose. I hope it was worth all the lives they lost in the process and in the response.

Of course the reality is the America will not abandon our principles. One does not need to give up freedom for security and thanks to our Constitution we will be able to correct any momentary lapses of memory when it comes to our principles. The goal of terrorists, and Al Qaeda in particular is much more complex than simply scaring people (if they just wanted to do that then they should hire that blogger who keeps releasing Israeli credit card numbers). Sometimes I wonder if your average Al Qaeda member even understands what the goal of the organization is outside of some ephemeral slogan and intangible objective like defeat the Imperialst and arrogant west and the zionist entity that controls or is controlled by the west (I think they disagree over which it is). I can say this for certain, terrorism, no matter what form it takes, will never triumph.

The US does have rather a history of betraying its principles in the name of "security", yes.

The notion that all the terrorists have accomplished is a bit of increased airport security might be understating the 9/11 aftermath just a teensy bit, don't you think? Dragging the United States into an incredibly expensive and deadly war for over ten years now could also a little bit of a concern. It's only the longest sustained US military conflict since the Vietnam War, after all. The Bush administration, with its heavy-handed response, did a pretty decent job of damaging America's reputation in the international community, too.

Again, the US seems to abandon its principles whenever it's convenient. These "momentary lapses of memory" occur with a startling regularity. Countries which claim not to abandon their principles would do well not to illegally detain and torture their prisoners if they want that claim to ring true to the rest of the international community.

Flag-waving and hard-hitting sayings like "terrorism will never triumph" are all well and good, but you have to be very careful not to slip into the trap of believing that America won't be coerced by terrorists; it already has been.

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:

hardlymotivated:

The signature weapon of a terrorist is fear. If, as a terrorist, you inspire enough fear in a government to make them break domestic and international law and engage in torture in the name of security, your mission has been a success.

As a consequence of 9/11, the US government betrayed its principles out of fear, panic and a desire for security. The terrorists were, at least to an extent, victorious, and the legacy of that day has changed America irreparably.

Now hold on, we just got through having a discussion about how the US was apparently breaking international law and betraying its principles during the Cold War. Where do the terrorists get off thinking that they are responsible for that?

If the terrorists want to claim victory for the current status quo then it means about as much as the Japanese claiming a victory because the Emperor did not have to step down after World War II. I suppose the terrorists need whatever victory they can claim.

If the terrorists mission was to make it so I have to take my shoes off when I go through security at the airport then Mission Accomplished I suppose. I hope it was worth all the lives they lost in the process and in the response.

Of course the reality is the America will not abandon our principles. One does not need to give up freedom for security and thanks to our Constitution we will be able to correct any momentary lapses of memory when it comes to our principles. The goal of terrorists, and Al Qaeda in particular is much more complex than simply scaring people (if they just wanted to do that then they should hire that blogger who keeps releasing Israeli credit card numbers). Sometimes I wonder if your average Al Qaeda member even understands what the goal of the organization is outside of some ephemeral slogan and intangible objective like defeat the Imperialst and arrogant west and the zionist entity that controls or is controlled by the west (I think they disagree over which it is). I can say this for certain, terrorism, no matter what form it takes, will never triumph.

The US does have rather a history of betraying its principles in the name of "security", yes.

The notion that all the terrorists have accomplished is a bit of increased airport security might be understating the 9/11 aftermath just a teensy bit, don't you think? Dragging the United States into an incredibly expensive and deadly war for over ten years now could also a little bit of a concern. It's only the longest sustained US military conflict since the Vietnam War, after all. The Bush administration, with its heavy-handed response, did a pretty decent job of damaging America's reputation in the international community, too.

Again, the US seems to abandon its principles whenever it's convenient. These "momentary lapses of memory" occur with a startling regularity. Countries which claim not to abandon their principles would do well not to illegally detain and torture their prisoners if they want that claim to ring true to the rest of the international community.

Flag-waving and hard-hitting sayings like "terrorism will never triumph" are all well and good, but you have to be very careful not to slip into the trap of believing that America won't be coerced by terrorists; it already has been.

"The notion that all the terrorists have accomplished is a bit of increased airport security might be understating the 9/11 aftermath just a teensy bit, don't you think?"

Not if I am purposely understating it to make a mockery of the "if we _____ the terrorists win" nonsense. Seriously it doesnt matter if you take the pro-America or anti-America stance, that line of thought is utter nonsense.

