or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Reasons why we are all wrong on September 11th
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reasons why we are all wrong on September 11th

post #1 of 54
Thread Starter 
Ok, I've read some your points about the war on terrorism and it disturbs me that many American (and some European) readers have missed the point .

First, the prisoners in Cuba.
1. The outside world has yet to see any evidence that these people are guilty of anything.
2. George Bush cannot say that we ae fighting a war on terrorism, take prisoners and then say that they are not POW.
3. As one poster has already said, this is a war about western values. America, by ignoring the human rights of these prisoners is gifting Al Quaeda more fuel for their anti-America/West protests.

Secondly, the 'War on Terrorism'
1. It disgusts me that America talks about a war on terrorism when it suits the US, after years of allowing American citizens and corporations to fund terrorism in Nothern Ireland.
2. By making terrorism a legitimate reason for all out war on another country has given every nation in the world an excuse for launching attacks on its enemies. See India and Pakistan
3. In answer to Belle's point in another post about the justification of the treatment of these prisoners because of their atrocities in Afghanistan. I'm sorry, but this is incredibly naive. The Taleban regime was awful, and had an applaing human rights record. But lets not forget that it was the West that put them (and bin laden) there in the first place, as a counter to the Russian invasion. Also, I hate the way politicians (including mine here, in Britain) make out that the fall of the Taleban was in some way always planned. It wasn't. The Taleban was allowed to govern for around six, seven years - the West only intervened because of bin Laden. It had NOTHING to do with Taleban atrocities. If you belive it was some kind of moral crusade then why hasn't the West intervened in Chechnya and Zimbabwe. Why didn't we intervene in Rwanda and in China, following Tiannemen Square?

Finally, the West and America's mistakes.
1. It disgust me that we have bombed Afganistan to bits, or whats left of it, when this is one of the world's poorest nations and its people were innocent of all atrocities in September 11th. The hijackers were Saudi, after all.
2. Talk of extending this war to Somalia horrifies my. What is mine and your country doing, systematically targeting the world's poorest nations? Again, this only gives greater credence to bin Laden's opinion of the west as some sort of playground bully. Considering that these nations which 'support' terrorism (which merely means they allow terrorists on the their soil, not all of them 'support' them) are some of the world's poorest, isn't it obvious that this is often one of the only sources of income to these nations? The 'war on terrorism' would be served better if money was spent 'buying' these countries out of the need to support terrorism, rather than using the money to bomb them.
3. This point does merely focus on American foreign policy. The point above showed why all of the West must focus on why we (the west) are hated so much - the answer is our bullying tactics and our ignorance of the poverty that exists in many of the world's nations. America, however, is a particular target because of its policy in the Middle East. Until it takes a more neutral stance in affairs between Israel and Palestine, Muslims will continue to see the US as an enemy. Israel continues to sight its agreement with Palestine, in which all militancy would end - and uses this to justify its actions in destroying Palestinian homes and occupying Palestinian territory. However, Israel fails to mention that also in this agreement, Israel had agreed to withdraw from all Palestinian territory, which it has failed to do. Both sides are at fault here, its a viscious circle - but it doesn't help if the US only chooses to hear the Isreali side of the argument. I'd also like to mention that in the '70s Israel systematically killed five times as many Palestinian and Lebanese people as were killed in the Twin Towers. Also, Britain and America did nothing when Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and West Bank in the 1960s. Thus, the crisis in the Middle East owes much, again, to western foreign policy.

This is not a wholesale attack on the Us. I hope you notice that, for the most part, I refer to the West. Which, if I'm fair, really means Britain and the US. I think we are all being duped here, by lack of information and reactionist policies, by all our governments. And such is their stance, 'with us or against us', that they are trying to remain unaccountable. The most important issue in all of this is 'Why'. The answer is one that, perhaps, we'd rather not hear: we HAVE forgotten our moral obligations to the rest of the world. For this anger to be sated we must win over these people with aid, not increase their hate further with violence. When I say these people, I mean the normal Palestinains, Somalians, Lebanese and Afghans - not Al Quaeda. we need to give them a reason to turn their backs on the terrorist networks. At the moment we're just giving them greater reasons to join.
post #2 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
<strong>3. In answer to Belle's point in another post about the justification of the treatment of these prisoners because of their atrocities in Afghanistan. I'm sorry, but this is incredibly naive. The Taleban regime was awful, and had an applaing human rights record. But lets not forget that it was the West that put them (and bin laden) there in the first place, as a counter to the Russian invasion. Also, I hate the way politicians (including mine here, in Britain) make out that the fall of the Taleban was in some way always planned. It wasn't. The Taleban was allowed to govern for around six, seven years - the West only intervened because of bin Laden. It had NOTHING to do with Taleban atrocities. If you belive it was some kind of moral crusade then why hasn't the West intervened in Chechnya and Zimbabwe. Why didn't we intervene in Rwanda and in China, following Tiannemen Square?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with much of what you've written, but your assertion that the West put the Taleban in control of Afghanistan to counter the Russians is completely incorrect. The Taleban were "hired" by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open up the northern trade route. This took place in 1994, five years after the Russians pulled out of northern Afghanistan. The Taleban then took it upon themselves to capture and control Kandahar, then took Kabul a couple of years later.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #3 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
I agree with much of what you've written, but your assertion that the West put the Taleban in control of Afghanistan to counter the Russians is completely incorrect. The Taleban were "hired" by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open up the northern trade route. This took place in 1994, five years after the Russians pulled out of northern Afghanistan. The Taleban then took it upon themselves to capture and control Kandahar, then took Kabul a couple of years later.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, i'm sorry, you are right. Although it was the west who put the mujahadeen in control, before the Taleban, and there human rights record was only marginally better. You must admit, though, that the fall of the Taleban was merely a consequence of the attacks on Al Quaeda and owed nothing to any Western frustrations at the inhumanity of the Taleban regime.
post #4 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
<strong>

Yes, i'm sorry, you are right. Although it was the west who put the mujahadeen in control, before the Taleban, and there human rights record was only marginally better. You must admit, though, that the fall of the Taleban was merely a consequence of the attacks on Al Quaeda and owed nothing to any Western frustrations at the inhumanity of the Taleban regime.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And one thing I failed to mention - it is often stated that Pakistan would happy to go along with the western imposed governemnt in Afganistan, until the West withdrew much of the aid it was giving. As the onus then fell on apkistan to 'prop up' its neighbour, it also imposed a governemnt acceptable to its own regime.
post #5 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
<strong>You must admit, though, that the fall of the Taleban was merely a consequence of the attacks on Al Quaeda and owed nothing to any Western frustrations at the inhumanity of the Taleban regime.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree totally, and have been arguing this exact point in the other thread.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #6 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
I agree totally, and have been arguing this exact point in the other thread. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Its great to find someone on these boards who actually agrees with me!
post #7 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
<strong>First, the prisoners in Cuba.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you that they have to initially be POWs. I disagree with you that we're ignoring their human rights. So far, the US hasn't actually done anything wrong with them - there's just been a debate about their legal status, and some of our gov't, like Rumsfeld, have been idiots in their public statements about that. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with blindfolding and shackling them during travel. They're just being treated as extreme risks. And they're giving them every human right. They've even served their religious preferences, which they didn't have to do, like giving them certain foods and putting signs up to indicate the direction they should pray.
[quote]Secondly, the 'War on Terrorism'<hr></blockquote>
I don't know enough about US citizens funding Irish terrorists, so I'll just defer to your opinion on that. But I think India should come down on Pakistan. India has been the target of some of the worst terrorism in the world over the years. I hope that one of the things this war does is shine a spotlight on terrorists from places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They've gotten too free of a ride, and the leaders of some of those countries, especially Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, have been too free to play both sides.

About Israel-Palestine: The problem is that the two sides' goals are different - the Arabs and Muslims want Israel destroyed; Israel just wants to exist. That's an oversimplification, but it's basically accurate.

I agree that ultimately there won't be a military solution - if things don't change, the people in those countries will continue to support other bin Ladens. But I'm not sure that aid is the right way to go - who should we aid? We do aid some Arab governments, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and their people have some of the most anti-American attitudes in the Islamic world. Right now, the Iranian people seem to have the most pro-western attitudes, and we've tried to stay completely our of their business for 20 years.

It seems to me that at some point, they're the ones that have the work to do, not us. Their leaders, like Arafat and Musharaf, have to clearly stand against Islamic extremism and terrorism, not just pretend to be against it.
post #8 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>It seems to me that at some point, they're the ones that have the work to do, not us. Their leaders, like Arafat and Musharaf, have to clearly stand against Islamic extremism and terrorism, not just pretend to be against it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sad, but true. The trouble is they'll never stand against it because either they support the action, or will lose the support of too large a fraction of the population if they pick a side.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #9 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
I don't know enough about US citizens funding Irish terrorists, so I'll just defer to your opinion on that. But I think India should come down on Pakistan. India has been the target of some of the worst terrorism in the world over the years. I hope that one of the things this war does is shine a spotlight on terrorists from places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They've gotten too free of a ride, and the leaders of some of those countries, especially Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, have been too free to play both sides.

About Israel-Palestine: The problem is that the two sides' goals are different - the Arabs and Muslims want Israel destroyed; Israel just wants to exist. That's an oversimplification, but it's basically accurate.

I agree that ultimately there won't be a military solution - if things don't change, the people in those countries will continue to support other bin Ladens. But I'm not sure that aid is the right way to go - who should we aid? We do aid some Arab governments, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and their people have some of the most anti-American attitudes in the Islamic world. Right now, the Iranian people seem to have the most pro-western attitudes, and we've tried to stay completely our of their business for 20 years.

