Canadians blame US foreign policy for 9/11 - Page 14 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

tamperpr00f · #**196** (**permalink**) 09-18-2006

A man walks up to you and puts a gun to your head and tells you to give him all of your money or else he will kill you. You choose to fight the man and he carries out his threat and ends your life. Is it your fault that you are now dead or the man with the gun?

tamperpr00f · #**197** (**permalink**) 09-18-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madlib

I am not blaming america for anything, I like the States, I was raised there and my parents live there now, I just don't like the foreign policy of the USA, and I don't like it's blowhard arrogance.

I hear this argument often yet I never hear any specifics as to which of our policies are disliked.

bcbailey65 · #**198** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher

What a positive contribution to civilization. Why not NOT kill the terrorists but rather stop creating them by not fighting under false pretences and basically occupying countries whose civilian population whom you profess to be saving doesn't want you there in the first place. Use your brain.

Actually, the invasion of Iraq was supported by most Iraqis. It was staying so long that they didn't want.

I'd like to see evidence backing your dubious claim. Was the population of Iraq polled before they were invaded?

bcbailey65 · #**199** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamperpr00f

I hear this argument often yet I never hear any specifics as to which of our policies are disliked.

Invading Iraq illegally and under false pretences for starters. Oh, I forgot, you don't have access to international news in the US. (ie news presented by non-American news agencies).

bcbailey65 · #**200** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

It's funny that you raise the example of auto accidents compared to terrorism insofar as risk of getting maimed or killed. I use that myself, and it's correct--so far. Most people drive in the US and somewhere around 55,000 people are killed per year so I've heard. Yet, most people accept the risks without any hesitation or thought insofar as being fearful every day. People simply have come to mental acceptance of the risks of driving.

But by way of another example, the odds of getting killed whilst flying on an aeroplane are far lower yet far more people are afraid of it.

The key factor, IMO, is fear caused by personal lack of control over the circumstance. There is an obvious creature comfort with being on the ground and behind the wheel because the operator knows they have some measure of control over the risks and have a chance of avoiding the risks through their own actions and reactions. But being in a plane, they are not flying the plane, and there is knowledge of certain death if a problem develops at high altitude. Hence, the lack of control over their fate is obvious, and is entrusted in the good performances and behaviours of others over which they have no control.

It's the same with terrorism IMO. The biggest fear factor is the lack of control in it. There is always some risk that some terrorist will release some disease or toxin, or blow up a commuter train or aeroplane, or blast something, etc, and that they can pick and plot their plans at their own pace. They are the ultimate boogeyman--and for good reason.

But, that said, perspective is indeed important. I've sadly learnt this lesson repeatedly, seeing and experiencing first hand the ethnic/religious hatred in Ireland and terrorism produced from it, followed by my own family losses and near losses with Islamic extremism, including September 11

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...315#post797315

But I've been in car accidents too and driving doesn't scare me (I love to drive), and terrorism doesn't scare me either. There are risks that need to be assessed and handled (prudent driving, taking efforts to repel and reduce terrorism, etc) but they need to be assessed with a calm head. Fear is a helpful and needed warning sign of danger, but it needs to be put on a leash so clinical analysis can be performed to address the concerns. Unharnessed fear block critical judgement and leads to any and all combinations of poor decisions, paralysis, flight, denial, gullibility, etc. "

In saying that, though, doesn't meant that terrorism should be taken as a minor menace or with nonchalance. Alot of the problems the world is seeing now have a good chance of exploding into alot more sooner or later, including but not limited to Islamic extremism, and several stormfactors are brewing. IMHO, alot worse is coming before it gets better. And a few terrorists with the right plots can kill a tremendous amount of people.

Great post and I agree with all of your points. I absolutely despise the terrorists - but I don't think we are really winning the battle when we give up our freedoms in the name of security. That has never made sense to me. I admire the British response to the Naziis in WW2....carrying on pretty much as normal with a stiffer upper lip.....and fighting back.

tamperpr00f · #**201** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbailey65

Invading Iraq illegally and under false pretences for starters. Oh, I forgot, you don't have access to international news in the US. (ie news presented by non-American news agencies).

Since when is war an issue of legality? We went to war with Saddam Hussein because we felt threatened by an Iraq under his control.

Andrewl · #**202** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamperpr00f

Since when is war an issue of legality? We went to war with Saddam Hussein because we felt threatened by an Iraq under his control.

Well AQ declared war against the US. That was illegal. Or do you believe it was fully justified for AQ to attack the US since they felt threatened by americas imperialism in the ME?

Andrew

tamperpr00f · #**203** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

AQ isn't a national entity therefore they do not have the authority to formally declare war. The actions of AQ are terrorism and are illegal because they violate American law.

Andrewl · #**204** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamperpr00f

AQ isn't a national entity therefore they do not have the authority to formally declare war. The actions of AQ are terrorism and are illegal because they violate American law.

But you said questions of legality have nothing to do with the declaration of war? If that is truly what you believe than why do you all of a sudden declare that formal authority is important.

Why would AQ care about american law, america is a foreign institution. America does not care about the laws between nations, so why should her adversaries care at all about the law of one nation. Certainly Iraq had laws against blowing up government buildings in Baghdad, what gave america the authority to violate that law?

I dont think you have any idea what you are talking about.

Andrew

tamperpr00f · #**205** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

National entites (countries) have the ability to make law and declare war. Groups of violent extremists not directly affiliated with any specific nation (terrorists) have no capacity to do either.

Furthermore, it is your argument that American policy is the cause of terrorist attacks and as an example you cite our invasion of Iraq, which happened only after the September eleventh attacks. Perhaps those who are unable to track the basic order of events shouldn't hurl insults?

Andrewl · #**206** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamperpr00f

National entites (countries) have the ability to make law and declare war. Groups of violent extremists not directly affiliated with any specific nation (terrorists) have no capacity to do either.

On what laws do you base this. If you are just basing it on american law, or any law of any single nation, than it is meaningless. So please, what are you basing your principle on? It only makes sense if it is based on laws between nations, i.e., international law. Otherwise you are just stating a principle you believe in, but your own personal beliefs are irrelevent to this discussion.

BTW, going by your principle, the state of israel was created by a non-state entity. Are you prepared to say Israel has no right to exist? Did settlers in america have no right to wage war against the British? Do you even realize the implications of what you are saying if you are truly basing your principle on nothing but just american law and no higher principle of law?

Quote:

Furthermore, it is your argument that American policy is the cause of terrorist attacks and as an example you cite our invasion of Iraq, which happened only after the September eleventh attacks. Perhaps those who are unable to track the basic order of events shouldn't hurl insults?

American policy has led to blowback terrorism. Of that there is no question. Beyond that, america has funded and supported terror not only in afghanistan but in central and south america.

The cause of 9/11 is complex. America played a role in helping the groups who commited 9/11 to exist, and further, americas foreign policy in the ME gave these groups cause (justified or unjustified) to want to attack america. This is all before the invasion of iraq, and before 9/11.

The london and spain bombers claimed the invasion and occupation of iraq in 2003 as their cause. Also, virtually every intelligence agency on the planet, including your very own CIA, acknowledges that Iraq has become a terrorist training ground with real world combat situations that goes far beyond what was available to terrorists training in Afghanistan in the '90s.

The world has not barely even begun to deal with the aftermath of this fact. We will be dealing with these radicals and fundamentalists for decades, as they export their skills and plans to the rest of the world. This is a direct example of how flawed and stupid american foreign policy creates terrorism. This is not really disputable.

Andrew

tamperpr00f · #**207** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

On what laws do you base this. If you are just basing it on american law, or any law of any single nation, than it is meaningless. So please, what are you basing your principle on?

The principle of common sense. Terrorists cannot declare war because they are not a nation. Therefore their declaration of war is nothing more than rhetoric.

Quote:

BTW, going by your principle, the state of israel was created by a non-state entity. Are you prepared to say Israel has no right to exist?

Israel was granted its right to exist by a conglomeration of state entities and the Brittish protectorate which was in charge of the land and further sealed its right to exist through warfare.

Quote:

Did settlers in america have no right to wage war against the British?

The American colonies separated from England and were a national entity. Furthermore I am not speaking of rights but simply of authority. I am saying that in their declarations of war the terrorists have actually done nothing more than declare their intentions to break the law (not just of America but any of the many nations they would choose to attack) and this cannot be recognized as any sort of formal declaration by the international community because terrorists are not a national entity.

Quote:

American policy has led to blowback terrorism. Of that there is no question.

Again I say If a man accosts you with a gun and tells you he will kill you unless you give him all of your money and you refuse to do so. Is it your fault when that man pulls the trigger and ends your life?

Quote:

The cause of 9/11 is complex. America played a role in helping the groups who commited 9/11 to exist, and further, americas foreign policy in the ME gave these groups cause (justified or unjustified) to want to attack america. This is all before the invasion of iraq, and before 9/11.

Terrorism exists because people who want power and authority prey on the emotions of the masses who are impoverished. Then by blaming someone else for the problems of the impoverished the leaders are able to create themselves an army and a power base to do their bidding. Think back to Hitler and his accusations against the Jewish people in Germany.

Only an idiot would think that throughout history America is completely free of sin, and I am not an idiot. However the ultimate blame cannot be laid on America for the actions of those who choose to do evil. And certainly nobody can lay blame at the feet of those civilians who were murdered on September eleventh who had nothing to do with the middle east.

Andrewl · #**208** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamperpr00f

The principle of common sense. Terrorists cannot declare war because they are not a nation. Therefore their declaration of war is nothing more than rhetoric.

Perhaps the US should have taken it as a bit more than mere rhetoric. But what is the difference between thi non-state entity declaring war and the US rebels as a non-state entity declaring war against Britain?

Quote:

Israel was granted its right to exist by a conglomeration of state entities and the Brittish protectorate which was in charge of the land and further sealed its right to exist through warfare.

Did that conglomeration of state entities happen to be called the UN by any chance? I though you did not follow the law of the UN, or do you just pick and choose which ones you like? Britain did not have the authority or the desire to give rights to israeli terrorists who stole land and declared statehood. But if we accept this principle of yours, then if radical islam does capture and control a state, and any conglomeration of states recognizes their existence, would they than have the proper authority to wage war against the US, or would it have to be the UN who recognizes them? If so why the UN?

Quote:

The American colonies separated from England and were a national entity. Furthermore I am not speaking of rights but simply of authority. I am saying that in their declarations of war the terrorists have actually done nothing more than declare their intentions to break the law (not just of America but any of the many nations they would choose to attack) and this cannot be recognized as any sort of formal declaration by the international community because terrorists are not a national entity.

They were a national entity by whose authority? Gods? Did the american revolutionaries not break british law? What international community? I thought you didnt believe the international community did not have any authority. They certainly did not extend their authority to the invasion of Iraq... American rebels were not considered a national entity, nor were the Israeli terror groups Irgun and Lehi.

Quote:

Again I say If a man accosts you with a gun and tells you he will kill you unless you give him all of your money and you refuse to do so. Is it your fault when that man pulls the trigger and ends your life?

What does this have to do with american foreign policy partaking in, funding, and causing terror.

Perhaps if you hired a man to murder this guys father when he was a kid, and then supported the father while he beat up on the children and the wife, and then he came after you to kill you for revenge.... that would be more analogous to american foreign policy resulting in blow back terror.

Quote:

Terrorism exists because people who want power and authority prey on the emotions of the masses who are impoverished. Then by blaming someone else for the problems of the impoverished the leaders are able to create themselves an army and a power base to do their bidding. Think back to Hitler and his accusations against the Jewish people in Germany.

American foreign policy has always been in pursuit of power and authority. america has supported the worst types of leaders, from the Shah in Iran, Pinochet in chile, the Mujaheddin in Afghnaistan, Saddam in Iraq, the Saudi family, the Egyotian dictators, the new kleptocrats of the former soviet sattelites, the israeli occupation of arab lands, and on and on.... This is partly why terrorism exists and why it came back to bite america in the ass.

Quote:

Only an idiot would think that throughout history America is completely free of sin, and I am not an idiot. However the ultimate blame cannot be laid on America for the actions of those who choose to do evil. And certainly nobody can lay blame at the feet of those civilians who were murdered on September eleventh who had nothing to do with the middle east.

I do not put the ultimate blame on america. I also blame the fundamentalist madraasa and their preaching of hate, i blame religion in general, i blame the human history of exploiting poeple for profit and resources... etc.. like i said it is complex. I just take exception to the idea that this attack came out of the blue because they hate freedom and america is just a victim..... that is idiotic. I certainly do not blame the innocent victims of 9/11, just as i do not blame americas victims in Iraq for Saddam. Too bad americas military engages in the same type of collective punishment that AQ does.

Andrew

Andrew

Marcus1124 · #**209** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

Quote:

Andrewl
Too bad americas military engages in the same type of collective punishment that AQ does.

I think the following responds to that rather nicely:

Andrewl · #**210** (**permalink**) 09-19-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

I think the following responds to that rather nicely:

Are you talking about the same military that shoots babies in the head? The same military that torutes people. The same military that shoots civilians first, asks questions later, the same military the flattened Fallujah.... yeah right, gimme a break. Nice propoganda though.

Andrew