Arabs more human than the Americans

DadaKopf

After trying about 10-15 shops, I finally got all the papers I wanted – the irish times, the guardian, the financial times, the sun, the mirror and, especially, the independent – I got THAT in Dun Laoghaire (I had to go out there).

Fisk’s articles are great – I can’t believe people are so appalled by them, at least he’s brave enough to speak his mind instead of treading on eggshells or at least being seen to be.

People just won’t accept the other side of it, the Arabs’ side. Essentially he was saying that in their cruel desperation, the Middle Eastern Arabs can seem more human than America. They’re oppressed, they are forced to live sh1tty lives and many are humiliated daily and when you compare their means of retaliation against the Americans’, the desperation of the Arabs is equally as resonant as the desperation of those poor souls trapped in the World Trade Centre.

And for those who haven't read the articles, abridged versions are available from The independent here and here.

Shinji

I can’t believe people are so appalled by them

Er, they are? Where? Bloody morons, if so - Fisk is the only commentator in yesterdays papers who actually presents a balanced view of the whole sorry affair rather than half-page headlines screaming for blood.

Xterminator

I've read the article, and it is reasonable.

A lot more reasonable than soome of the rhetoric i've seen/read.

It begins to ask the questions that America must ask itself. Questions we must ask ourselves too. I just worry if Bush is up to the terrible taks on front of him. It will be all to easy to bomb th sh** out of a couple of targets, to sate the thirst for anger the American people are feeling.

gandalf

Here is an example of some of the more extreme reaction in the US media at the moment

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09122001/commentary/3999.htm

Lets hope that this retoric doesn't sway the powers that be in the US to so something very stupid that the rest of the world will regret.

Heres a quote from that article :

We should give the Taliban, which protects this monster, 24 hours to clear the city of Kabul of innocent civilians and then start the process of urban renewal with high-altitude bombing.

Gandalf.

Alis

That New York Post article that Gandalf quoted (http://www.nypost.com/seven/0912200...entary/3999.htm) is really shocking reading.

I assume the writer is very angry. I'm sure we have all been guilty of writing or saying things in anger at some time in our life, and we probably will again.

I just hope that the Internet can help somewhat towards encouraging the general public to read multiple news sources, rather than rely upon the opinions expressed by just one journalist or one newspaper.

Jeff Barr, one of the pioneers of headline syndication technology, made a really moving post to an industry discussion group after it happened, expressing his hope that headline syndication would make the world a better place. [1]

I expect a lot of boards.ie users are involved in technology. Headline syndication just happens to be one of the sectors I am very involved in. A tradegy like this really makes you think about the things you do on a daily basis differently.

[1]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syndication/message/2326

Gargoyle

20,000+ people are probably dead! Are you saying we shouldn't retalliate? What would you have us do? Sit and wait for it to happen again?

Its easy to sit back on your high perch 6000 miles away and say that Americans should just sit back and die. Well, with all due respect, **** you.

Loomer

Originally posted by Gargoyle
Are you saying we shouldn't retalliate? What would you have us do? Sit and wait for it to happen again?

At this point in time there is not one iota of evidence to accuse anyone of this crime other than those that died commiting it. If Usuma Bin Laden is responsible - fair enough, prove it!!! That is how a free, democratic society (which has been bandied about to death) operates. To seek vengeance in any other form contradicts the edicts that this society proports to protect.
For America to retaliate blindly would be the epitomy of uncivilised behaviour. I do not want to see alll those innocent people die without Justice being dealt to all those that had any involvement in this horrific crime against humanity. But the papers that have been quoted have no right to incite the kind retaliations that they have.
In my mind it is gross misconduct on the paper to allow it to be printed. That is how lynch-mobs/witch-hunts get started.
With all these irrational suggestions floating about I certainly would not want to be an American of Arab descent.

Alis

Gargoyle wrote:

20,000+ people are probably dead!

We don't know how many people are dead yet. 20,000 is the highest estimate we have been given. Other say about 6,000. Stop being dramatic by only listing the highest estimate.

Gargoyle wrote:

Are you saying we shouldn't retalliate? What would you have us do? Sit and wait for it to happen again?

I'm am not a pacifist but war is a serious business. You obviously have no idea how serious it is or you wouldn't make such silly comments.

Its easy to sit back on your high perch 6000 miles away and say that Americans should just sit back and die. Well, with all due respect, **** you.

High perch? Is that what you think we are on here in Ireland? Grow up.

Draco

Originally posted by Gargoyle
20,000+ people are probably dead! Are you saying we shouldn't retalliate? What would you have us do? Sit and wait for it to happen again?

An eye for an eye will do nothing but worsen the situation. so you're saying you agree with the trog who wrote in the NY Post when he says he wants entire cities leveled to the ground? As if killing thousands more innocents will bring back those who already died? I would have you try and find out *Exactly* who is responsible before running off half cocked. And if ye don't get off your arses and improve airport security this *is* going to happen again.

yankinlk

show as much compassion and understanding to those that are now hurt and angry as you do to the headline grabbers like this topic starter

Why are you all able to see past the obvious exaggerations and misstaements in the first posters article in the independent and yet not give some lee-way to another article coming straight out of the heart of New York where these atrocities have hit hardest?

"I mean a far quicker and neater form of retribution for this cabal of cowards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. "

the second article makes this statement....and in a perfect world it would be the obvious answer; deal with the guilty party directly, a bullet to the head. the writer talks of traing assasins to search out the aggressor/organiser and deal death directly to him...what is wrong with that? nothing.

instead you choose to pick out a qoute where the writer goes a little off the rails in anger about turning the country that hides the perpetrators into basketball courts through bombing.

is the writer guilty of being naive that it might be in the cia/fbi/un/etc to be able to surgically remove the guilty partys from the living? maybe, but it's what i dream about and wish for.

Von

What's wrong with hit squads? Emm, the fact that they don't work and contribute to the overall problem maybe. Any innocent deaths in retaliation will be a propaganda coup for the extremists then what's next, chemical or biological attacks which would be easier to carry out than hijacking planes?