Ok here is a question that never gets answered? What would you have had Bush do exactly after 9/11. Not invade Iraq is about the only thing I can think of that would be an improvement but thats an entirely different debate and based on the (as it turns out bad) intelligence we had at the time it seemed like a good idea so lets not beat that dead horse shall we. What would you rather have Bush not invaded Afghanistan either and just ignored terrorism like we had done prior to 9/11? How did that work out? Go ahead, tell me what you would like Bush to have done differently in response to 9/11.

"Again, the US seems to abandon its principles whenever it's convenient. These "momentary lapses of memory" occur with a startling regularity."

All seriousness aside I think there is a good argument that America and Americans in general have a short-term memory on a great many things.

"Countries which claim not to abandon their principles would do well not to illegally detain and torture their prisoners if they want that claim to ring true to the rest of the international community."

Well if you would prefer we could use European history as a model. After all America is the only country that has a tendency to abandon its principles in the name of convenience right? Its not like say the UK or France has ever done anything like that.

My point is stop this arrogant bs about America not being perfect, yes we know we are not perfect, we make mistakes just like everyone else. If you are going to persist in pointing out the dust in our eyes then first remove the logs from your own eyes (reference to a verse in Matthew).

"Flag-waving and hard-hitting sayings like "terrorism will never triumph" are all well and good, but you have to be very careful not to slip into the trap of believing that America won't be coerced by terrorists; it already has been."

Coerced how? Coerced into fighting them? Yeah I suppose in that sense yup they coerced us but good. Never have a people been more coerced as we have been coerced. Im sure Bin Laden is laughing right now in hell about how we feel for his cunning trap. Kicking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, thats exactly what Al Qaeda wanted us to do. Oh man were we ever coerced (and yes I am making fun of that ridiculous point).

This is getting a bit long; if you don't mind, I'll get rid of the conversation bubble for now to fix up the post a little bit.

Seekster:
Not if I am purposely understating it to make a mockery of the "if we _____ the terrorists win" nonsense. Seriously it doesnt matter if you take the pro-America or anti-America stance, that line of thought is utter nonsense.

Please don't try to categorise me as "pro-America" or "anti-America", because I'm neither; nor is it relevant to what I'm talking about. The United States has used torture and, in doing so, violated international law. This is, like it or not, fact. Is this as a result of the panic fuelled by 9/11? I think so, yes. The clue's in the name - "terrorist" - instilling terror is what they do. If enough "terror" is instilled to make a nation's government stand idly by whilst its agents torture prisoners without even making clear the reason for their detention, there is an element of success to their actions.

Seekster:
Ok here is a question that never gets answered? What would you have had Bush do exactly after 9/11. Not invade Iraq is about the only thing I can think of that would be an improvement but thats an entirely different debate and based on the (as it turns out bad) intelligence we had at the time it seemed like a good idea so lets not beat that dead horse shall we. What would you rather have Bush not invaded Afghanistan either and just ignored terrorism like we had done prior to 9/11? How did that work out? Go ahead, tell me what you would like Bush to have done differently in response to 9/11.

There's a distinction to be made between "ignoring terrorism" and going in guns blazing as was the initial response. This is a false dichotomy. I'd have preferred an extradition and trial approach, but of course I'm speaking in hindsight. I don't claim to be an expert in foreign policy, so my answer to that is, in all honesty, "I don't know". What is clear, however, is that the initial response of the Bush administration (and the civilian bombing casualties which resulted) was not conducive to the decline of terrorist activity because Afghans tend not to take too kindly to the deaths of their family members from foreign aerial bombings. So again, the answer is "I don't know"; I'm sure you'll find other people that do claim to know, but I cannot and will not speak for them.

Seekster:

All seriousness aside I think there is a good argument that America and Americans in general have a short-term memory on a great many things.

This is something with which I agree, but judging by the way in which the American people respond when their civil liberties are curtailed, this is a trend which I hope continues to decline.

Seekster:
Well if you would prefer we could use European history as a model. After all America is the only country that has a tendency to abandon its principles in the name of convenience right? Its not like say the UK or France has ever done anything like that.

My point is stop this arrogant bs about America not being perfect, yes we know we are not perfect, we make mistakes just like everyone else. If you are going to persist in pointing out the dust in our eyes then first remove the logs from your own eyes (reference to a verse in Matthew).

This is deflection. I never said that the UK or France never abandons their principles, so please don't imply that I did. What other countries get up to is irrelevant when I'm talking purely about the United States; I thought that was clear. I'm not interested in any "nah-nah, my country is better than your country" crap, so don't paint a picture of me as if I am. You said "America will not abandon our principles". I'm saying it already did. If I'd said "Unlike America, Britain never abandons its principles", you'd have cause to call me arrogant; I did not.

Seekster:
Coerced how? Coerced into fighting them? Yeah I suppose in that sense yup they coerced us but good. Never have a people been more coerced as we have been coerced. Im sure Bin Laden is laughing right now in hell about how we feel for his cunning trap. Kicking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, thats exactly what Al Qaeda wanted us to do. Oh man were we ever coerced (and yes I am making fun of that ridiculous point).

Coerced, through fear, into torturing prisoners (most of whom weren't involved with Al-Qaeda). Well done, you constructed a straw man and then burnt it. You must be very proud.

Honestly, Seekster, I'm not sure why I'm bothering at this point; you did little in that last post but deflect, straw man and try to paint me as an "arrogant" (your explicit word) jingoistic hypocrite (your implicit meaning). Pretty poor form.

I don't mind the long posts so much but please try and break down the quotes so it links to the right post, otherwise I won't get a message in my inbox telling me I have a reply.

In other words do

hardlymotivated:
this

hardlymotivated:
not this

hardlymotivated:
This is getting a bit long; if you don't mind, I'll get rid of the conversation bubble for now to fix up the post a little bit.

Seekster:
Not if I am purposely understating it to make a mockery of the "if we _____ the terrorists win" nonsense. Seriously it doesnt matter if you take the pro-America or anti-America stance, that line of thought is utter nonsense.

Please don't try to categorise me as "pro-America" or "anti-America", because I'm neither; nor is it relevant to what I'm talking about. The United States has used torture and, in doing so, violated international law. This is, like it or not, fact. Is this as a result of the panic fuelled by 9/11? I think so, yes. The clue's in the name - "terrorist" - instilling terror is what they do. If enough "terror" is instilled to make a nation's government stand idly by whilst its agents torture prisoners without even making clear the reason for their detention, there is an element of success to their actions.

Not you, just the stance you are taking.

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:
Ok here is a question that never gets answered? What would you have had Bush do exactly after 9/11. Not invade Iraq is about the only thing I can think of that would be an improvement but thats an entirely different debate and based on the (as it turns out bad) intelligence we had at the time it seemed like a good idea so lets not beat that dead horse shall we. What would you rather have Bush not invaded Afghanistan either and just ignored terrorism like we had done prior to 9/11? How did that work out? Go ahead, tell me what you would like Bush to have done differently in response to 9/11.

There's a distinction to be made between "ignoring terrorism" and going in guns blazing as was the initial response. This is a false dichotomy. I'd have preferred an extradition and trial approach, but of course I'm speaking in hindsight. I don't claim to be an expert in foreign policy, so my answer to that is, in all honesty, "I don't know". What is clear, however, is that the initial response of the Bush administration (and the civilian bombing casualties which resulted) was not conducive to the decline of terrorist activity because Afghans tend not to take too kindly to the deaths of their family members from foreign aerial bombings. So again, the answer is "I don't know"; I'm sure you'll find other people that do claim to know, but I cannot and will not speak for them.

I am a military historian. Not sure if its fair to call me an expert on the subject of all foreign policy issues but I have taken individual classes that focus on foreign policy issues like Israel. We can criticize what Bush did in hindsight but if we can't come up with a better idea then its just empty criticism. Isnt that the left's response to criticism about Obamacare? I will say this confronting terrorism does far more to change the status quo than ignoring it or treating it the same way you treat say gang violence or whatever. Whether it changes things for the better or not is for future generations to decide.

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:
Well if you would prefer we could use European history as a model. After all America is the only country that has a tendency to abandon its principles in the name of convenience right? Its not like say the UK or France has ever done anything like that.

My point is stop this arrogant bs about America not being perfect, yes we know we are not perfect, we make mistakes just like everyone else. If you are going to persist in pointing out the dust in our eyes then first remove the logs from your own eyes (reference to a verse in Matthew).

This is deflection. I never said that the UK or France never abandons their principles, so please don't imply that I did. What other countries get up to is irrelevant when I'm talking purely about the United States; I thought that was clear. I'm not interested in any "nah-nah, my country is better than your country" crap, so don't paint a picture of me as if I am. You said "America will not abandon our principles". I'm saying it already did. If I'd said "Unlike America, Britain never abandons its principles", you'd have cause to call me arrogant; I did not.

Yes its deflection but I did at least get you to say that. I think too often people hear all these criticisms against the USA and get the idea that we are somehow worse or unique in our flaws.

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:
Coerced how? Coerced into fighting them? Yeah I suppose in that sense yup they coerced us but good. Never have a people been more coerced as we have been coerced. Im sure Bin Laden is laughing right now in hell about how we feel for his cunning trap. Kicking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, thats exactly what Al Qaeda wanted us to do. Oh man were we ever coerced (and yes I am making fun of that ridiculous point).

Coerced, through fear, into torturing prisoners (most of whom weren't involved with Al-Qaeda). Well done, you constructed a straw man and then burnt it. You must be very proud.

Oh yes I am quite proud, I'll bet I am slightly more proud than Al Qaeda is about how it managed to trick the USA into fighting it.

As for your actual response, meh, the Japanese actually managed to coerce the USA into putting an entire group of people with immigrant backgrounds into camps with even less justification than we had for the people at Gitmo. I have to say, I don't think Al Qaeda should be too pleased with itself.

hardlymotivated:
Honestly, Seekster, I'm not sure why I'm bothering at this point; you did little in that last post but deflect, straw man and try to paint me as an "arrogant" (your explicit word) jingoistic hypocrite (your implicit meaning). Pretty poor form.

Oh there is a method to the madness I assure you. When I engage in sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek statements I usually have more than a reason for doing so than just to entertain myself.

I picked the word "arrogant" because its a charge often leveled at the USA, hurts don't it. Also I never said jingoistic, that was your word.

Seekster:
I don't mind the long posts so much but please try and break down the quotes so it links to the right post, otherwise I won't get a message in my inbox telling me I have a reply.

In other words do

hardlymotivated:
this

hardlymotivated:
not this

No problem.

Seekster:

hardlymotivated:
This is getting a bit long; if you don't mind, I'll get rid of the conversation bubble for now to fix up the post a little bit.

Seekster:
Not if I am purposely understating it to make a mockery of the "if we _____ the terrorists win" nonsense. Seriously it doesnt matter if you take the pro-America or anti-America stance, that line of thought is utter nonsense.

Please don't try to categorise me as "pro-America" or "anti-America", because I'm neither; nor is it relevant to what I'm talking about. The United States has used torture and, in doing so, violated international law. This is, like it or not, fact. Is this as a result of the panic fuelled by 9/11? I think so, yes. The clue's in the name - "terrorist" - instilling terror is what they do. If enough "terror" is instilled to make a nation's government stand idly by whilst its agents torture prisoners without even making clear the reason for their detention, there is an element of success to their actions.

Not you, just the stance you are taking.

What's anti-American about my stance; could you clarify?

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:
Ok here is a question that never gets answered? What would you have had Bush do exactly after 9/11. Not invade Iraq is about the only thing I can think of that would be an improvement but thats an entirely different debate and based on the (as it turns out bad) intelligence we had at the time it seemed like a good idea so lets not beat that dead horse shall we. What would you rather have Bush not invaded Afghanistan either and just ignored terrorism like we had done prior to 9/11? How did that work out? Go ahead, tell me what you would like Bush to have done differently in response to 9/11.

There's a distinction to be made between "ignoring terrorism" and going in guns blazing as was the initial response. This is a false dichotomy. I'd have preferred an extradition and trial approach, but of course I'm speaking in hindsight. I don't claim to be an expert in foreign policy, so my answer to that is, in all honesty, "I don't know". What is clear, however, is that the initial response of the Bush administration (and the civilian bombing casualties which resulted) was not conducive to the decline of terrorist activity because Afghans tend not to take too kindly to the deaths of their family members from foreign aerial bombings. So again, the answer is "I don't know"; I'm sure you'll find other people that do claim to know, but I cannot and will not speak for them.

Seekster:

I am a military historian. Not sure if its fair to call me an expert on the subject of all foreign policy issues but I have taken individual classes that focus on foreign policy issues like Israel. We can criticize what Bush did in hindsight but if we can't come up with a better idea then its just empty criticism. Isnt that the left's response to criticism about Obamacare? I will say this confronting terrorism does far more to change the status quo than ignoring it or treating it the same way you treat say gang violence or whatever. Whether it changes things for the better or not is for future generations to decide.

I can't really speak for the American left, so I can't answer for them with regards to healthcare, but I'm not sure such a thing as "empty criticism" really exists in the sense that when it comes to public policy any criticism (assuming it is valid criticism) is a good thing.

Seekster:

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:
Well if you would prefer we could use European history as a model. After all America is the only country that has a tendency to abandon its principles in the name of convenience right? Its not like say the UK or France has ever done anything like that.

My point is stop this arrogant bs about America not being perfect, yes we know we are not perfect, we make mistakes just like everyone else. If you are going to persist in pointing out the dust in our eyes then first remove the logs from your own eyes (reference to a verse in Matthew).

This is deflection. I never said that the UK or France never abandons their principles, so please don't imply that I did. What other countries get up to is irrelevant when I'm talking purely about the United States; I thought that was clear. I'm not interested in any "nah-nah, my country is better than your country" crap, so don't paint a picture of me as if I am. You said "America will not abandon our principles". I'm saying it already did. If I'd said "Unlike America, Britain never abandons its principles", you'd have cause to call me arrogant; I did not.

Yes its deflection but I did at least get you to say that. I think too often people hear all these criticisms against the USA and get the idea that we are somehow worse or unique in our flaws.

Still, there's no need to assume that I have a poor opinion of the United States relative to my own country when I happen to point out a genuine concern with it.

Seekster:

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:
Coerced how? Coerced into fighting them? Yeah I suppose in that sense yup they coerced us but good. Never have a people been more coerced as we have been coerced. Im sure Bin Laden is laughing right now in hell about how we feel for his cunning trap. Kicking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, thats exactly what Al Qaeda wanted us to do. Oh man were we ever coerced (and yes I am making fun of that ridiculous point).

Coerced, through fear, into torturing prisoners (most of whom weren't involved with Al-Qaeda). Well done, you constructed a straw man and then burnt it. You must be very proud.

Oh yes I am quite proud, I'll bet I am slightly more proud than Al Qaeda is about how it managed to trick the USA into fighting it.

As for your actual response, meh, the Japanese actually managed to coerce the USA into putting an entire group of people with immigrant backgrounds into camps with even less justification than we had for the people at Gitmo. I have to say, I don't think Al Qaeda should be too pleased with itself.

Both damaged the United States. Given Al-Qaeda's disposition towards fundamentalist beliefs and suicide attacks, I doubt they mind too much if they're not around to witness the damage that's been caused. I agree that Al-Qaeda shouldn't be too pleased with itself, in that it's a disgusting organization, but there's been a measure of success to their goal of damaging the US.

Seekster:

hardlymotivated:
Honestly, Seekster, I'm not sure why I'm bothering at this point; you did little in that last post but deflect, straw man and try to paint me as an "arrogant" (your explicit word) jingoistic hypocrite (your implicit meaning). Pretty poor form.

Oh there is a method to the madness I assure you. When I engage in sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek statements I usually have more than a reason for doing so than just to entertain myself.

I picked the word "arrogant" because its a charge often leveled at the USA, hurts don't it. Also I never said jingoistic, that was your word.

That may be, but in this case, you engaged in sarcasm to deploy straw men which didn't really tackle my post. You didn't call me jingoistic, but the implication (that I'd painted a picture of Europe as being better than America) was there.

But for what it's worth, I do think that there are aspects to America which come across as a little arrogant - even hubristic - from time to time (see We're #1, its historical approach to foreign policy), though I wouldn't say that they comprise mainstream public opinion.

hardlymotivated:
What's anti-American about my stance; could you clarify?

Anti-American is probably too strong a word term. You used the "If we _____, then the terrorists win." Usually that slogan is used in a patriotic context but you used it in a different context.

hardlymotivated:
But for what it's worth, I do think that there are aspects to America which come across as a little arrogant - even hubristic - from time to time (see We're #1, its historical approach to foreign policy), though I wouldn't say that they comprise mainstream public opinion.

Yeah we are arrogant, confident really as the things we are proud of are real. The "America is the greatest country on Earth" slogan works well in elections so I would say that to varying the degrees American Exceptionalism is a very popular viewpoint. Personally I believe America is an exceptional country but its not based on anything natural or inherent. Anyway I wont get into that because its rude.

Seekster:
Wait a minute, where does it say that US knew that Iran's charges of Iraq using chemical weapons were true as of March 1984?

TechNoFear:
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"

TechNoFear:

Seekster:
Wait a minute, where does it say that US knew that Iran's charges of Iraq using chemical weapons were true as of March 1984?

TechNoFear:
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"

I mean where are you getting that from? Source and page # if applicable please.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked