Canadians blame US foreign policy for 9/11 - Page 10 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

LegendLength · #**136** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Without a doubt, US foreign policy is designed to serve the interests of the US military, US elites and US corporate interests. US foreign policy does not serve the immediate interests of the American citizenry ...

US foreign policy benifits all of those groups (including citizens).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

... (indeed, they are endangered by it).

Foreign policies of absolutely any country on earth will ultimately piss at least a few people off. Therefore you are correct, we are endangered by our foreign policy, under any government.

The people who get pissed off are countered by the military which strives protect citizens from being killed.

I can accept that you believe the US forces in Iraq are creating more terrorists than they are killing. But of course this is where our sides differ as we believe anyone who would potentially become a civilian killer is already beyond moral boundaries, hence no real conversion ever takes place.

adaher · #**137** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

However, when it comes to creating the next generation of terrorists, methinks it might be prudent of the US Government to spare a thought for the safety and security of their own citizenry and endeavour to reduce the likelihood of creating more of them. Thus, intelligent and pragmatic changes in US foreign policy are morally justified.

I don't think that makes a difference. What policies specifically enrage fundie crazies is not always easy to determine, and those we do know about(such as support for Israel) are non-negotiable.

Without a doubt, US foreign policy is designed to serve the interests of the US military, US elites and US corporate interests. US foreign policy does not serve the immediate interests of the American citizenry (indeed, they are endangered by it).

Be specific. I can't think of any of our foreign policies that is not supported by the US citizenry. At least none of the important stuff.

And I think you are wrong there. In any event, we have to start somewhere

Killing terrorists is a good start.

Stumper · #**138** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

If the majority of American legislators continue to agree with that which you have both just stated then I am resigned to believe that America will continue to be engaged in a prolonged and endless war.

But please remember that they probably hold beliefs that are very close to yours ... that "killing Americans is a good place to start".

I just don't see a lot of Iranian or Iraqi or Syrian pump-jacks in Texas or Alaska or Oklahoma
I don't see a Saudi-like kingdom supported by Iran or Iraq or Syria sitting next to the U.S.A
I don't see stockpiles of threatening nukes in Syira, Iraq, Iran or Palestine
I don't see foreign troops stationed en masse next to the USA in either Mexico or Canada or Cuba
I don't see an ocuppying power killing innocents in Canada or Mexico, with military protection of foreigners and their settlements
I don't see a foreign power kidnapping and assassinating political leaders in either Canada or Mexico
I don't see bombs or dead children or apocalyptic scenes of destruction in Canada or Mexico or Peru

But they DO see these things, and they actually LIVE AND EXPERIENCE these things. And they believe the perpetrators of these ugly scenes and events are, in large part, due to the policies of America and Isreal.

Good luck in your 100 years war.

[Stumper]

Andrewl · #**139** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Blaming american foreign policy as the only cause of 9/11 is just as stupid as denying american foreign policy has at least partly something to do with 9/11.

Do people really believe that 9/11 happened just because OBL hates freedom? That is ridiculous.

For every action there is a reaction, american foreign policy has often been brutal, lacking compassion or humanity, and has had a radicalizing effect on people in countries that are victimized by this policy. The people who commited 9/11 are also to blame, religion is to blame, non-sensical hatred is to blame, and a world plagued by violence on all sides is to blame. But to deny that american policy in regards to the Afghanistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc, has nothing to do with why 9/11 happened is just ridiculous.

Andrew

LegendLength · #**140** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stumper

But please remember that they probably hold beliefs that are very close to yours ... that "killing Americans is a good place to start".

(I'm assuming 'they' refers specifically to terrorists only)

"Killing Americans" is very, very different to "Killing Terrorists". You may as well compare "Killing convicted murderers" to "Killing Australians".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stumper

Good luck in your 100 years war.

You sound like you have given up on defending us against terrorist attacks. Unfortunately none of us have the luxury of wishing everyone good luck as we travel into our magic world free of cunts who target women and children.

Stumper · #**141** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendLength

US foreign policy benifits all of those groups (including citizens).

Please explain how the diversion of taxes away from health and education and infrastructure benefits the citizenry, and how petro dollars that are reinvested into America as international loans and future foreign debt benefit the citizenry.

You will need to post examples of foreign policies that generate American domestic growth and which promote the well being of the populace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendLength

But of course this is where our sides differ as we believe anyone who would potentially become a civilian killer is already beyond moral boundaries, hence no real conversion ever takes place.

So what you are saying is that children are born evil ? Or are you saying that children who are not baptised cannot be "converted" ?

Are you supportive of some kind of genetic mind control ? And what is this "conversion" thingy ?

Sort all of this out for us, please ! Because I think you have been watching too many movies and somehow you have melded them into one and have espoused them in a massive mind hemmorage.

[Stumper]

Stumper · #**142** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendLength

You sound like you have given up on defending us against terrorist attacks. Unfortunately none of us have the luxury of wishing everyone good luck as we travel into our magic world free of cunts who target women and children.

Lovely.

Tell that to the Palestinians.
Tell that to the Lebanese.
Tell that to the Iraqis.

LegendLength · #**143** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stumper

Lovely.

Tell that to the Palestinians.
Tell that to the Lebanese.
Tell that to the Iraqis.

That comment goes for any country, west, arab or any other.

LegendLength · #**144** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stumper

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendLength

But of course this is where our sides differ as we believe anyone who would potentially become a civilian killer is already beyond moral boundaries, hence no real conversion ever takes place.

So what you are saying is that children are born evil ? Or are you saying that children who are not baptised cannot be "converted" ?

WTF, baptised?

As for children being born evil that is virtually unprovable one way or the other as the definition of evil is obviously vague. The word 'conversion' in my quote refers to the 'become a civilian killer' part. I.e. the terrorists that are being 'created' in Iraq by the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stumper

Are you supportive of some kind of genetic mind control ?

Sort all of this out for us, please ! Because I think you have been watching too many movies and somehow you have melded them into one and have espoused them in a massive mind hemmorage.

You're a madman.

segep soch · #**145** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendLength

(I'm assuming 'they' refers specifically to terrorists only)

"Killing Americans" is very, very different to "Killing Terrorists". You may as well compare "Killing convicted murderers" to "Killing Australians".

You sound like you have given up on defending us against terrorist attacks.

Many people in Middle Eastern countries believe that Americans are terrorists. I'm not saying I agree with that point of view, I'm just stating a fact. Rightly or wrongly, that is their opinion. I do not think that indiscriminately killing their neighbors and families is going to dissuade them from that notion, either. It's been tried a few times. Now we need to move on to different tactics.

I know you weren't talking to me, but speaking for myself, I have not in any way given up on defending us against terrorist attacks. It's just that I believe that truly understanding what they think and believe is the first step to defending against further attacks. Going on the offense without first honestly attempting to understand the enemy is like playing Battleship without any pegs to mark where you've already attacked.

LegendLength · #**146** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by segep soch

Going on the offense without first honestly attempting to understand the enemy is like playing Battleship without any pegs to mark where you've already attacked.

Then I hope you don't follow the common line that it is all a law enforcement isse. Because in law enforcement we tackle the gunman before reaching out to understand him.

Why should an offense against Irish terrorists in Australia be understood before being squashed? (The word 'understood' refering to non-military understanding, for both of us.)

Zedrow · #**147** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by antipartisan

Bin Laden was never directly tied with the US in the afghan war. While it is true thatr he benefitted from the use of US weapons, the US dealt with another muslim fundamentalist and not Bin Laden. Eitherway, the US and the Islamic Fundamentalists in afghanistan were only temporarily aligned. The Islamicists reviled the US as much as they do now.

It is true that they focus on the US because of our policies. But that doesn't mean that they would stop terrorizing people if we stop interfering. The truth is that sunni Islamicists want to rule the world, specifically the muslim world. The US is seen as a hinderance and not their ultimate enemy. That is the shia and other muslims who do not agree with their strict view of Islam.

Europe is going to be hit hard by Al Queda. They are secular, liberal, socially pluralistic countries. Societies which run in direct contrast to what Al Queda and other fundamentalist groups stand for.

Indeed I agree that it is not just the US that is being targeted ( I should have been clearer, my bad) but it is more the western ideology that they are against. The main reason I can think of that the US is focused on is because the US is essentially the leader of western society in a sense as well as also being more directly involved in middle east politics than most other western nations.

I also don't think that it was US foreign policy alone that caused 9/11 but I do think that it certainly was a portion of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by antipartisan

The US has toi change its foreign policy. There is no doubting that. But Islam itself has to drastically alter where its going because ther religion is being hijacked by a small number of extremists who are only going to bring more misery, more humiliation, more cultural degradation, to a proud, culturally rich, society. It really doesn't matter what the US, UN, or Europe does because even if we left the ME tomorrow, the Fundamentalists would still be there. They would still be capable of causing a great deal of destruction and mayhem. The threat would still exist.

This last paragraph I agree with 100%, and would actually put more emphasis on Islam changing how it deals with these extremists, and more focus should be put on getting these moderates to denounce the extremists and reduce their numbers.

segep soch · #**148** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendLength

Then I hope you don't follow the common line that it is all a law enforcement isse. Because in law enforcement we tackle the gunman before reaching out to understand him.

Why should an offense against Irish terrorists in Australia be understood before being squashed? (The word 'understood' refering to non-military understanding, for both of us.)

No, I don't think that it is strictly a law enforcement issue. It's much more than that. I hate the phrase, but if it's really hearts and minds we're after, then we need to first know where those hearts and minds are. Right now I wonder if they even think we're human.

I can't speak for foreign policy before 9/11, because I wasn't paying any attention. Nor do I really understand OBL or AQ. But I do know that we didn't go into Iraq to root out foreign terrorists. We went in to root out an existing, secular government. What if North Korea or China came in and took over Cuba? We hate Cuba, right? How would that make us feel about them? What would that make us likely to do if we perceived even the slightest hint of aggression towards America?

segep soch · #**149** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by antipartisan

Bin Laden was never directly tied with the US in the afghan war. While it is true thatr he benefitted from the use of US weapons, the US dealt with another muslim fundamentalist and not Bin Laden. Eitherway, the US and the Islamic Fundamentalists in afghanistan were only temporarily aligned. The Islamicists reviled the US as much as they do now.

It is true that they focus on the US because of our policies. But that doesn't mean that they would stop terrorizing people if we stop interfering. The truth is that sunni Islamicists want to rule the world, specifically the muslim world. The US is seen as a hinderance and not their ultimate enemy. That is the shia and other muslims who do not agree with their strict view of Islam.

Europe is going to be hit hard by Al Queda. They are secular, liberal, socially pluralistic countries. Societies which run in direct contrast to what Al Queda and other fundamentalist groups stand for.

The US has toi change its foreign policy. There is no doubting that. But Islam itself has to drastically alter where its going because ther religion is being hijacked by a small number of extremists who are only going to bring more misery, more humiliation, more cultural degradation, to a proud, culturally rich, society. It really doesn't matter what the US, UN, or Europe does because even if we left the ME tomorrow, the Fundamentalists would still be there. They would still be capable of causing a great deal of destruction and mayhem. The threat would still exist.

You make a lot of sense.

Go Blue!

Zedrow · #**150** (**permalink**) 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

I just don't agree with your basic premise. I simply don't accept the idea that if only we try to please the terrorists and work out policies that will fit with their agenda, we will somehow get on their "good side" and they will leave us alone. They are not really filled with love underneath and just waiting for us to be "nice" and stop abusing them. That fantasy of "terrorists as victims of America" is something I will never agree with. Never. I am stunned that so many people - Canadians and others - find comfort and try to make sense of the world by taking refuge in this nonsense.

I don't think we should try to appease the terrorists either and that is not what I'm saying. What I meant was to try to work with these nations to do what is in their best interest, not what is in our (western) best interest. I would never advocate that we give up our ideology to appease the terrorists, never. What I do believe though is that we should not force (or even bribe) other nations with different ideals to convert to ours either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

As to why OBL does what he does - you can attempt to "understand" him if you like. I am not interested in figuring out his thinking so we can change our policies. The nihilism of Al Qaeda is a ferocious, obsessive hatred that cannot be understood.

I just like to understand the different views and what makes them think the way they do, OBL included.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

Have you seen the film of the terrorists visiting the WTC in order to work out the details of their upcoming slaughter? Are you going to tell me that they said one day "We don't like US policies. Let's murder thousands, take over planes and smash into NYC and the pentagon and terrorize people in the middle of their work day so we can protest those policies"?

As I stated above I don't subscribe to this way of thinking in the least. And who is to say they will be Islamic terrorists for that matter. It could be anyone, even an American who is pissed off at their own personal circumstances for that matter, and blames the government for their situation. All they would have to do is find others with similar problems and persuade them to help the cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

There is no dialogue with nihilism. Your description of him "leaving home" is quite bizarre.

I am surprised that you are on this bandwagon as well. Surprising and disappointing.

Sorry you feel that way.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch