Reasons why we are all wrong on September 11th

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
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.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 53
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [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.
  • Reply 2 of 53
    [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.
  • Reply 3 of 53
    [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.
  • Reply 4 of 53
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [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.
  • Reply 5 of 53
    [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!
  • Reply 6 of 53
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [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.
  • Reply 7 of 53
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [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.
  • Reply 8 of 53
    [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.
  • Reply 9 of 53
    [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>
  • Reply 10 of 53
    jrcjrc Posts: 805member
    [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.
  • Reply 11 of 53
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [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.
  • Reply 12 of 53
    [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>
  • Reply 13 of 53
    [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.
  • Reply 14 of 53
    [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.
  • Reply 15 of 53
    You people are stupid. Sorry to say but you are. Have fun with you west bashing.
  • Reply 16 of 53
    [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.
  • Reply 17 of 53
    &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>
  • Reply 18 of 53
    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.
  • Reply 19 of 53
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [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. ]
  • Reply 20 of 53
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.