9/11, so what?

No one in control of any country is innocent of causing death and destruction. Nations require armies, armies are controlled by people, people make mistakes that result in innocent people getting killed.

What do you mean by “people” in Cuba the “people” didn’t have a say as to whether they had SS-4’s on their territory. The only way this line of argumentation can work is if the country is ruled by the people, and the US is ruled by the people. As a result the people of the US are just as guilty as the people who are in charge. Cubans, Soviets, etc. cannot be held responsible because they have no say. That is the nature of democracy.

ostensibly rational leaders from three modern industrialized nations brought the world to the brink of total nuclear holocaust.

Cuba = modern industrialized?

Therefore the modern nation-state is inherently immoral, the US just has a larger budget for mischief, and also a larger chance of doing good.

No, the US is much more then merely that. States around the world do not impose leaders, and depose democratically elected ones do they? The US is by far the most hypocritical nation of the face of the Earth when it comes to “freedom and democracy”. The US has left her mark all over Asia, and Latin America. The US engineered many coup d’etat, and has propped up corrupted tyrannical leaders from Saddam to the Saud’s, the US supports Israel (enough said), and the US actively supports anything that is considered “against terrorism”.
 
Spidergoat said it, and I'll say it too. We're all guilty in some form or another. The U.S. has commited many crimes, yes, but don't turn around and say everyone's blood is on the America's hands. I can understand how people would like to, as people always place the blame on the current superpower. How can you expect a country not to act in it's best interests, right or wrong?

You give me a list of the atrocities of America, I'll turn around and give you a list of your countries' atrocities. See? We could play the blame game all day. Never would stop.

*americans should not pretend INNOCENCE nor profess IGNORANCE
Click to expand...

Most intelligent Americans don't. We know what we've done, and what we're doing.

*neither should you EVER claim the moral high ground.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't. But who can? Your country perhaps? Please, tell me of a country that stand the moral high ground.

the state sponsored TERRORISM as practiced by the usa make others, PALE IN COMPARISON.
Click to expand...

Exactly WTF kind of terrorism are you talking about? We don't exactly crash planes full of people into office buildings on purpose, at least that I'm aware of.

Does everyone conviently forget the craploads of foreign aid the U.S. hands out? That's got to count for something, right?
 
te jen said:
I agree with you, too. Our crimes against humanity make 9-11 pale by comparison.

Seen objectively, 9-11 was a stroke of tactical genius. It combined two highly visceral human fears (fear of flying and fear of tall buildings) and brought them in living color to every television in America.

About a year after 9-11, I happened to be interviewed by a local newspaper for my reaction to the event over that year. I said that having lived in other countries where political killing was commonplace, 9-11 seemed more familiar to me than shocking or unbelievable. Just on a larger scale, that's all. I added that our reaction seemed slightly disproportionate - after all, more people die in three weeks in car accidents in the U.S. than died on 9-11, yet no "war on car accidents" seems warranted. I was sternly rebuked by many people for those comments.

I think that the American people are very much like children, or perhaps adolescents. We don't have a clear understanding of the world around us, we overreact to perceived threats while ignoring much larger, real threats, see ourselves as victims, and have a tendency to oversimplify every issue.

Our leaders, of course, are more than willing to use this fear and this immaturity to instill a siege mentality that allows them to pretty much do whatever the hell they want.

Personally, I think that we have lost our democracy and that our leadership is taking us down a path that will demolish America as we know it. Though it will cause a lot of death and suffering while it happens, I think it will be best for the world as a whole if the U.S. is forced by circumstance and our own bumbling efforts to assume a more proportionate station among the powers of the earth.

So I say to the Bush Administration - "Bring it on" - wreck our Constitution, destroy our criminal justice system, finish off our reputation in the world. Perhaps from the ashes of this abomination of a country we can build something new and sane.

But I doubt it.
Click to expand...


OMG! That is exactly how I percieve the American attitude towards international politics. I actually wrote a paper that successfully (as far as the professor was concerned) proved that a lasting frontier mentality was causing us to be more aggressive in the pursuit of our own self-interests. I will attempt to attatch the paper. Note: Please don't plagerise it. I only got a B on it anyway.

But yeah, I definately see the hand of American aggressiveness because of its own self interest of achieving goals in international politics. I love the point Micheal Moore makes about this in that clip show in Bowling For Columbine. You know, the one set to "It's A Wonderful World" that shows the US's atrocities, er, "furthering of democracy in the world". I think that it is a fitting commentary to show the US aid to the Taliban and Bin Laden near the end, and then end the song with Bin Laden's "reinvestment" of the CIA training in the form of 9/11 as the music tetters off. "'What a wonderfulll wooorld....' *second plane hits the South tower* Oh my god!..." (By no means am I advocating the 9/11 attacks)

But even though I did mourn 9/11 after the first couple of days, and a couple of weeks after, I quickly got the attitude of "Okay, we know this was a horrible thing, but the media coverage has just been overblown." Sure, they were horrible attacks, but I just wanted things to get back to normal. I think that is one of the main problems with our aggressiveness. The media/government over-sensationalizes everything. Just watch your local network news one night. I guarantee you'll see:

  • X causes cancer! Beware!
  • An armed middle-aged black man committed X crime...
  • X factor is threatening to destroy your normal life in some way... find out how.

That is yet another thing that Moore points out in Bowling for Columbine. Hell, because of this sensationalist BS, I rarely watch TV news anymore. I just read it on the 'Net. But because of this sensationalism/manipulation since the 1930's, we've been bred to be a docile, paranoid people, bending to the will of the government and media.
"The Germans are evil and threatening our way of life! We must attack them (justified though)!"
"The Soviets and communism are evil! Support America and apple-pie, or else the Commies will rape your daughter!"
"Be afraid! The Soviets threaten to nuke us! The best thing you can do is go to a fallout shelter or better yet, duck and cover under a pathetic desk!"
"If we don't keep the communists out of Vietnam, they'll destroy America!"
"The Soviets are still the evil empire! We must deploy an infeasible missile shield in space using technology 20 years away!"
"The Soviets are gone and America is safe! But now there are all of those little countries we destroyed in the Cold War to destroy the Soviets..."
"The Muslim Al-Qaeda terrorists attacked God's land, er, America! We must destroy all of those who have oil and aren't whit or Christian!"
"Iraq has oil that mean OPEC won't let us have! Um, well, they have WMDs that cannot concievably touch America, but they're going to use them on us anyway! We must preemptively defend ourselves by invading them and taking their oil, er, weapons!"
"Iraq has ties to Al-Qaeda! No, seriously!"

As a society, we need to adopt a few measures, such as encouraging creativity and free-thinking in our childrena and the schools (none of this pure-fact automaton BS); advocate reforms towards the national media, to reduce its sensationalism (wishful thinking); and encourage a more isolationist government (in terms of military operations), to reduce the greivances that foriegn governments have with our military/nation, and to reduce the number of "allies of conveinience". We need to maintain strong ties with our current and historical allies. That said, I am tired, and am going to bed. It's almost 2am on the east coast.
 
Last edited:
Exactly WTF kind of terrorism are you talking about? We don't exactly crash planes full of people into office buildings on purpose, at least that I'm aware of.

Hmmm…Iraq comes to mind, Dresden 1945, Guatemala 1953, Chile 1973, Bay of Pigs 1961, Vietnam 1965, , Nicaragua 1980’s, Afghanistan 80’s, etc. Your idea of terrorism is awfully skewed and obviously deficient, the US has a great deal many times has committed crimes against humanity, and terrorism. But to be fair the US isn’t alone in state terrorism.

Does everyone conviently forget the craploads of foreign aid the U.S. hands out? That's got to count for something, right?

Per capita the US is one of the lowest donors in the world, so it’s really not much to be proud of. The US could be doing significantly more; also the US can actually start to pay the UN her share of the bills. I think it is very convenient that you absolve the US of responsibility because American terrorism wears uniforms.
 
What is the point of this ridiculus numbers game? Are we assessing blame for all the death in the world? WWII - 50 million to Germany right there, ouch! Retarded.

If you think the US should change its foreign policy, give some concrete examples with solutions backed up by facts. I, for one, think there is much to be improved. But throwing out unverifiable death toll numbers does no good. Not to mention trying to play the "10,000 deaths is SO much worse than 3000 deaths" card.
 
If you think the US should change its foreign policy, give some concrete examples with solutions backed up by facts.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34678 You could start there…

But throwing out unverifiable death toll numbers does no good. Not to mention trying to play the "10,000 deaths is SO much worse than 3000 deaths" card.

But Americans have the complex of thinking that 3000 American dead is much more important then 12,000 Iraqi dead don’t they? American’s shant complain, they got shafted but they suffered nothing in comparison to the ones they have terrorized in the past.
 
"http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34678 You could start there…"
I agree, better thread. Hadn't read it in awhile.

"But Americans have the complex of thinking that 3000 American dead is much more important then 12,000 Iraqi dead don’t they? American’s shant complain, they got shafted but they suffered nothing in comparison to the ones they have terrorized in the past. "
True dat. This, however, is inevitable as long as we have these things called 'nations'. Tell me, is there a country where the citizens mourn the deaths of those on the other side of the planet as they do their own? I agree America tends to have the blinders on, but I think it is a worldwide phenom. To say America specifically has this complex is misleading.
 
True dat. This, however, is inevitable as long as we have these things called 'nations'. Tell me, is there a country where the citizens mourn the deaths of those on the other side of the planet as they do their own? I agree America tends to have the blinders on, but I think it is a worldwide phenom. To say America specifically has this complex is misleading.

Ah that is something that should be debated more thoroughly, of course when ones fellow statesmen die there is a added emphasis on getting angry, but I don’t deny that. The dichotomy that I was trying to present is that Americans have no compulsions at terrorizing and killing innocent people across the world yet expect the world not only to leave them alone but love them. Americans place significantly much more human value on themselves then anyone else, “those Iraqi’s deserved it” idiocy.
 
Hmmm…Iraq comes to mind, Dresden 1945, Guatemala 1953, Chile 1973, Bay of Pigs 1961, Vietnam 1965, , Nicaragua 1980’s, Afghanistan 80’s,

Unde come on:
Dresden was in WWII and the Germans hardly have any right to say "ohh you killed Civilians..."

Bay of Pigs? *LOL* That was a blooming success

Vietnam? So its ok for the North to come in and start killing everyone but we are bad for helping the South?

And whats wrong with Afghanistan? They were getting stomped by the Soviets and we helped them out. Have you ever seen the mines developed by the Soviets that look like little shiney toys?

Why is it that no one here faults the Soviets for all the crap they pulled? Its always BAD USA.

I do agree that American reaction to 9/11 was ridiculous. In no way am I trying to say the US is some big Saint. I have repeatedly brought up the fact to people that we have repeatedly carpet bombed the shit out of our enemies with great civilian casualties. We have started numerous conflicts, some with dubious motivation. However, to sit here and post that the US did this blah blah blah without addressing the attrocities commited by BOTH sides and trying to label the Right as 'evil' while completely ignoring the MILLIONS that the left has killed is utter BS.
 
Undecided said:
But Americans have the complex of thinking that 3000 American dead is much more important then 12,000 Iraqi dead don’t they?QUOTE]

And? Every country values their own people more than foreigners.
Click to expand...
 
IF the September 11th terrorist attacks were "acts of villiany," or morally wrong, THEN the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan must have been an "act of villiany," because the two shared the same goal: to kill as many of the enemy as possible.

Perceptions vary. The American military percieves armed, active combatants as "the enemy," while terrorist organizations typically percieve an entire native population as "the enemy."