It seems to me that at some point, they're the ones that have the work to do, not us. Their leaders, like Arafat and Musharaf, have to clearly stand against Islamic extremism and terrorism, not just pretend to be against it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Firstly, the US IS going against human rights in their treatment of the prisoners. While I agree that they are PROBABLY dangerous (remember, nothing has been proved yet) it is against their human rights to remain shackled once they're in Cuba. It is also wrong that they are in open air cells, exposed to the elements - intense heat, for instance. I do agree with you about Donald Rumsfield - he isn't doing the Bush administration any favours throguhout the rest of the world.

Your views on Palestine and Israel are misnformed at best, and racist at worst. While I realise that America has strong links with Israel, that is no reason for you to ignore Israeli atrocities. For a start, the whole situation was created by the West's idea of a 'Jewish state' post WWII. Secondly, Israel's conduct in the '60s was horrific. 15,000 Palestinian and Lebanese were massacred, many by Isreali tanks just crushing their houses while they were still in them. Don't forget that Israel was the agressor there, invading the West Bank and the Gaza strip. While it would be naive to say that this situation could easily be solved, it would help if Palestine was recognised as a state in its own right and the lands that Israel INVADED, without Western intervention, were returned. Its a bit far fetched to say that Palestinians want the destruction of Israel, when Israel is the agressor, Israel is currently occupying Palestinian territory and Israel is holding Arafat under virtual house arrest. While I would never condone the actions of the suicide bombers, we must understand why they are doing this and not give into mere Zionist interpretations.

As for your point about aid. I'm referring to nations such as Somalia and Afghanistan - the West's targets in this war. As for Egypt and Saudi Arabia, I agree with your point - but the situation may be helped if the west, especially America, wasn't so ready to manipulate the Middle East for the sake of its own oil use. (In fact, some reporters believe that the Taleban was only toppled as Afghanistan's northern neighbour [Uzbekistan?] has recently been discovered to be an oil rich country, and the Taleban refused to co-operate with western pleas for an oil pipline to run through Afganistan). And I'm not really talking about aid, I mean MASSIVE investment. Britain has pledged £200million to Afghanistan over 5years. That's not much is it? £40 million a year? Not going to rebuild Kabul let alone the whole country.
post #10 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Sad, but true. The trouble is they'll never stand against it because either they support the action, or will lose the support of too large a fraction of the population if they pick a side.</strong><hr></blockquote>

We need to give them enough money that they can stand on their own feet, I agree with that much. But we need to give them enough.

Secondly, I do believe that Arafat has to be careful as he doesn't have full control over the Palestinians. But we must understand why these people act like this and try and resolve the situation. Ariel Sharon is just a warmonger, with no intentions of searching for a peace settlement.

Finally, its all very well to go on about Muslim fundamentalism and extremism, but lets not forget that both Blair and Bush are both Christian, and I believe that both involve their doctrine far too much in their government - there's fundamentalism there, too.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: mpw_amherst ]</p>
post #11 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
<strong>Ok, I've read some your points about the war on terrorism and it disturbs me that many American (and some European) readers have missed the point .

First, the prisoners in Cuba.
1. The outside world has yet to see any evidence that these people are guilty of anything.
2. George Bush cannot say that we ae fighting a war on terrorism, take prisoners and then say that they are not POW.
3. As one poster has already said, this is a war about western values. America, by ignoring the human rights of these prisoners is gifting Al Quaeda more fuel for their anti-America/West protests.

Secondly, the 'War on Terrorism'
1. It disgusts me that America talks about a war on terrorism when it suits the US, after years of allowing American citizens and corporations to fund terrorism in Nothern Ireland.
2. By making terrorism a legitimate reason for all out war on another country has given every nation in the world an excuse for launching attacks on its enemies. See India and Pakistan
3. In answer to Belle's point in another post about the justification of the treatment of these prisoners because of their atrocities in Afghanistan. I'm sorry, but this is incredibly naive. The Taleban regime was awful, and had an applaing human rights record. But lets not forget that it was the West that put them (and bin laden) there in the first place, as a counter to the Russian invasion. Also, I hate the way politicians (including mine here, in Britain) make out that the fall of the Taleban was in some way always planned. It wasn't. The Taleban was allowed to govern for around six, seven years - the West only intervened because of bin Laden. It had NOTHING to do with Taleban atrocities. If you belive it was some kind of moral crusade then why hasn't the West intervened in Chechnya and Zimbabwe. Why didn't we intervene in Rwanda and in China, following Tiannemen Square?

Finally, the West and America's mistakes.
1. It disgust me that we have bombed Afganistan to bits, or whats left of it, when this is one of the world's poorest nations and its people were innocent of all atrocities in September 11th. The hijackers were Saudi, after all.
2. Talk of extending this war to Somalia horrifies my. What is mine and your country doing, systematically targeting the world's poorest nations? Again, this only gives greater credence to bin Laden's opinion of the west as some sort of playground bully. Considering that these nations which 'support' terrorism (which merely means they allow terrorists on the their soil, not all of them 'support' them) are some of the world's poorest, isn't it obvious that this is often one of the only sources of income to these nations? The 'war on terrorism' would be served better if money was spent 'buying' these countries out of the need to support terrorism, rather than using the money to bomb them.
3. This point does merely focus on American foreign policy. The point above showed why all of the West must focus on why we (the west) are hated so much - the answer is our bullying tactics and our ignorance of the poverty that exists in many of the world's nations. America, however, is a particular target because of its policy in the Middle East. Until it takes a more neutral stance in affairs between Israel and Palestine, Muslims will continue to see the US as an enemy. Israel continues to sight its agreement with Palestine, in which all militancy would end - and uses this to justify its actions in destroying Palestinian homes and occupying Palestinian territory. However, Israel fails to mention that also in this agreement, Israel had agreed to withdraw from all Palestinian territory, which it has failed to do. Both sides are at fault here, its a viscious circle - but it doesn't help if the US only chooses to hear the Isreali side of the argument. I'd also like to mention that in the '70s Israel systematically killed five times as many Palestinian and Lebanese people as were killed in the Twin Towers. Also, Britain and America did nothing when Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and West Bank in the 1960s. Thus, the crisis in the Middle East owes much, again, to western foreign policy.

This is not a wholesale attack on the Us. I hope you notice that, for the most part, I refer to the West. Which, if I'm fair, really means Britain and the US. I think we are all being duped here, by lack of information and reactionist policies, by all our governments. And such is their stance, 'with us or against us', that they are trying to remain unaccountable. The most important issue in all of this is 'Why'. The answer is one that, perhaps, we'd rather not hear: we HAVE forgotten our moral obligations to the rest of the world. For this anger to be sated we must win over these people with aid, not increase their hate further with violence. When I say these people, I mean the normal Palestinains, Somalians, Lebanese and Afghans - not Al Quaeda. we need to give them a reason to turn their backs on the terrorist networks. At the moment we're just giving them greater reasons to join.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have not read any responses yet.

1. I see no reason to prove anything to anyone regarding any evidence we might have. Did these people fight to hand over Bin Laden? Nope. Then they are guilty by association as Bush declared they would be and gave them multitudes of chances to do the right thing.

2.) Whe cares about semantics? I don't.

3.) Not sure if you're making a point here that I have a reason to respond to.
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
post #12 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
<strong>but lets not forget some that both Blair and Bush are both Christian, and I believe that both involve their doctrine far too much in their government - there's fundamentalism there, too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't even get me started on that. And how much Christianity is a part of our country's politics and law. I'm guessing it's pretty similar in the UK.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #13 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by JRC:
<strong>

I have not read any responses yet.

1. I see no reason to prove anything to anyone regarding any evidence we might have. Did these people fight to hand over Bin Laden? Nope. Then they are guilty by association as Bush declared they would be and gave them multitudes of chances to do the right thing.

2.) Whe cares about semantics? I don't.

3.) Not sure if you're making a point here that I have a reason to respond to.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1. What 'people'? Do we know they are Taleban and not innocnet Afghan civilians? No. we have our suspiscions, but that is not enough to justify this kind of treatment. If you're happy for anyone to be treated like this, without the need for a government to justify its actions, to its own people or its allies then you are condoning a totalitarian state - back to '1984'.

2. This is not 'semantics', American organisations have funded the IRA for decades, to the cost of thousands of British lives (and consequently Irish lives, too). Don't just pretend that action against terrorism is only justified by the US. ALL terrorism is wrong, but we're only doing something about it now because its against the US. Sod it if its British civilians being mamed or murdered, if American organisations foot the bill.

3. My third point was simply that America clearly does not care about the injustices of its foreign policy and that until it does it will still give the terrorists reasons/excuses to what to do America harm.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: mpw_amherst ]</p>
post #14 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Don't even get me started on that. And how much Christianity is a part of our country's politics and law. I'm guessing it's pretty similar in the UK.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not as much, but Blair doesn't miss an opportunity to 'throw his beliefs' into the debate. To be fair to him, however, his defence of the Koran was good and timely.
post #15 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
<strong>

2. This is not 'semantics', American organisations have funded the IRA for decades, to the cost of thousands of British lives (and consequently Irish lives, too). Don't just pretend that action against terrorism is only justified by the US. ALL terrorism is wrong, but we're only doing something about it now because its against the US. Sod it if its British civilians being mamed or murdered, if American organisations foot the bill.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

By "American organizations," do you mean private oranizations, or the US government? (Legitimate question here--I don't know a whole lot about the situation either.) If you mean private orgainizations, well, this is America after all, so I don't think you can equate the agendas of private organizations with US foreign policy. If you mean that the US government, I'd appreciate some specifics.
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
post #16 of 54
You people are stupid. Sorry to say but you are. Have fun with you west bashing.
post #17 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by jesperas:
<strong>

By "American organizations," do you mean private oranizations, or the US government? (Legitimate question here--I don't know a whole lot about the situation either.) If you mean private orgainizations, well, this is America after all, so I don't think you can equate the agendas of private organizations with US foreign policy. If you mean that the US government, I'd appreciate some specifics.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No its not the US government, its US organisations. However, Britain has long made the US government aware of this, but the government has never done much/anything to actually stop it. I think some more positive noises have come about post September 11th, but I think its wrong that Irish Republican terrorism should not be acted against by the US until THEY decide that all terrorism wrong.
post #18 of 54
Thread Starter 
&lt;&lt;You people are stupid. Sorry to say but you are. Have fun with you west bashing. &gt;&gt;

You're clearly being rather foolish - having failed to notice that all of the posters here are from the west.

If you are criticisng me for my anti-American, anti-British (note, I am British), anti-west stance then you are also misguided. I'm not 'anti'West' but I am against people, apparently like you, who use September 11th as an excuse for venting your own hatreds. Yes, Spetember 11th was a terrible atrocity, although there have been many worse - even in the last couple of years. I agree that America and her allies had to react to it, but I, and many others, feel that we (yes, WE) are going to far. Now, if you are merely going to countenance any action your government wishes to take, without accountability, you are giving away far too much power (1984, again). Also, in a war in which the west, and Bush and Blair in particular, have taken the moral high ground, it is our duty to show members of the Taleban and Al Quaeda and the outside world that western values are good and right, not that they diminish into air the moment we get our hands on those who are repellent to us.

Finally, your answer failed to address any of the points that I, or the other posters made. I can only specualte that you are either very young or easily influenced and are merely feeding off someone else's view point without actually understanding the issues at stake.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: mpw_amherst ]</p>
post #19 of 54
Considering you can't get the facts straight from your first post. You provide none of those pesky inconveniences called "facts" to back up most of your conclusions, there's little to discuss.
post #20 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>You people are stupid. Sorry to say but you are. Have fun with you west bashing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, quite right Scott H., I am stupid. I'll immediately desist "west bashing" and let <a href="http://www.theonion" target="_blank">The Onion</a> do it instead. They're much funnier than me.
[quote]Confused Marines Capture Al-Jazeera Leader

DOHA, QATAR In a daring effort to dismantle the vast Arab network, a company of confused Marines raided Al-Jazeera headquarters Monday and captured leader Mohammed Abouzeid. "Al-Jazeera has ties to virtually every country in the Arab world, and this guy was the key to their whole operation," Lt. Warren Withers said. "Nothing went through the Al-Jazeera communications array without his go-ahead." Pentagon officials praised the soldiers for their "courageous and swift action," but noted they would have preferred that the Marines captured someone hostile to the U.S. instead.<hr></blockquote>

Oh, and <a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3802/wdyt_3802.html" target="_blank">this</a>.

[Note: The Onion publishes satire, and therefore some of the above may not actually be based on fact. This is a note for those of you in Future Hardware who'll clearly believe anyone. ]
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #21 of 54
I read the print version of The Onion here in Chicago. Very funny stuff. So are you going to tell me that mpw_amherst satirist? I hope not.


In all seriousness. Please go over the first post and back up the statements with real facts. Most of the post is knee jerk garbage and has no basis in reality. Just like most of the op-eds just after the bombing started.
post #22 of 54
well scott, your certainly the king of facts around here...
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #23 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>I read the print version of The Onion here in Chicago. Very funny stuff. So are you going to tell me that mpw_amherst satirist? I hope not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I just realised if I was going to be called stupid for questioning the ethics and motivation of "the west" (Well, okay, in my case mostly the US), then there isn't much point in continuing the discussion, especially because the alternative post I had to The Onion one was to call you "an <a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3801/area_man_not_exactly_sure.html" target="_blank">all-American flag-waving patriot</a>", which is probably not the case considering the cynicism you display in most of your posts not relating to this subject.

Good to hear someone else buys The Onion, though. They need the funding! Come on people, it's only $39.95 a year, and I've (slightly) wet myself reading it on three occassions now.
[quote]In all seriousness. Please go over the first post and back up the statements with real facts. Most of the post is knee jerk garbage and has no basis in reality. Just like most of the op-eds just after the bombing started.<hr></blockquote>
I already pointed out one error, mostly because I didn't want my name associated with an inaccuracy, at least not with one of my own making.

What's worrying me right now is my feelings of apathy. Admittedly it doesn't matter one little iota what some nobody like me says on a forum about Apple, but once threads like this, the other on Camp X-Ray, and the one on Jock Sturges start looping (Which they always do), I get seriously bored. We're all so stubbornly opinionated that the discussions always end in stalemate. Or insults. Mostly both.

So I'll happily look as if I'm unable to argue my point in these threads, and go and insult people who believe Dorsal in Future Hardware instead. At least when it degenerates into insult-hurling over there, I don't feel I'm unable to argue my point, or that I'm insulting someone's intelligently thought out argument.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #24 of 54
[quote]By "American organizations," do you mean private organizations, or the US government?<hr></blockquote>

Well-known to British Intelligence, NORAID/INAC is the principal fund-raiser for terrorism (funds for weapons, explosives, salaries for agents etc) in Northern Ireland (by the Provisional IRA and the INLA), and has been for decades. According to it's website NORAID is recognized by the US Government "in good standing".
IRA terrorism has killed thousands in that province as well as the UK mainland and Western Europe since 1969 when unrest flared. (Ironically) NORAID's base is in Manhattan, at Broadway and 207th St. and the website is out of Florida. <a href="http://www.noraid.com" target="_blank">http://www.noraid.com</a>

On the other hand of course, the Irish community points out ample evidence that the British employ terrorist tactics.
<a href="http://www.noraid.com/Terrorists.htm" target="_blank">http://www.noraid.com/Terrorists.htm</a>

Challenge: Name me a country (Antarctica and Greenland do not count) that does not fund or employ terrorism!!!!
A roaring silence is expected on that one....

edit..spelling error!

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #25 of 54


Nuff said? Also, the detainees in Cuba (ironic isn't it?) are criminals not war prisoners. And they are getting better treatment than most of the prisoners are in the U.S.. I don't know but after 9/11 you have to accept some strange effects on everything. Deal with it. Discuss it. But it won't really change the course of things.
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #26 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
What's worrying me right now is my feelings of apathy. Admittedly it doesn't matter one little iota what some nobody like me says on a forum about Apple, but once threads like this, the other on Camp X-Ray, and the one on Jock Sturges start looping (Which they always do), I get seriously bored. We're all so stubbornly opinionated that the discussions always end in stalemate. Or insults. Mostly both.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Quite right, sad but true. as for Scott's point - I have backed up my post with facts:
1. I've sighted the fact that the prisoners in Cuba have yet to be proved guilty of anything.
2. That Afghanistan and Somalia are two of the world's poorest nations, and as many politicians have said, we should be helping these people, not bombing them if we want to get them on side.
3. That while the US is waging a war on terrorism, it did not condemn its own citizens and organisations funding Irish republican groups who killed more British (and consequently Irish) citizens than died on September 11th.
4. That the plight of Palestine has been ignored by the west, America in particular. Israel's invasion of Palestinian and Lebanese territories resulted in the death of 15,000 civilians in three days.

All of those facts were in my post. You have failed to raise any facts to support your argument. While I may not agree with your opinion, I would at least respect you if you could bring facts, not insults, to this debate. Sadly, it is a minority such as yourself, that is causing anti-American feeling, not only in the East, but now in Europe. Many British opinion polls and TV programmes are showing a growing discontent with Britain's aid of America, in what is rapidly becoming a diplomatic disaster. You might say that we can all "**** off", like ina previous thread, but America needs her allies more than ever now. You could do well to remember that.
post #27 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
<strong>1. I've sighted the fact that the prisoners in Cuba have yet to be proved guilty of anything.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
... but failed to show how their treatment should be any different as a consequence. I agreed with you that they must be treated as POWs until proven otherwise, but your other statements that they are being mistreated don't follow.
[quote]2. That Afghanistan and Somalia are two of the world's poorest nations, and as many politicians have said, we should be helping these people, not bombing them if we want to get them on side.<hr></blockquote>
And I hope you realize that the US has been the world's biggest provider of aid to both of those countries.
[quote]4. That the plight of Palestine has been ignored by the west, America in particular.<hr></blockquote>
If that's true, then why has no other country over the past 10 years been more involved in the peace negotiations between the two parties? Clinton almost single-handedly made Arafat a respectable negotiator, and even Bush has publicly called for a Palestinian state. But if the US hadn't provided military support to Israel, there would be no Israel today. It seems the only standard Hamas et al. will accept of the US is that we allow them to destroy Israel utterly.
[quote]While I may not agree with your opinion, I would at least respect you if you could bring facts, not insults, to this debate.<hr></blockquote>
About insults, I'll just remind you of a post you directed towards me about a half-page up:
[quote]Your views on Palestine and Israel are misnformed at best, and racist at worst.<hr></blockquote>
Sounds to me like insults rather than facts. I don't know how long you've been here, but I've debated the Arab-Israeli conflict again and again on these boards, and I stand by my command of the facts. I'll wait and see what you come up with before I pass a judgment of you like you have done of me, but so far, it's not looking good.
post #28 of 54
Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
You must admit, though, that the fall of the Taleban was merely a consequence of the attacks on Al Quaeda and owed nothing to any Western frustrations at the inhumanity of the Taleban regime.


The Taliban was a target as much as Al Queda because the Taliban were allowing the terrorists to use Afghanistan as a base. The goal was to wipe out the Taliban as well. Goal reached.

The rest of your post was so ridiculous it would take more time than I have to refute. You really have no common sense whatsoever, but you're entitled to your opinions..........................
post #29 of 54
Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
Your views on Palestine and Israel are misnformed at best, and racist at worst. While I realise that America has strong links with Israel, that is no reason for you to ignore Israeli atrocities. For a start, the whole situation was created by the West's idea of a 'Jewish state' post WWII. Secondly, Israel's conduct in the '60s was horrific. 15,000 Palestinian and Lebanese were massacred, many by Isreali tanks just crushing their houses while they were still in them. Don't forget that Israel was the agressor there, invading the West Bank and the Gaza strip. While it would be naive to say that this situation could easily be solved, it would help if Palestine was recognised as a state in its own right and the lands that Israel INVADED, without Western intervention, were returned. Its a bit far fetched to say that Palestinians want the destruction of Israel, when Israel is the agressor, Israel is currently occupying Palestinian territory and Israel is holding Arafat under virtual house arrest. While I would never condone the actions of the suicide bombers, we must understand why they are doing this and not give into mere Zionist interpretations.&lt;

15,000 Lebanese and palestinians were massacred in the 60s by Israel? And what exactly were you smoking in the 60s? Ludicrous statement.

Israel won a defensive war with the Arabs when they took the Gaza strip and West bank. When your country is attacked repeatedly from the same area you act. Israel would be a mere slip of land if the Arabs didn't attack them.

Israel has been trying for the past decade to give the Palestinians a State. Arafat turned down an offer so good even Clinton and the Europeans were astonished. Where exactly have you been?

You understand the suicide bombers? You understand slaughtering innocent men, women, and children of a State that you are currently in peace talks with? You are so far removed from reality I'm sure it will be pointless to argue with you................
post #30 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by mpw_amherst [re: BRussell]:

Your views on Palestine and Israel are misnformed at best, and racist at worst.
[snip]
Its a bit far fetched to say that Palestinians want the destruction of Israel, when Israel is the agressor, Israel is currently occupying Palestinian territory and Israel is holding Arafat under virtual house arrest. While I would never condone the actions of the suicide bombers, we must understand why they are doing this and not give into mere Zionist interpretations.
[snip]
<hr></blockquote>

1. Though new to this particular forum I must have read by now three hundred BRussell posts, and I can think of NOTHING he has ever posted has resembled either misinformation or "racism". Bad humor, yes, "Leftism" yes, but misinformation? Not in the past, and not in his posts in this thread. Your entirely defensible viewpoint about Palestine, Ireland et al is undermined by this kind of careless, dramatic worldplay.

2. You state "Its a bit far fetched to say that Palestinians want the destruction of Israel"...I'm not sure how this point is defensible. In the history of the region there have been numerous wars involving the simultaneous attack of Israel by its Arab neighbors, with the avowed destruction of Israel the goal. Perhaps you mean that Palestinians of today do not wish the destruction of Israel...

What's frustrating for me is that I think there are good arguments regarding the culpability [NOT blame, culpability there is a difference] of the West in some of these quagmires (be they the Mideast or Ireland or wherever), but again these critiques are underminded by careless namecalling; e.g. AS IF any attempts to problematize your characterizations are, in your eyes, simply evidence we've been duped by "mere Zionist interpretations."
post #31 of 54
Please don't bother. mpw_amherst starts off with the conclusion that America is to blame. Either for doing something or doing nothing. America is the great Satan and then from that everything follows.
post #32 of 54
Thanks, Timo - nice to see you here, hope you'll stay for a while.
post #33 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
Sounds to me like insults rather than facts. I don't know how long you've been here, but I've debated the Arab-Israeli conflict again and again on these boards, and I stand by my command of the facts. I'll wait and see what you come up with before I pass a judgment of you like you have done of me, but so far, it's not looking good.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well you're comments could be regarded as racist because you refuse to accept the acts against humanity committed by Israel. America may have played a major part in peace negotiations, but that is because it is allied to Israel. I've given my reasons for attacking America's attitude to the Middle East, you may want to read this article: Sharon guilty of war crimes

<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=116256" target="_blank">web page</a>

and also: another example of Israeli atrocities<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=94254" target="_blank">web page</a>

As for your comment about America and aid, that's true - but then America is the world's richest country and only surviving super power. The west needs to invest much more and stop being so cynical in its investment.

as for the Cuban prisoners - it violates their human rights that they should be shackled, it is against the Geneva convention.
post #34 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
You must admit, though, that the fall of the Taleban was merely a consequence of the attacks on Al Quaeda and owed nothing to any Western frustrations at the inhumanity of the Taleban regime.


