=Marcus1124;798000]I couldn't care less, that was 60 friggin' years ago, and most of those involved are DEAD and that has absolutely no moral relevance to the reality today, anymore than it would justify the invasion of Germany today because of what they were doing 60-70 years ago.

Of course you don't. I don't think you are bright enough to understand.

The problem is that Israel didn't stop acting that wy. It's actions today in the Gaza is nearly Identical to it's actions in l948.

this is one of numerous conspiracy theories which exist, To my knowlwge these particular accusations have never been either verified, nor denied.(except "out of hand")

Here is the link to most of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Here is the link to an article in Haaretz describing what is known of at least 2 workers being forewarned of the impending 9/11 attacks.

Here is a not-so-reliable source describing questionable Isreali behaviour in NYC on 9/11.

[Stumper]

I would like to thank Mad_Michael for trying to bring all of the arguments into perspective.

Very nice job. Thank you.

[Stumper]

Don't bother listing all the conspiracy theories. Are you kidding? This forum has been a hotbed of conspiracy theories. If you and your "blame America" chums have to rely on conspiracy theories and the "evil Zionist" claptrap of moth-eaten anti-semitism than you are even more desperate than I had realized.

Stumper, glad you enjoyed my posts here.

That timeframe is quite sufficient for many people to have witnessed that period to still be alive - indeed, they are likely the parents or grandparents of those engaged by the issue today. They are not likely to have forgotten, although you may like to have.

No. USA officially repudiated slavery in 1865.

Though, during the late 19th century, it wouldn't surprise me if people thought the USA had no moral authority upon the topic due to the timeframe.

Fact is, if all persons involved are long dead, then it is old news. But if the events are current enough that some people are still around that witnessed them, then you cannot pretend that the issue is too old to be of concern.

Indeed, the USA seems to like to pretend that everything is old history long forgotten - like the US overthrow of the Iranian government (and installation of the Shah). This event will NEVER be forgotten in Iran for a few centuries I'm sure. Pretending that this event is long forgotten is not good policy for the USA to pursue.

No, morality resides in particular people and their actions, not ideas themselves. An idea itself is not immoral.

There's the rub. The USA officially espouses the virtues of a democratic policy, but in reality, it is only if the democratic polity in question is faithfully pro-American in policy.

That's the problem with democracy. People make choices that you might not like.

If the USA is in favour of democracy, then their actions regarding Hamas are hypocritical. Personally, I've never seen one shred of evidence to suggest that the USA favours democratic regimes (and much that suggests the contrary). Thus, in my mind, the US was acting very consistent when calling for democracy yet rejecting Palestinian democracy. Pure geopolitics is all that matters to the US Government it seems.

Oh my gosh. I don't have the patience of the saintly drgoodtrips to spell out all this stuff that you seem to blithely skip over.

Do you know how many billions of US taxpayer dollars are given over to Egypt every year as a 'bribe' to get them to honour their peace treaty with Israel? US bribery is not a solid basis of foreign policy.

Do you know that Saudi is ruled by a (pro-American) absolute monarchy that is intensely hated by a significant majority of the Saudi people? (see Osama Bin Laden).

Both Egypt and Saudi are in serious danger of some 'blowback' of their own for ignoring the wishes of their own citizenry on this issue. They both walk a very careful line between US interests and their own. The dangers for them is great.

Bottom line is that there is no love for Israel in Saudi or Egypt, only that which can be bought with US dollars and/or US political support and/or US military force. More longstanding US foreign policy for the grist here.


Yes, yes, poor little Israel.

It always amazes me the way that the words of extremists are always popularly attributed to motivate entire nations when they are US enemies.

Yet the words of extremists are always discounted and ignored when they are espoused by US interests.

Another double standard of US foreign policy.

Using your standards here, Robertson, Buchanan or Malcolm X speak for ALL AMERICANS with authority. All Americans think just like them.

In other words, if radical Islam is so obsessed with the absolute and total destruction of the State of Israel, then why did Egypt and Jordan (both majority Islamic nations) sign peace treaties with Israel, which formally acknowledges the right of the Israeli state to exist? (yes, I'm playing the issue from both ends against the middle, but can you rebut either end?)

Well, the palestinians ELECTED their extremists to office. Haven't seen Robertson, Buchanan, or Malcolm X being sworn in anytime recently, have you?

more later, going for a very pleasant coffee with a colleague from New Europe.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Do I really need to explain this further?

Surely you do whatever you deem necessary. That is your business. You still have not explained why you believe Americans are responsible rather than the terrorists. That is the crux of the argument. If you want to continue, go right ahead.

THe followup should have been:

Why does Al Qaeda attack Thais?

Then:

Why does Al Qaeda attack Africans?

I didn't say Americans bear the sole responsibility. The ultimate responsibility for flying the planes into the WTC lay with the people behind the sticks. Americans do share some responsibility for creating and maintaining the conditions that led up to it, though. And when I say Americans, I mean the people running things in Washington, not the people like you and me. When all this stuff was going on in the 80's and 90's, I wasn't politically aware enough to care. However, if you want to get down to the nitty gritty, we as average citizens must own up to the fact that we share some part in the responsibility for creating the conditions where this kind of event would become likely. Why? Because we elected them.

Actually the Saudis created those conditions with their funding and encouragement of radical Wahhabism.

The extent of our responsibility is that we're friendly with the very people who are inciting crazies to murder us.

This is certainly true of US support for Saudi. And this is US foreign policy and thus, the Canadians cited in the poll are not wrong at all.

However, are you asserting here that the ONLY crazies trying to murder US interests are those incited by your Saudi friends? That seems rather simplistic to me.

Methinks the US Government has indeed done a few deeds over the years that may have had the effect of "inciting crazies" to murder US interests in retribution (i.e. 'blowback').

In other words, US foreign policy is a contributing factor in the cause of the 9/11 attack. I can't see how anyone can rationally disagree with this assessment. It doesn't justify anything. It is just a plain statement of fact.

Local groups have local interests.

The label is applied to create the psychological link and then the psychological link is used to justify the application of the label.

There is no reason to link these disparate groups other than our Western need to link these disparate groups. There is no evidence whatsoever that these groups are linked by anything other than some vague similarities of method and claims of support for each other's causes. The are both criminals and ought to be treated as such. Inventing some world-wide conspiracy is a game for playing the 'politics of fear' and serves no purpose save a domestic political one.

Apparently, the canucks get the point.

The US foreign policy has not only been immoral, but most importantly fruitless, ineffective and even backfiring.

Had it been merely immoral yet effective, then it still might make some sense. I wouldn't have supported it, but it would have made some more sense. But the bizarre thing is that it's fruitless and immoral.

The Roman soldiers were immoral but they brought home loot, secured the Roman empire, secured Roman business interests. So their actions were at least in accordance with the laws of common economical/political sense.

Today's American soldier brings back no loot, as a bonus he manages to actually damage the security on the long term, whilst costing enormous amounts of money to be able to function.

The problem is not the American soldier, most of them are fine young men. The problem is management, when you have the dumbest white guy in the entire world (Rumsfeld), surrounded by disloyal Jewish Israel-first neocons, the fine young men's capabilities are wasted.

__________________