9/11...The Emotional Blank Cheque

[sos]

First of all, hello everyone, i got tired of the restrictions placed on discussion on the ES Forums so i thought i would jump ship and give this place a try, so my First Thread is going to be a rather contraversial one, most likely for the American members of the board.



In the Year's Since the 9/11 attacks, i've never really seen a proper and frank discussion about the reasoning behind such an attack on any media outlet, most of all the American Media, which i keep tabs on, infact from the very instant on that fateful day in September ..reasoning seemed to go out the window...it was taken for granted, from what orignal source i could only hazard a guess..that the men who commited the attack's were mindless fanatics, hell bent on destroying what they hated, Freedom, or at least the American variety..and their way of life.
This struck me as odd, suddenly these Zealots had the bright Idea that they must destroy America and it's way of life for no other reason than blind hatred?..surely everyone..be he Muslim..Jew..Christian or any demonination.. desires Freedom in the form it's culture has evolved, why was American Freedom so oppressive and evil to these men, this question gnawed at me so i began to investigate for myself, the possible causes.
beyond the 9/11 conspiracy theories, for which their are many, some with valid questions, though i think that is mainly due to the limited and ineffective investigation carried out by the 9/11 commision rather than any massive conspiracy...it is generally agreed that Usama Bin Laden is chiefly responsible for the planning of the attacks, though many others were involved at a high level, infact he has stated that he was responsible as i'm sure most of us know, he has also stated, in more than one interview...though the example i use is from an Interview carried out by Abc's john Miller, that he had 3 main grievances agains't the United States....

1) The Us Military Presence in Saudi Arabia
2) US support for Israel
3) US Policy towards Iraq (Beginning with the first Gulf War)

Now...if we are to take his grievances seriously, which i think would be the most logical thing to do, regardless of our own opinions on such matters, then clearly there is a concrete cause for the attacks on 9/11..not just blind fanaticism, it was seemingly America's war on Iraq which infuriated Bin Laden so much, he know's full well that the American-British Coalition dropped more than 88,500 tonnes of bombs during the first gulf war, which would have the same destructive force of seven Hiroshima sized bombs, not to mention the 13 years of sanctions 1990-2003 which followed, pushed forward by Both America and Britian through the UN Council, these resolutions effectively starved the Iraqi people and acccording to the Red Cross and Amnesty International, killed Hundreds of Thousands, which, if we apply the law of Universality...is Genocide is any man's language.

So if the attack's of 9/11 were infact based on legitimate grievances, grievances, however you may disagree/disaprove of, are founded on actual US aggression, it is only logical that we should hold America to the same standard it holds the rest of the world,why was such a desperate and barberous act not more fully investigated?, why, as we now find ourselves today, did America and Britian concoct evidence to support a war against Iraq, fueled by the Anger of the 9/11 attacks, bringing the full might of the most advanced Military on the planet and a third of a million troops crashing down on what was now, after sanctions..a third world country, The Emotional Blank Cheque that was 9/11 was the pretense for this war of Aggression, aswell as the so called War on Terror which does not seem to have any coherent stated aims, other than to target countries America has deemed in need of regime change..now Iraq and Afghanistan are in turmoil, with America facing certain disaster in both countrys as popular opposition to their occupation force grows in strength month by month, tens of thousands are dead, with thousands more dieing each month...Why to this day is 9/11 held in such reverent terms as an unprovoked attack, for all the horror and misery it was spawned, both for the 3000 that died that day and the scores of thousands since....when clearly it was provoked..irrelevant of how immoral 9/11 was, the people of the middle east have legitimate grievances against the West, it just astounds me that most Americans cannot see this, if you truely look in the mirror and apply to yourself, the same set of ethical standards set for those who have attacked you, you will find that America..and it's practices abroad..is spawning these Jihadists, they are a direct consequence of US foriegn aggression, and will continue to grow as America brings the whole world close to the brink of the true...final war, my take on it all....please forgive the rambling form as it's how my mind tends to operate, but i think you get the general gist, if you agree/disagree with any/all of what i have said, please feel free to state the case.

[Britney]

There are two sides to every coin... so, what's your point exactly? I don't believe the vast American population widely recognizes the attacks on 9/11 as being unprovoked, and certainly from a simple glance at the many threads in here already dealing with this precise topic, one can easily deduce that neither does a majority on this forum.

[duckofdoom]

Welcome, Sparta ! This be one long and more-than-decent post you have here and it's our fortune it's in debate. I agree with it in entirely.