The Taliban was a target as much as Al Queda because the Taliban were allowing the terrorists to use Afghanistan as a base. The goal was to wipe out the Taliban as well. Goal reached.

The rest of your post was so ridiculous it would take more time than I have to refute. You really have no common sense whatsoever, but you're entitled to your opinions..........................</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Taleban was only a target because they refused to hand over Al Quaeda, if it hadn't been for September 11th and their lack of co-operation they would still be there now, committing atrocities against their own people while the West did nothing.

You may think I lack common sense, but all of what I have said is actually in agreement wiht a strong movement in Britain which includes an enormous number of MPs, including a large number of Tony Blair's government and cabinet.
post #35 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by steve666:
<strong>Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
Your views on Palestine and Israel are misnformed at best, and racist at worst. While I realise that America has strong links with Israel, that is no reason for you to ignore Israeli atrocities. For a start, the whole situation was created by the West's idea of a 'Jewish state' post WWII. Secondly, Israel's conduct in the '60s was horrific. 15,000 Palestinian and Lebanese were massacred, many by Isreali tanks just crushing their houses while they were still in them. Don't forget that Israel was the agressor there, invading the West Bank and the Gaza strip. While it would be naive to say that this situation could easily be solved, it would help if Palestine was recognised as a state in its own right and the lands that Israel INVADED, without Western intervention, were returned. Its a bit far fetched to say that Palestinians want the destruction of Israel, when Israel is the agressor, Israel is currently occupying Palestinian territory and Israel is holding Arafat under virtual house arrest. While I would never condone the actions of the suicide bombers, we must understand why they are doing this and not give into mere Zionist interpretations.&lt;

15,000 Lebanese and palestinians were massacred in the 60s by Israel? And what exactly were you smoking in the 60s? Ludicrous statement.

Israel won a defensive war with the Arabs when they took the Gaza strip and West bank. When your country is attacked repeatedly from the same area you act. Israel would be a mere slip of land if the Arabs didn't attack them.

Israel has been trying for the past decade to give the Palestinians a State. Arafat turned down an offer so good even Clinton and the Europeans were astonished. Where exactly have you been?

You understand the suicide bombers? You understand slaughtering innocent men, women, and children of a State that you are currently in peace talks with? You are so far removed from reality I'm sure it will be pointless to argue with you................</strong><hr></blockquote>

See the links in my post below, from Robert Fisk - winner of best foreign correspondent in Britain, as voted for by all the British media.
post #36 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Timo:
<strong>

1. Though new to this particular forum I must have read by now three hundred BRussell posts, and I can think of NOTHING he has ever posted has resembled either misinformation or "racism". Bad humor, yes, "Leftism" yes, but misinformation? Not in the past, and not in his posts in this thread. Your entirely defensible viewpoint about Palestine, Ireland et al is undermined by this kind of careless, dramatic worldplay.

2. You state "Its a bit far fetched to say that Palestinians want the destruction of Israel"...I'm not sure how this point is defensible. In the history of the region there have been numerous wars involving the simultaneous attack of Israel by its Arab neighbors, with the avowed destruction of Israel the goal. Perhaps you mean that Palestinians of today do not wish the destruction of Israel...

What's frustrating for me is that I think there are good arguments regarding the culpability [NOT blame, culpability there is a difference] of the West in some of these quagmires (be they the Mideast or Ireland or wherever), but again these critiques are underminded by careless namecalling; e.g. AS IF any attempts to problematize your characterizations are, in your eyes, simply evidence we've been duped by "mere Zionist interpretations."</strong><hr></blockquote>

In reponse to Scott H, I think I made a prticualr point to say in my original post that I was not 'blaming' America.

Timo - you are right, 'cuplability' is a much better word. I also agree that 'racist' was strong, for which I apologise to BRussell, although it does disturb me that there appears to be quite a strong element of America unprepared to accept Israeli atrocities in the Middle East.
post #37 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
<strong>
See the links in my post below, from Robert Fisk - winner of best foreign correspondent in Britain, as voted for by all the British media.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe so but he's still a twit. Those Israeli war crimes were done by Lebanese.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #38 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

Maybe so but he's still a twit. Those Israeli war crimes were done by Lebanese.</strong><hr></blockquote>

He's provided the evidence that they weren't...
...I think we're reaching stalemate here.
post #39 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by mpw_amherst:
<strong>
He's provided the evidence that they weren't...
...I think we're reaching stalemate here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

"Arabs kill Arabs and the world blames the Jews." - Menachem Begin
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #40 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

"Arabs kill Arabs and the world blames the Jews." - Menachem Begin</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, that isn't an answer to the facts that Fisk presents. I said, I think we've reached stalemate. I see little point in arguing with people who refuse to present facts to support their side of the argument. If we were talking about G5s and I used a quote from Steve Jobs in 1981, or something, it wouldn't hold much water.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Reasons why we are all wrong on September 11th