Instead of going round looking for someone to bomb, america would be better off trying to resolve its relationship with the arab world sooner rather than later. That's not going to happen is it?

"It is the function of the CIA to keep the world unstable, and to propagandize and teach the American people to hate, so we will let the Establishment spend any amount of money on arms."
John Stockwell, former CIA official and author


"The working masses of men and women, they and they alone, are responsible for everything that take place, the good things and the bad things. True enough, they suffer most from a war, but it is their apathy, craving for authority, etc., that is most responsible for making wars possible. It follows of necessity from this responsibility that the working masses of men and women, they and they alone, are capable of establishing lasting peace."
Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, 1933

Gargoyle

I have a better idea. If we want peace, we should institute a policy of proactive extermination of islamic extremists.

Look at what the Romans did to Carthage...are we a superpower, or not? Its time to put down the hammer. The Islamic world, contrary to scoring any points with this, is going to find that they've just begun a chain of events that will exterminate the extremists and fundamentalists among them. Sure, innocents will die, but that's what happens in a war. Besides, those Palestinian children cheering on our tragedy in the steets don't look very innocent to me.

There will be peace when that faction of Islam is erraticated. Completely, totally, and brutally.

Von

Ireland might be supercraic but it's not a superpower. Our soldiers complain when things go bang.
Just heard that a mosque in Montreal was firebombed. Was that you mister gargoyle? Good start to your crusade.

Gargoyle

Were they Islamic extremists in Montreal? No? That should answer your question.

Draco

Originally posted by Gargoyle
I have a better idea. If we want peace, we should institute a policy of proactive extermination of islamic extremists.

Look at what the Romans did to Carthage...are we a superpower, or not? Its time to put down the hammer. The Islamic world, contrary to scoring any points with this, is going to find that they've just begun a chain of events that will exterminate the extremists and fundamentalists among them. Sure, innocents will die, but that's what happens in a war. Besides, those Palestinian children cheering on our tragedy in the steets don't look very innocent to me.

There will be peace when that faction of Islam is erraticated. Completely, totally, and brutally.

Ah, the voice of reason. I'm glad there are people like you in the world to show us the light! Complete exterminiation of the current fundamebtalists will turn the moderates into fundamentalists, starting a vicious circle the will not stop until they are all dead. A wonderful plan. Genocide I belive it's called.
Begone you little vile goblin.

Alis

Gargoyle wrote:

Sure, innocents will die, but that's what happens in a war. Besides, those Palestinian children cheering on our tragedy in the steets don't look very innocent to me... There will be peace when that faction of Islam is erraticated...

What about the morons of this world? How would you feel is someone suggested the world would be a better place without you?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Gargoyle
Were they Islamic extremists in Montreal? No? That should answer your question.

No it was another kind of extremist.

LoLth

gargoyle, america may be a superpower but that does not give it the right to say what people are allowed believe and think. You'd sanction the death of someone just because they believe as stongly in their God as many americans believe in their stars and stripes?

Innocents die in war, that's what happens? right?, I mean, that's what you said. Well, according to these extremists, they are at war with america. So why not just chalk up the casualties to victims of war and get on with the rest of life?

You have a right to be angry and pissed and shocked and outraged but before you start dropping bombs or calling for a people to be wiped out, try thinking first.

Mourn the dead but don't be so eager to bury them under more bodies.

I agree that it's about time that America and the Middle East sorted out the problems, whether the solution is "we;re best pals now" or "we agree to ignore each other" I don't care, but wanton slaughter would degrade the people of the states to the same level as teh terrorist that planned this attack. War and violence is a last resort, not an option to be considered straight off.

You liken America to Rome? and use carthage as an example. So you honestly think that America should flatten a city entirely, kill anyone that lives there over the age of 5 and take all the children to be their slaves. And you think of yourself as civilised I suppose?

Those palestinians dancing in the streets are the exact same as those american kids cheering as another missile gets launched at hussein's capital or jump for joy as teh Enterprise launches yet another wing of bombers to flatten an enemy of the state. Get this through your skull, those kids HATE you. They have been taught to hate you, they are happy to hate you, they do not see a tragedy, they see a few less of the people they HATE. People that they could never touch before because they were living in a superpower. I'm not saying that this is right but before you condemn these kids to death try growing up and thinking about the other side of the coin.

gandalf

Originally posted by Gargoyle
20,000+ people are probably dead! Are you saying we shouldn't retalliate? What would you have us do? Sit and wait for it to happen again?

Its easy to sit back on your high perch 6000 miles away and say that Americans should just sit back and die. Well, with all due respect, **** you.

No we are not saying you should not retailiate, we and an awful lot of others are saying wait, confirm who it was and deal with them through International Law. If you go out and attack a large target just to pacify your countries bloodlust for revenge and awful lot of innocents are killed, you will have dragged yourselves down to the same level as the animals that carried out this attack.

We in Ireland have seen the fruits of terrorism clost hand (obviously not to this scale) and I can tell you one thing, violence breeds violence. It you do response in a unappriopriate fashion then yes it will happen to you again.

We are not on ahigh perch here. Alot of us have friends, family, business contacts that worked in the WTC. We are affected by it.

gandalf

Originally posted by Gargoyle
I have a better idea. If we want peace, we should institute a policy of proactive extermination of islamic extremists.

Sit down and think next time before you write please !

Look at what the Romans did to Carthage...are we a superpower, or not? Its time to put down the hammer.

Hmmm that doesn't sound like a superpower it sounds like a Playground bully firing its weight around because its bigger than anyone else.

....crap snipped ....
Besides, those Palestinian children cheering on our tragedy in the steets don't look very innocent to me.

Well considering they see the US as the sponsor of their major enemy and oppressor the Isrealis then yes I can to a degree understand it.

There will be peace when that faction of Islam is erraticated. Completely, totally, and brutally.

And what will that do, it will breed a more militant generation of extremists, very clever.

Gandalf.

Gargoyle

Their own have just turned the US into miltant extremists. A recent poll shows almost 90% support for large military action even if it leads to a war.

This is what has happened and they will be dealt with. If other moderate Muslims turn to extremism after, may they suffer the same fate.