I also agree with the fact that US foreign policy in Middle East, long term one, has done much more damage than anyone could expect. Certainly, every single country there, be it Israel or Syria, has the same exact right to demand freedom and equivality for themselves. But the tragedy of this subject is that countries there were pawns of superpowers during the Cold War; traditional Russian allies and arms buyers - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan - were all set against Israel, the main US ally in region, which polarised long-term policy of both sides for decades. On the other hand, covert moves done by CIA within countries like Iraq, Iran, Afganistan and few other have done unimaginable damage and created the ground for emergence of such extremist muslim radical groups, which have nearly all turned in the end against US [the only exception I know of today is Hamas, in Palestine].

It is a fact that predecestors of Al-Quaeda were US allies in Afganistan. It is a fact that Saddam Hussein was main american ally against Iran. It is also a fact that USA had more than few things to do with the violent overthrow of Iran's Prime Minister and installment of Emperor Reza Pahlavi, which threw the country into turmoil and pushed them toward one of the most radical muslim regimes that we know. All those moves were done in the best interest of America, but the aftermath was disasterous and the main guilt for it lies exactly in the short-sightedness of US political/military analysists.

What I am trying to say here, in short, is that America HAD to choose it's allies with much more wisdom... but since that was not the case, consequences are dire and more than tragic. What is more tragic is that average person in the US doesn't ask itself "What has caused all this hatret toward US ?" - instead, they're still focusing on short-term solutions, mostly violent and interventionist, which is not very productive in the long run. Three key words for every US goverment in the future should, IMHO, be: Diplomacy, Diplomacy and Diplomacy, because weapons can only do so much.


NOTE: There is, however, one US military intervention which I am not opposing, and that is the war against Afganistan. The Taliban regime there was even worse than teh one in Iran, they were completely opressive toward their neighbours and their own people and the level of disregard toward human rights was unpresidented... and, they harbored terrorists on their soil, giving them all support they could. Talibans deserved to be thrashed. [again, IMHO]

EDIT: Since I'm really awful with sources, here is one decent link that would shed some light on this subject: Once Upon A Time...

EDIT n.2: CORRECTION - there is an error up there, where I wrote "overthrow of Iran's Emperor [Shah]", when it should say "Overthrow of Iran's Prime Minister and Installment of Shah Reza pahlavi" shame on me for that one...

[lucia]

Um, I doubt Bin Laden would be trying to "avenge" Saddam Hussein getting trashed in Desert Storm, considering they held vastly different views on what the Middle East should be. Bin Laden is/was a traditional, Islamic fighter/terrorist, whereas Saddam was an American financed, secular dictator.

The first problem with your proposal is (to the Bush administration) is that negotiating with someone who has just killed three thousand people isn't the reaction people want. I mean, people don't try to understand serial killers, they put them in jail. And how do you negotiate with someone in hiding, who's been wanted for a decade?

I'm also tired of hearing that Americans don't understand this or that; less than twenty five percent of this country voted for Mr. Bush, and his approval rating is around that number right now. There were protests in the thousands across the nation saying we should not invade, and all that stuff, but with a Republican controlled congress, there's nothing people can do, but wait until his term is over.

[morty14]

Well, without going off on my personal feelings of how 9/11 came about, because that isn't the topic, I'll try to respond to this.

If, let's just pretend for a moment, if it was absolutely proven fact that Muslim terrorists flew planes into three buildings and these terrorists' goal truly was to 'destroy our freedom,' then they've won already. Patriot Act was passed immediately after 9/11, so they won an early victory and things have just go downhill from there until just a few days ago when the final version of the Military Commissions Act was passed and sent to the President, completely giving victory to the terrorists. So, if the government propaganda about the terrorists wanting only to take our freedom was true, then the government themselves would be traitors in the War on Terror by destroying our freedom. It is absolutely absurd.

I agree with you on the facts that the reasons to go to Iraq were total frauds, and the war is totally unprovoked aggression. Going into Afghanistan is just as much a fraud, we have mainstream news breaking the story about the 'Airlift of Evil' and whatnot where we flew thousands of Taliban out of Afghanistan to Pakistan, and now they are continuing to reak havoc. Top military and government leaders saying that it is better that we never captured Osama, it is crazy. Whether you believe the official stories about 9/11 or not, you can see that we were lied into war with Iraq AND Afghanistan.

[Ratwar]

SoS, as I told you last night, I reject your conclusions that the attacks on the September 11, 2001 were not based on blind fanaticism.

Does Osama Bin Laden have a legitimate grievance against the US? No, Osama Bin Laden lived a life of luxury for many years because of US oil money, before he chose to take up arms. As a person, the US has never injured Osama Bin Laden with its policies in Iraq, Israel, or Saudi Arabia, even if they have been detrimental to the local population in Iraq and Israel, until after the 1998 embassy bombings. What Osama Bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda did on 9/11 (and their attacks before) could be a best considered an example of why vigilantly justice is horrible, and at worst, it is one of the greatest international crimes in this century.

He might say that the US’s policy towards Iraq is a reason why he lashes out, but in truth, there is little logic in this claim. Saddam Hussein’s policies against Iran and his own people killed more Muslims than US policies. Since 1980, Iraq had attack two Muslim countries, one of which was an Islamic government that had opposed the US seizing hostages just year before Iraq invaded. The government of Iraq did not follow traditional Islamic Law. Any policy that weakened Iraq helped the Islamic revolution of Iran.

I find it laughable that Bin Laden can pass of hating the US military presence in Saudi Arabia as a logical reason to carry out terrorist attacks. How can you justify killing almost 3,000 people over a few thousand foreigners in Saudi Arabia? They weren’t stationed anywhere near Mecca or Medina. They weren’t standing around tossing empty beer cans at the Kaaba and then peeing on it! The only thing that they are is non-Islamic foreigners. Saying that this is a logical or even understandable reason for any type of violence is crazy. Religious motivation is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card for murder.

As for the Israel conflict, it is unreasonable to blame that entirely on the west, or America. The roots of the conflict go back to WW1, well before there was any American influence in the area. Therefore, the US did not start the conflict, and is only guilty of aiding Israel in the face of aggressive moves by Islamic nations. Blaming the United States for the problems in the Eastern Mediterranean just doesn’t hold water.

Before I began my argument, I talked about how Bin Laden had never been directly hurt by the US. In fact, most terrorists involved in his organization have never been directly hurt by American policies. This is perhaps the most important bit of information when discussing Islamic extremism. How do you get people that are willing to kill themselves to avenge people they never met? Quite simply, they are a misjudged reaction to dissatisfaction with the direction of their lives and culture.

Muslim extremism was created by oil. Without oil, Arabic countries would not be undergoing the rapid modernization that is currently happening. This rapid change has caused cultural instability, and a pronounced rejection of the change, which has manifested itself in terrorism. The US (and the west in general) are the source of this change, and are thus the demon figures of the fundamentalist Islamic movement.

For those of you that are in the US, we’re seeing a similar (but thankfully less violent) movement in the form of evangelical Christians. Even as the number of Americans regularly going to church declines, the fundamentalist Christians become ever more vocal, and even more committed to their cause. A more historic example of this resistance to change (once again drawing from American history, sorry everyone, but this is the stuff I know best) is the KKK. After the American Civil War, the South was subjected to a culture shock, and the KKK became the extremist opposition to change. As the Civil rights movement began to gain traction in the 1960s, we saw racial violence increase, even as the number of racists decreased.

Oh, and one more thing for Duck, Osama bin Laden and the predecessors of al-Qaeda weren’t US allies in Afghanistan. Source (I was really surprised when I found that out like 30 minutes ago)

[Britney]

duckofdoom said:

What is more tragic is that average person in the US doesn't ask itself "What has caused all this hatret toward US ?" - instead, they're still focusing on short-term solutions, mostly violent and interventionist, which is not very productive in the long run.

Where do you get that impression? I don't think the average American thinks in such a simplistic fashion.

lucia said:

I'm also tired of hearing that Americans don't understand this or that; less than twenty five percent of this country voted for Mr. Bush, and his approval rating is around that number right now.

And I see you agree with me.

@ Ratwar-

You also must consider the fact that America (and pretty much the whole rest of the world except for Africa) is ahead of the Middle East with regards to living standards. The difference between the Middle East and Africa is that prior to the 1900's the Middle East has a history of being highly advanced (Africa has always been stuck in the stoneage). While the terrorists themselves may not have been hurt directly by US policies, you can't exactly say that their ego is intact when they look at their own history and wonder why most every country surpassed them.

[duckofdoom]

ratwar said:

Oh, and one more thing for Duck, Osama bin Laden and the predecessors of al-Qaeda weren’t US allies in Afghanistan. Source (I was really surprised when I found that out like 30 minutes ago)

Ah, then we all stand corrected. But doesen't your statement about Bin Laden and his life in "wealth and luxury" doesen't contradict the following passage from that link:

BERGEN: ...He [Bin Laden] doesn't require a lot of money to live. He's lived a kind of monk-like life for a long time. Even when he had millions in the bank, he was sleeping on the floor, he wasn't drinking cold water. He was living a life very much disattached from material goods. It seemed like he had been preparing for this for a very long time. And he certainly isn't making cash withdrawals that can be traced.

That is the mind of not only a terrorist, that is the mind of religious zealot and a fanatic, devoted to his cause. Such people are the most dangerous, because no matter how wrong their cause is, they'll follow it to the bloody end.

It is completely true that Taliban Movement wasn't allied with US at no point; however, the Afgan Mujahideens who have fought against USSR military in 80's, were a wide group of tribal warriors who's only objective at the time was to drive foreign invader from Afganistan; and they WERE aided by US. Talibans, which came much later as an ultra-extremist, fundamentalist movement, splintered from the main bulk of mujahideens, that had plagued their land and threw country into medieval times. The list of Taliban wrongdoings [very mild term, that one] is long, and I think that the Wiki article there will be more than sufficient.

My main point here, again, is that US long-term foreign policy is short-sighted. Of course, no one can blame USA for funding people who have fought their greatest enemy during Cold War, but strategic analysis and long-term predictions require people with wisdom and vision; and also cool headed politicians, who will work to benefit not only USA, but also her allies and [potencial] new friends in all regions... but if majority of people in US really think like dear ol' Rat ["We don't need friends."], then this point is pointless - USA will do what they'll do, untill they are able to do it, and we can't do anything about it. So, I'll just go & grab my Cliacil. ;D

p.s.: Many thanks to Wikipedia - it is making me look smarter than I really am ;D

[Ratwar]

graveflower said:

@ Ratwar-

You also must consider the fact that America (and pretty much the whole rest of the world except for Africa) is ahead of the Middle East with regards to living standards. The difference between the Middle East and Africa is that prior to the 1900's the Middle East has a history of being highly advanced (Africa has always been stuck in the stoneage). While the terrorists themselves may not have been hurt directly by US policies, you can't exactly say that their ego is intact when they look at their own history and wonder why most every country surpassed them.

Actually, they really aren't. According to the CIA factbook, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Oman, and Kuwait all have a higher per capita GDP than a place like Mexico. In fact, the U.A.E. has a higher per capita GDP than the US and a lower Unemployment rate. I mean, they aren't paradises by any stretch of the imagination, but they are actually doing decent as far as developing(South America, Africa, Central, Southern, and South Eastern Asia) countries are concerned.

Oh, and at Duck, the statements in that source refer to how Osama lives now, my statements refered to the time before he started living in caves, more specifically, when he was in Saudi Arabia.

As for me thinking that we don't need friends, I have never said that, besides saying that it was the point of Bush's foreign policy, which I disagree with on a lot of points (that being one of them). As for attacking the US's foreign policy 20 years later, hindsight is 20-20. The US hasn't been perfect, and they aren't perfect now.

[Britney]

ratwar said:

graveflower said:

@ Ratwar-

You also must consider the fact that America (and pretty much the whole rest of the world except for Africa) is ahead of the Middle East with regards to living standards. The difference between the Middle East and Africa is that prior to the 1900's the Middle East has a history of being highly advanced (Africa has always been stuck in the stoneage). While the terrorists themselves may not have been hurt directly by US policies, you can't exactly say that their ego is intact when they look at their own history and wonder why most every country surpassed them.

According to the CIA factbook, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Oman, and Kuwait all have a higher per capita GDP than a place like Mexico.

, of course they do. They are major oil producers for the rest of the world. GDP measures the wealth in a country, but it doesn't measure the distribution of that wealth. Just because a country has a high GDP does not mean that the wealth is evenly distributed, and in most cases (especially the Middle East) it certainly is not.

Consequently, a high GDP tells us nothing of the living standards in any particular country. And you can be sure, the living standards in the middle east suck. How can you argue otherwise?

My point is that it wasn't always that way. Before the 1900's (before oil), the Middle East had a high living standard compared to the rest of the world, because they were the center point of many trade routes between Europe and Asia. The Middle East has a rich history, and anyone of Middle Eastern decent is going to look at that history and wonder why they ended up where they are now, and when looking at countries like the USA, Russia, all of Europe even (and certainly Israel), they are going to feel injustice. A rich history is the reason why religious fanaticism originates there, and not Africa.

[Britney]

duckofdoom said:

ratwar said:

My main point here, again, is that US long-term foreign policy is short-sighted.

The US is attempting to establish Democracies in the Middle East and Afghanistan (because Democracies don't fight wars against eachother). Doesn't sound like a short-sighted policy to me (but perhaps the way they are going about it is...)