Hobbes

>saying wait, confirm who it was and deal with them through >International Law.

Hey Gandalf.. very different feelings over here.

They will probably confirm who it is, however it won't be international law or diplomatic reasoning. No country in the world is going to stop the US from going in to find the people who did this. To quote someone else "If the taliban have Bin Landen they had better goddam hand him and all his people over on a silver platter and a pineapple up his ass and we might think about not knocking you into the stone age".

It won't be bombing of military targets from high altitude either. People are pissed here. Pissed enough to go to war.

It should be intresting to see who wins though. Not the war, but if the corporations or the people. For example, if Bush official declaers war then all the insurance companies don't have to pay a dime to the companies and people that got wiped out and the price is in the billions at the moment.

But even if Bush doesn't declare war I can easily see Americans going mercenary on Bin Ladens ass.


To Answer Gargolyes question. There are Arab-Americans who have recieved death threats, threats on thier kids, fired at, blood thrown on thier houses. They are not your enemy. Likewise with Palastine, the people they showed on TV are certainly not how the majority feels over there.

Ireland has had to live with Terrorism for a good few years, does that mean all Catholics and Prodestants or English and Irish people are evil?

Loomer

Originally posted by Gargoyle

There will be peace when that faction of Islam is erraticated. Completely, totally, and brutally.

Zeig Hiel - Are you a fully paid-up member of the Nazi Party?

Von

According to Noam Chomsky, Nobody can come near the US for "extremism."

When Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975 it was ordered to withdraw at once by the UN Security Council, but to no avail. The reasons were explained in his 1978 memoirs by UN Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
"The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."

He goes on to report that within two months some 60,000 people had been killed. The numbers reached about 200,000 within a few years, thanks to increasing military support from the US, joined by Britain as atrocities peaked in 1978. Their support continued through 1999, as Kopassus commandoes, armed and trained by the US, organized "Operation Clean Sweep" from January, killing 3,000 to 5,000 people by August, according to credible Church sources, and later expelling 750,000 people-85 percent of the population-and virtually destroying the country.


US support for Indonesian aggression and slaughter was almost reflexive. The murderous and corrupt General Suharto was "our kind of guy," the Clinton administration explained, as he had been ever since he supervised a Rwanda-style massacre in 1965 that elicited unrestrained euphoria in the US. So he remained, while compiling one of the worst human rights records of the modern era ...

... Saddam Hussein, was also supported through his worst atrocities, changing status only when he disobeyed (or misunderstood) orders. There is a long series of similar illustrations: Trujillo, Mobutu, Marcos, Duvalier, Noriega, and many others. Crimes are not of great consequence; disobedience is.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Gargoyle
. Besides, those Palestinian children cheering on our tragedy in the steets don't look very innocent to me.

There will be peace when that faction of Islam is erraticated. Completely, totally, and brutally.

Would that be the children in palestine who are often killed by US made weaponry, who see US made helicopters attack their camps and cities, with US made missiles, fired by a US ally, and all this agains international law.
This same ally that exists only because of US backing, and has caused these people to become refugees in their own lands.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY THOUGHT OF YOU?

adnans

Originally posted by Hobbes
It should be intresting to see who wins though. Not the war, but if the corporations or the people. For example, if Bush official declaers war then all the insurance companies don't have to pay a dime to the companies and people that got wiped out and the price is in the billions at the moment.

from the Irish Times:
insurance on the WTC twin towers will pay out for the loss of only one tower because experts believed that the collapse of both towers was too far-fetched to be worth insuring. ??? the port authority also had large proportion of offices in the WTC, and will get a payout of $1.5 billion, althought the value of the towers before the collapse was $5 billion. Estimates of the total cost of the attck on the US are close to $15 billion, and there are fears that Lloyds of London will be crippled by the huge payout.

but in case "the loving guy" George Bush declares war, there will be no payouts to any families that have lost loved ones. im quite scared of what is going on in the US at the moment concerning the public. first of all, everyone is very emotional following the horrific attack that we all have seen and we all know that america has some crazy people living there (proof on this page). mix that with the amount of guns and the right to carry arms, and it is a scary time to be american-arab in US. more in depth here

bush, whether or not he's itching to start another war just like his daddy remains to be seen. NATO in their right mind know exactly what is going on in the world, and so do leaders of other nations. they will not allow bush to go ahead with a plan that will see more innocent people lose their lives.

americans, the people living in US that is, need to evaluate their current situation in the world and see why the "islamic extremists" really did what they did. they need to evaluate their current government and their policy regarding contact with other nations, their foreign policy. and also they need to stop the crazy investments their governments are making in order to protect their country. how can you justify a budget of $344 billion for Pentagon only, while you are only spending $1 billion on school construction?

as for Mr. Bush, he can either go back to school and grab a dictionary to better his speeches in which he can reassure his people and rub the american flag for good luck. who was it that called patriotism the last refuge of scoundrels? there is something uncertain about his status as a president when faced with such a task to comfort and yet please his people in a time like this.

i may be a bit harsh but they are just my opinions and you can debate them all you like.

adnans

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

This is going to be a fairly long post. Which is strange because yesterday, I'd run out of things to say, especially to my friends back home who've lost loved ones. I'd run out of things to say to my aunt, desperately ringing to find out if my cousin made it through the night at the military hospital near the Pentagon. Thank god she's alright- her physical scars may heal, but emotional scars run far deeper than that. Most of the 85 colleagues she worked with in her department are gone, and she's barely coherent. And this was the result of the lesser of two tragedies.

That's the only affect it had on me directly- the affect it had on my government's policy though, is both agreeable and terrifying to me. I agree that in the short term, in the presence of as close to 100% reliable intel as one can expect these days, a punitive military response is what is needed to make an example of this group, and make terrorism an unhealthy option in the short run. In the short run, this is a perfectly viable option. Terrorists thrive on headlines, and causing terror amongst groups that cannot defend themselves. It's easy to feel brave and ready to die for your cause when you're just a face in the crowd. I'd like to see these "heroes of Palestine" (as described by the al-Usul Jamahiraya newspaper) face down military personnel ready to destroy them instead of innocent civilians on their way to work.

Terrorism stems from cowardice, and the short-term response must surely be not of inaction and helplessness, but a measured and calculated obliteration of the group responsible. It is certainly arguable that obliteration of this group will not achieve a lasting solution, but that's a long-term consideration. My point is, that even if the destruction of this group fuels hatred enough for more groups to rise, the short-term threat has been destroyed.

A little background to illustrate what I mean- it was us who trained Bin Laden, us who supplied him with weapons and training personnel, and us who provided him with logistical and tactical support during the Soviet "pacification" of Afghanistan. Now several are pointing out the amusing(to some) irony of this foreign policy backlash- but more of that later. In my mind, it can only be Bin Laden's group that could have logistically speaking, pulled this off. They have the personnel, the funding, and the will to carry it out. Their training would also include infiltrating ports of entry and acts of mass terror, which was, after all, the affect that the CIA tried to achieve amongst Soviet troops in Afghanistan using Bin Laden as a proxy.

Any armed power group capable of such organized mass terror needs to be eliminated, plain and simple. Even if the US disengaged itself from the Middle East, it would simply make the target Israel, and we'd have planes crashing into Tel Aviv and countless ancient(Jewish&Christian) shrines around Israel. Most analysts agree that if the US disengaged itself or altered its military policy to suit these terrorists' demands, the groups would merely lash out at another nation with objectionable (to them) foreign policy.

My vote would be for a dual-pronged solution- an all-out war against terrorism would be the first step, as I have already described. And the second step is to either rectify US foreign policy in the Middle East to reflect a balance of issues, or simply disengage from the Middle East altogether. As a card-carrying Libretarian, I see no reason why our troops are squatting in various places around the world to take up peace-making roles. I suggest respectfully to my leaders that they consider letting Europe solve its own problems, and tell Israel and the Middle East to come to terms with their own difficulties. I feel that as Gargoyle said, getting involved simply means putting our young men and women in harm's way, only to achieve an imperfect solution (out of a previously insoluble crisis) and receive a backhanded thanks or down-right hatred for becoming involved. I direct you all to Isegrim's post at:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30986&pagenumber=3

Biased as it is, it rings true for me. I don't recall any international assistance when the San Fran quake hit. Yet we were the first nation to send experts to Japan to assist in the Kobe quake, and countless other disasters.

Better we didn't get involved I say- we can't be interventionist and isolationist at the same time. Which is the policy we have pursued for the past 40 years. That combination should have gone out with the Cold War. The fact that our foreign policy hasn't changed significantly since the cold war, and that it was the CIA that trained Bin Laden adds the bitter taste of irony to this situation. Our government needs to indentify potiential risk factors via intelligence, rapidly and at source. The closest of cooperation between us and our allies in this regard is a must. We need to isolate ourselves from remote conflicts that don't concern us, and engage on global issues that concern everyone. Such as the Kyoto agreement and the Durban conference. We also need to desperately re-address the security of domestic flights, which are amongst the most lax in the world. Those are all long-term diplomatic and political measures though- for now, those responsible must be made to realize that this cowardly brand of attack cannot be made with impunity. Many have called for mercy for the terrorists, that they be given a fair hearing. If that is possible, I support it unequivocally and without reservation. If not, I propose we show them as much mercy as they showed to 10,000 innocent civilians and 300 emergency service workers in the city of New York.

Occy

TacT

I couldn't have put it better myself, good man occy, always on the ball.

Hobbes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,551036,00.html

BlitzKrieg

Just a quick thing.....look at the military side of things:

-Your facing a force that outways you 10-1,
-Your chances of a striaght fight will lead to disaster
-To even reach the enemy frontlins is impossible.

Now i know they are terrorists but if you look at another one:

-Your forces will have losses reaching a million if you invade this country, so use a quick and effective attack on the civilians.

Sound familer? it was the American offical policy of why they dropped not 1 but 2 atomic bombs.


So this was the middle east equivelant. A attempt to convince the enemy to agree or we drop more.

Also look at unoffical reasons. Us drop bomb to say to world WE HAVE THIS POWER. Terrorists crash planes to say WE ARE WILLING TO DO THIS FOREVER UNTIL YOU YIELD!


I see we will have a BIG proble,m

Shinji

My vote would be for a dual-pronged solution- an all-out war against terrorism would be the first step, as I have already described. And the second step is to either rectify US foreign policy in the Middle East to reflect a balance of issues, or simply disengage from the Middle East altogether.

How typically American of you not to realise that these two things are mutually exclusive.

Reading the reaction in American newspapers, one thing is very clearly - they still don't get it. Even after all that has happened, the American people STILL do not understand why so much of the world hates them so.

The hand-wringing and shocked reactions amount to a people crying out "what did we ever do to you?", and the ignorance of the masses is a sadder thing than the terrorist attack itself. I spoke to an American today - a very well educated chap, not a southern stereotypical redneck like the current occupant of the White House - who was genuinely shocked and outraged at me when I pointed out the irony of the American response to terrorism, since they are after all the nation that INVENTED state-supported terrorism as a political tool. He was genuinely angry that the rest of the world believed that America would do such things, and shouted at me that he would never have voted for a politician who would support terrorism anywhere.

America needs to stop asking "who" and start asking "why" - but I don't think that as a nation, they are ready for the answers to the second question. What has happened to American is vile and indefensible, but it is no more vile and no more indefensible than countless actions carried out by the American military and American-backed organisations around the globe over the past half century.

The Daily Mirror today printed a picture of a young Oriental woman running terrified from the dust of the collapsing tower, her face stained with blood, alongside the famous picture of the young Vietnamese girl, her clothes and skin burnt off by napalm, running from her burning town. The expression of terror on both faces was almost identical, the postures an uncanny match. Being a lowbrow tabloid, I guess it would have been too controversial for them to comment on the obvious conclusions; but it was very hard for anyone with half a brain to look at those two pictures without thinking for just a moment about the grim role reversal implied.

Hobbes

Before all this mess started I was in a discussion about the exact same thing. A load of Americans were going on about how great thier country was, blah, blah.

I pointed out the Mc Carthy hearings and they were "Never heard of them". Then I pointed out some of the stuff that was brought up in those hearings about how all the illegal **** they got caught doing and I got called "Anti-American".

I am not that at all.

To strive for high ideals is fine, if you believe America to be the greatest thing on Earth is fine, but ffs know what the **** you are standing for and if it goes against what you don't believe in (eg. Funding and training terrorists) then do something about it before another mess like this happens again.

It is not the Americans fault this happend, and it shouldn't of happend but look closely going forward that if your going to wipe out state funded terrorism make dam sure it applies to America as well as the rest of the world.

amp

My thoughts exactly Rob, I just hope that the US public eventually realises that. It's going to be hard, they had the Soviets to hate, then the Iraqi's. It's not that easy this time, there is no real specific country to hit and if they do pick Afganistan they should remember that the might of the USSR couldn't fully conquer it.

The other problem is that the US public may want to see those aircraft carriers and cruise missiles in action. They associate them with the US's power and global dominance. Even if Bin Laden is proven guilty and brought to justice, will that be enough? That's what worries me. (Along with the probable recession we're hurtiling towards)

Victor

Originally posted in the New York Post
When we put a rocket in the pocket of Moammar Khadafy, he went as quiet as a mouse.

Perhaps, but he then sent the IRA hundreds of AK-47s and tonnes of Semtex, as revenge for British assistance to the Americans.

Loomer

Excellent posts from Occy, Blitz, and Shinji.

As much as this was an awful, awful tragedy America has dallied in countless underhand tactics to further protect themselves from "potential" threats over the years.

I think it is unreasonable to make any strong statements on this matter without at least considering the Arab perspective.
Almost the entire Arab community has condemned this horrific but there will always be a small group of dissidents unwilling to let go of what they rationlise as being an extremely unfair situation (sound familiar?)

I doubt many people who make rash comments on this matter have the faintest idea about the origins of the Israel-Palestine struggle.

With similar parallels to the Irish situation it is unreasonable to think that a proud race of people will accept the relocation of another race in what they consider to be their land. Being told you don't mean d1ck so fcuking accept it would kind of get the wind up you as has happened all around the globe.

The Middle-Eastern situation is relatively recent hence the extreme nature of peoples feelings. To ascerbate matters when it appears that one of the key nations that brought about this situation is bending over backwards to support all in sundry that oppose you and drive you further and further into a weaker position. Hell, you use to be one of the strongest nations in civilisation. You were responsible for some of the greatest discoveries in human history and now your worth dick. And it aint getting any better. Hows it going to make you feel. I know I'd be pissed of. What can you do? Why are you the bad guy?

If you take this into account it is possible combined with a fundamentalist religious belief to put yourself in the minds of the criminals that committed this horrific crime, and the people that celebrated its aftermath.
This does not provide them with an excuse merely a raison d'etre.

This is merely my view of the reasons why the act was carried out. I absolutely object to their actions ( in as much as I object to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the carpet-bombing of Vietnam).

With this perspective I find it absolutely deplorable the suggestion of war (using the term in its true sense: an invasion by country/(ies) of another state or country) in retaliation for the acts of a small band of dissidents.

As long as Democracy and Freedom are being upheld nothing other than punishment of a convicted criminal(s)(beyond a reasonable doubt - not through conjecture and hearsay) will do. This may not be the most satisfying resolution to this catastrophic doing but it can be the only legitimate one.

-Loomer-

yankinlk

how typically shinji of you to dismiss a well thought out response with your easy to write negativity.

has america acted yet? are they not now as we speak reviewing all their options? are they not now gathering all the evidence? for the first time i am proud to see americans quietly and with patriotism and dignity stand by their fellow black, blue, red, white and yellow citizens and not act out loudly and brashly without first thinking of the consequences.

why not ask yourselves why these targets were chosen. why was the wtc hit (twice) and not the empire state (certainly a more american target). if i wanted to write a movie about how to profit from a terrorist attack (and further my cause to boot) what sort of plotline would i write? lets see... invest in gold one week and the next week... take out the already crippled stock market. Attempt to destroy the world's economy leaving me to triple my investement. far fetched? is it really? i would have thought the four-plane highjacking was far fetched last week....but this week im better informed.

Superman

Yes of course learning and accepting others is a fundamental of democracy.

Hobbes

Originally posted by yankinlk
i am proud to see americans quietly and with patriotism and dignity stand by their fellow black, blue, red, white and yellow citizens and not act out loudly and brashly without first thinking of the consequences.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31198

Victor

Originally posted by yankinlk
why not ask yourselves why these targets were chosen. why was the wtc hit (twice) and not the empire state (certainly a more american target).

Yes, The Empire State Building (ESB) had been a more American building. But buildings, New York and America have moved on from perverse 1930's concept of building a monument to the "Empire State" (as New York State was called) complete with all it's art deco details - during the great depression. Quite simply, the ESB represented a different era.

The fundamental reasons that the WTC was attacked instead of the ESB are:

Targetability - the WTC had taller buildings with a greater profile. The ESB is quite slender at the top. As the WTC is near the waterfront, it can be easily (dare I say "safely") attacked, without fear of hitting the wrong building.

Population - the ESB holds much fewer people, and since individual floors are relatively small, it has a large number of small and medium firms, non mega-corporations.

Significance - The WTC was the personification of modern capitalism, the big banks, the credit card companies, the mega-corporations, 1970's excess, 1980's greed, 1990's boom, 21st century "globalisation". The WTC was also unsuccessfully bombed before, this is "completing the job".

---

The ESB was hit by an aircraft before (an American bomber, c. 1944) and survived. Perhaps the is a poetic justice that any building should only have a plane crash into it once.

PiE

I love how some people think the US could just send in some "uber-l33t-crack-seal-team-killing-squad" and wipe out all of the bad guys.

This 'aint CounterStrike guys.

Victor

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
.... I'd run out of things to say to my aunt, desperately ringing to find out if my cousin made it through the night at the military hospital near the Pentagon. Thank god she's alright- her physical scars may heal, but emotional scars run far deeper than that. Most of the 85 colleagues she worked with in her department are gone, and she's barely coherent. ...

First off, I hope your cousin makes a full recovery.

Anyway, I got this e-mail from a friend in San Francisco

---

> You seen the news?
>
> Will give you a call in a while.
>
> Colm

Did you ever get my mobile number? 415 *** 5579

I have my BDUs and sidearm in the car... But don't expect to need them.

NTM

---

BDUs are "Battle Dress Uniform", sidearm is a "Sig P40" pistol. He's in the Californian Nation Guard and has been put on notice for immediate call up.

Ireland has had quite a different experience in the Middle East to the United States. For 20 years Irish soldiers have separated the Israeli army and it's surrogates from various Lebanese faction and it has taken quite a number of casualties for this involvment. However, tour after tour, year after year, we went back. If we didn't, it would have meant those left in South Lebanon would have had no guardians, no protectors, no one to stand up for the little guy. The soldiers helped out in orphanages, hospitals and school. But to get that far, every morning they had to clear the roads out of their compunds of mines and road-side bombs. Often American made bombs. One friend has had her father, brother and swister-in-law serve there.

Please put your feet in other people shoes, before you decide to do anything rash.

Shinji

for the first time i am proud to see americans quietly and with patriotism and dignity stand by their fellow black, blue, red, white and yellow citizens and not act out loudly and brashly without first thinking of the consequences.

That certainly sounds nice. Which planet is that happening on, then?

Chubby

Originally posted by yankinlk
has america acted yet? are they not now as we speak reviewing all their options? are they not now gathering all the evidence? for the first time i am proud to see americans quietly and with patriotism and dignity stand by their fellow black, blue, red, white and yellow citizens and not act out loudly and brashly without first thinking of the consequences.

I know it's not the appropriate time to express anti-american sentiments but their restraint could easily be because they don't want to look bad as the world is watching.

Correct me if I am wrong, wasn't there reports of f16s shooting down the other hijacked passenger planes to stop them causing further chaos? What happened to the reported 7-8 hijacked planes instead of the reported 4 now? I am kinda curious as to what happened to them as there are no mention of it anywhere. Was this covered up or did I miss the reports that it was only 4 planes afterall? I am not mentioning this to make america look bad. There was not much else they can do. I am just curious as to what happened.

Hobbes

Like typical reporting at incidents like these the up to the minute news was BS or misinformed.

For example there were 2 car bombs reported gone off at the state capital, but they were in fact Fighter jets going by at sonic boom.

The number of people reported in the buildings went from 50,000 to 10,000 to 5,000 to 20,000. Currently they are reporting 11,000.

The only thing I can't figure out is the plane that crashed in pittsburg where the passengers took it back. For some reason part of the plane is 6 miles away from the rest which could only happen if it broke up in mid-air. So either a bomb or it was shot down (which the airforce had authorisation to).

The other planes were unaccounted for at that time, they weren't hijacked.

DadaKopf

First of all, I'd like to comment Occy on his post. Especially considering our totally off the point discussion the other night, I was glad you didn't mention Robert Fisk once and stuck to the issues and addressed one vital issue - that of American retraction from international politics and possibly power structures.

Returning briefly to my initial point, (regardless of one's opinion of Fisk) I see it as our responsibility as 'liberals' to view the 'terrorists', those suicide-bombers and those who they claim to represent, as human beings who are as much a victims of violence and terror as those in Manhattan and Washington. Gargoyle's use of ill thought out, angry, subjective language makes Americans like him sound as extreme as we understand the Islamic extremists to be. It's a shame but understandable and, over time, the language will eventually simmer, then cool down.

My point was simple: they are human beings. If the culprates are indeed Islamic fundamentalists, their call to arms must not be negated, it must be tackled. Not attacked but resolved. I don't think that's a contradiction.

All I want is for people to be careful of the language being used: by politicians, journalists, celebrities and normal people. Now is most certainly the time to address the whole issue - once again the issues are in sharp focus. Colin Powell declared that world terrorism cannot be allowed to destroy the "spirit of democracy" which symbolises freedom, progression, technology and politics. But equally, Colin Powell and people like him must not be allowed to destroy their spirit - which to us is presented as regressive, primitive, barbaric, unscientific and fanatical.

This is a dangerous mix: one is fighting with technology, the other with words. One side views the other as 'outside' of the norm of what's acceptable and just. Each is willing to defend their spirit. When you relate this event to (as Occy has referred to) the Russian-Afghan war, state militarism versus militia armies result, usually, in either state oppression or the larger state losing. The Vietnamese War was the same. There is something so incredible potent and frightening about this immiscable mix - like oil and water - that the only reasonable approach would be to see each side as human beings. I'm not religious but Jesus had a point.

Originally posted by Mr. Octopus:
Terrorism stems from cowardice

Does it really? Or is that just a value judgement. All I know is I wouldn't have the guts to hijack a plane and kill myself by crashing into a world landmark. Who is more cowardly - the man who will willingly sacrifice his life for a higher ideal or an American soldier who will press a button and fire missiles at human targets from a distance? I say it's all the same and it's not cowardly.

Von: could you cite me the source of that Chomsky reference, please? Whether it's a book or on a website?

Von

Dadakopf here's that Chomsky link:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/Rogue_States_Chomsky.html

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Shinji


How typically American of you not to realise that these two things are mutually exclusive.

Wow- attributing an alleged lack of realization to where I come from...that make sense...yes, yes, no- you're speaking in a personal and puerile tone, which offends me. F*ck off.

As far as that ludicrous Vietnam example goes- what the hell, I ask you, does a state-sponsored proxy conflict from the Cold War era have to do with the political climate surrounding terrorism? The historical motivations behind the two events were entirely seperate, the way the war was fought was in an entirely different class to the kind of terror act that leaves innocents from all major cities at risk.

Now, on to the more coherent (if no more accurate) part of that statement. For all your vague historical parallels you have failed to inform us how in hell those two goals are mutually exclusive. To me they represent seperate objectives- the specific punishment of cowardly, dastardly criminals, and the adaptation of foreign policy measures pursuant to a review of engagement in various theaters. Explain to me how it is impossible to carry out those two measures- I doubt you, or anyone else could.

I thought I explained in my last post that a sustained war against all forms of terrorism wasn't an ideal option- but a short-term erradication of those responsible or directly capable and willing to commit such acts, must be attempted. Otherwise there will always be a target for this sort of tragedy Rob, and you know it! And escalation of terrorist demands will be inevitable. There will be an increased incentive now that terror groups from all areas now know that such an attack can be carried out successfully. The group that perpetrated this act, and indeed other capable groups need to be erradicated. As long as there is strife between Israel and Palestine(ie- forever) there will always be a reason for such groups. Whether or not the US is involved in the peace process, there are always innocent targets to strike at. So in a purely judicious sense- why these people were willing to throw away their lives in the name of terror, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that they must be punished when they are found.

Their reasons for carrying out the acts can be addressed while the intelligence and military resources of much of the Western world goes into hunting them down. As I said in my above post, these diplomatic measures are long term, they will take time to implement on a national, never mind international scale. Again, the drafting of new policy guidelines does in no way preclude the discovery and punishment of the criminals that organized this. I don't know what it is Rob- whether you have a personal grudge against the US or Americans, or whether you despise the way foreign policy is conducted.

I certainly hope it's the latter- but even if it is true that we conduct a flawed foreign policy with unreasonable aggression- there is no need to rub it in every American's face as you walk past them. That sort of behavior rates very low on my respect-o-meter. I didn't vote for George Bush, or Clinton, or Bush Senior. Why should I have to answer for the fact that our government's foreign policy makes us the target of suicidal terror groups?


Just to address a couple of other points made by other posters- thanks for the good wishes Victor- I spoke to her consultant via e-mail, and it looks like she'll make a full recovery- though it is unlikely she will grip very well with her left hand anymore. Her back injuries will also take a very long time to heal, so she will be in hospital and counseling for some time to come.

Dadakopf- yes, terrorism stems from cowardice because it is deliberately targeted at those who cannot defend themselves. As far as a suicide bomber goes- psycological profiling centers on the ego- they feel that their death will make a substantial difference, as such, their self-importance is more compelling to them than any cause they might believe in. As for "higher ideals", I don't think any such goals can be lofty if their being achieved requires the blood of thousands of innocents. Even from a violence-neutral standpoint, whether or not it is a noble ideal can be very closely argued. And the man who tracks targets and pushes the "Fire" button does so in the knowledge that innocents are not deliberately being targeted. I doubt that the financial brokers in the WTC could be considered legitimate military targets.

Whether or not the US or other legitimate governments have carried out atrocities in the past is irrelevant to how I as an individual judge the current situation. I condemn any act of terror directed against civilians, be it US napalm falling on Da Nang, or the UK SAS riddling Argentinian prisoners with bullets on Mt. Longden in the Falklands. France's incursion into Algeria, or the Soviet's brutal "pacification" of Afghanistan. But my mentioning them here adds nothing of practical value to what steps must be taken regarding the latest events. We can't draw comparisons with the past, because no comparison exists- we're entering new a new territory of scale, as I suspect the recent murderers and their sponsors are soon to discover.

Occy

pepperkin

"No we are not saying you should not retailiate, we and an awful lot of others are saying wait, confirm who it was and deal with them through International Law. If you go out and attack a large target just to pacify your countries bloodlust for revenge and awful lot of innocents are killed, you will have dragged yourselves down to the same level as the animals that carried out this attack. "

I agree completely with Gandalf. Trying to explain this event to my 7 yr old...she's old enough to understand it all, to understand the magnitude and seriousness, but too young to understand the politics and too young to rationalize...she honestly thought the WTC would fall on our house, no matter how carefully I explained to her that the WTC was 500+ miles away.

I'm going to toss in my two cents from here where I live (about 20 miles or so from Washington, DC.)

As most of you know who know me, I've never been the biggest fan of American politics nor of the american "stereotype". I made the comment on Tuesday afternoon that I'm not sure what to be more afraid of...what Dubya will do, or the terrorists. Because they're not done, as I see it. Call me paranoid (or call me pepperkin....) but the mind that came up with that attack was a mind that has a sick genius, enough to have several plans...nicely spaced.

I agree with those whom say that as awful as all this is, in many ways the USA should have been expecting it, considering their horrific acts against others. (A friend of mine brought up the point that if his ancestors had been left the hell alone, and so on. He is native american.) Americans ARE guilty of genocide already, of MANY tribes of Native Americans whom are no longer here....they were wiped out completely.
However, I don't give a hoot what flag you fly, what color you are, what your name is, beliefs are. I am American. I am, much more importantly and permanently, human. I hurt for the deaths of the children, the mothers, the fathers, the HUMANITY in Palestine, in Kosovo, in any country in which the non guilty are killed for the actions of the so-called political leaders. I'm sickened.

I cannot imagine being on a plane with my children and having a hijacker take over. I am actually trying hard NOT to imagine it, as I have a fertile and active imagination...
But what kind of person could look in the eyes of babies, of children, of families... and coolly smash the plane? Only someone who believed in what he was doing so strongly that his life and so many others became unimportant....dehumanized...animals led to slaugher, their blood feeding the riots of the masses. And the masses are, and will continue to riot. Against anyone who even looks to be of Arabic descent, against anyone.

I've heard MANY pro-genocide comments regarding Afghanistan. Well, the problem is that A) as a nation, a race, as humans, we do NO have the right under ANY religion or belief structure to decide to wipe out an entire race of people... and if that is done, then we sit and wait for the retaliation from THAT.
You go nuts and attack everyone, then in 5 years, more thousands die. More attacks happen. WHo came first, the chicken or the egg? Whom is retaliating against who for what? What started it? Who knows (I'm sure someone does, I myself do not presume to know the minds behind all this....either of my own nationality or others.) So Adam hit Zac, so Zac hit Adam, so Adam hits Zac again, and so it goes....all we would do through a mass bombing is set ourselves up for more of Tuesdays carnage.

And finally, even Afghani people are mostly against the Taliban....approximately 90% of the country is Anti-Taliban! They don't like them either. So you bomb Afghanistan, and end up with thousands more deaths of innocents and civilians, and kill off those who hate the Taliban as much as you do. The muslim religion by nature, is a VERY peaceful religion. If you come in peace, you will be met in peace...that is the Muslim tenet. Do not attack the Muslims....most of them are as shocked, saddened, and sickened as the rest of us.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Caucasian Americans rounded up every Japanese-American and herded them all into concentration camps, right here in the good ol' US of A. (Freedom, but only if we like you.) I've heard many people suggesting doing that again with anyone of Arabic descent. This is DISGUSTING. And then what, wait? Leave them in concentration camps in this so-called Land Of Opportunity, Freedom, and Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Why do "Proud Americans" not practice what they preach?

Death toll at present time....where? in NYC? In DC? In all the countries in which other people, other lives every bit as important as the lives in America, die every day? In some countries, terrorist attacks and deaths are so commonplace, children grow up with it. It's a way of life.

But you know, our people love our children. You know what? So does any other culture you can think of and 'condemn' because of their religious and political leaders. The children did not plan the attack, or pull the triggers, do not kill the children and prevent them growing up.

To commit genocide on an entire race of people would be an unconscionable act by the American people. And I, for one, would be filthified by association, simply because I live here. However, my opinion counts, if only to myself, and I consider myself a caring human being, even if the government chosen to represent me does not agree with my views.

My sympathies to any and all whom lost people in the tragedies (any tragedy, in ANY country), or are missing people....good luck.

pepperkin

yankinlk

this is all b***s*** ...im still trying to get in contact with unaccounted for loved ones (i assume are safe though)...so i havent the time to put into dissecting every news report and every US decision like the rest of you super-brains

i woke this morning as I have the last 3: early and with the telly on the news. a one line headline from a european newspaper summed up the feeling i am getting from the loved ones i know here and stateside...

...find and punish the people that did this, and come to understand why this has happened...

bugler

I haven't had a chance to post to boards yet, due to me going back to college, but I have spent the last few days arguing and talking about this subject.A couple of things: Loads of people have pops at Fisk, Shinj.He has been repeatedly accused of Anti-Semitism, while at the same time has been described as "generally holding a low opinion of Arabs" (the words of a Syrian government official sometime in the past), he is a constant target for more unscrupulous analysts and quasi-political groups, which makes me feel even more in awe of him as a journalist and person.He is quite superb at his job, and sometimes I have to wonder how he has kept going.Anyway, onwards...

Shinji said alot of what I wanted to say, the main part of which is that the average American seemingly doesn't get all of this whatsoever.Many seem to hold the opinion that these terrible atrocities have come to pass for no reason other than the US being good and righteous, whereas the total opposite is trueThey certainly haven't been helped by some of the frankly pathetic media coverage, including the almost comical Israeli press, one papers editorial reading "America suffered this fate for doing what is right.." .A letter to the guardian said it all for me really:

These terrorist attacks are the price we pay for ignoring the wisdom of our founding fathers as expressed by Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliance with none." Stop making enemies and we won't have to worry about terrorism. Vote libertarian.

Bill Holmes

California

If the average american was capable of forming and holding such a view can you imagine how different the Middle-East(and indeed the world) would be? Alas, the US is a country with fine and honourable ideas, which unfortunately are totally false and empty.


Military responses? Probably completely useless.As useless as smashing a mirror after having your home burgled. You hit out at what you think is the enemy, and all that happens is that they are further enraged, and hit back at you.The worst case would be perhaps a military action against Afghanistan, taking the form of inaccurate aerial bombardment, resulting in more civilian casualties, and more bin Laden supporters.If the US refuses to alter its foreign policy and at the same time uses force to gain revenge for these attacks, then they are merely guaranteeing themselves another tragedy on their homeland. How do you stop extreme terrorists? By removing what they need to exist of course.It's like starving a flame of oxygen, the fire will quench. The average American voter needs to grasp that they had these terrible acts of violence made against them for equally terrible reasons.Until that happens, US governments will continue to piss all over a large part of the Arab world, and the results be more days like the 11th of September 2001, more dead children from sanctions, and more stone throwing kids shot dead.

I refuse to even reply in part to Gargoyle, I make it a point not to argue with those who have no interest in reason, decency or intelligent discussion.

You just had to see it coming, when you think about it....

How long? Not long, because what you reap is what you sow.

-Rage against the Machine

Paladin

I posted this already in humanities but it seems appropriate here:

The American government so far hasnt really shown any foresight into what results their future actions might have (neither have a few people in thie thread imho).

Why were there terrorist attacks on America? Because there are people that hate them that much. (This has already been discussed and explained in this thread). Attacking Afghanistan militarily to destroy "terrorists" will terrorize the common people. These people, their younger generations, will remember this and grow up hating America, and so more terrorists?

Thats what I see happening should an invasion of Afghanistan go ahead. Its what Bin Laden wants. America will merely stir up more hate if they attack Bin Laden. So what to do? Let him get away with it? No. I rekon its time to put your money where your big ass capitalist mouth is.

An invasion force to capture Bin Laden? Maybe, but I would suggest thet force be followed VERY closely by military aid workers. Why? The Afghan people are starving and need FINANCIAL help. If a western army (Europe also) was to enter the country, catch terrorists and give AID in huge and appreciable amounts, then what will they younger generation remember?
They will remember an army fighting through terrorists to give them HELP, to give them food, clothes, medecine. An army that helped to build shelters, install plumbing, help to farm the land with machinery and maybe fund an educational system?

This would of course cost a lot of money, but in the long term it WOULD actually help people and I would be pretty certain that these people would not resent the west as they grow up. They would appreciate the west, and hopefully in the future join them economically.

A simple assault will result in a terrorist war against the west. There is no way you can win against people willing to die (with a smile) for their cause. To be honest, I am scared of a terrorist and/or international backlash because of this "war" Bush talks about. The middle east is a dangerous stick of dynamite just waiting to be set off and start a huge regional war.