However, the two share the same objective foundation. One cannot be less evil than the other.

We do concede that all men have the inalienable right to defend their person and property. Therefore, murder in self defense is ethically justifiable, though no less morally wrong than murder otherwise. Hence the legal differentiation between justifiable homicide, and involuntary manslaughter (say, a car accident that results in a fatality). Justifiable homicide is still homicide; involuntary manslaughter is not. Moral rights and wrongs deal exclusively with actions, and are measured on an absolute scale (murder is wrong, period). Justification, however, deals entirely with intent, and is measured on a relative scale.

So, one cannot reasonably argue that American war is "good," and Taliban war "bad." One can argue that a military response can be justified, however, and by any definition that would certainly have been he case on Sept. 11th. But, again, such arguments are both relative and subjective. Therefore, no one can be absolutely correct. Of course, some arguments are better than others. And no, saying "...he did it first," is not an example of a strong argument, any moreso than an argument which proports that "...the sins of the father condemn the son." Both are classic examples of fallacies; the first is a red herring, the second is false dichotomy.

So, jump off your high horses, and quit saying America is evil for doing x in 1977, or that she is vindicated because the Soviets did worse. Such details are irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
They kill some of us, we kill some of them....

Which reminds me of something:

"If it ain't the fuckin' incoming it's the fuckin' outgoing. The only difference is who gets the fuckin' grease, and that ain't no fuckin' difference at all."

U.S. medic in Viet Nam, quoted by Michael Herr in his book Dispatches.

Amen
 
The US isnt used to being bombed, attacked on its own soil. Compared to the deaths in the Blitz, or the bombing over German and Japanese cities, or pretty much any city in any modern conflict, the death toll in 9/11 was nothing. The bombing of civilians has been a feature of warfare for over 100 years now, and in a conflict you need to expect it might happen.
 
"The bombing of civilians has been a feature of warfare for over 100 years now, and in a conflict you need to expect it might happen."

Yes that's true, but something is changing, that the USA is having a very slippery time coming to grips with: War doesn't neatly stop any more, as the Great White Hunter, far from home, takes down a few failed states, to the jeers of an increasingly resentful world.

The US must now give up all pretense of moral superiority backed by our global military empire, or we must now mobilize and militarize our society from top to bottom, casting ourselves as the Bad Guys in a long Total War of domination against all comers (and all will eventually come, until it's over).

The US is now forced give up all pretense that cornering the market on waning oil, or nuclear weapons, or smart bombs, or dumb grunts, provides a meaningful deterrent to this challenge to the underpinnings of our economy. McPetroMilIndustrialCorp HY"D Inc is brazenly serving itself at the mortal expense of an American nation still in abject denial about the gluttony that we Americans will be held accountable for. There's no time to whine about the fact that global integration is dramatically reducing the half-life of empires. It's time for the USA to adapt or go extinct, because this Global War on NonAmericanism is not going to end with Americans quipping "So what".

Te Jen mentioned an animal analogy about America's situation in another thread, and it's more clearly true every day:

It's time to let go of the tiger's tail and get away if there's time, because things are going to get exponentially wilder, and our hunting partners will flee. Letting go may seem like weakness. But our tightening grip will eventually falter and slip, and then the once mighty Klingon will become wide-eyed lunch for a very hungry kitty.
 
They kill some of us, we kill some of them....
Click to expand...
...and let's not bother with asking ouselves why they did, and whether such a response is likely to lead tomore of the same.

Then too, there's the question of who, exactly, are "them"?

US media has it neatly packaged, with faces and names - Al Qaeda. In the face of terror, a clearly defined and essentially contained "enemy" seems less of a threat - an enemy you can point at. And it's misleading.

There are thousands of organisations with terrorist leanings that despise the US. Al Qaeda just happened to beat them to it. Wait and see. Everything the US is doing to "counter" terrorism, with all eyes on Al Qaeda, is giving them all the incentive they need to follow suit.
 
talk2farley:
Perceptions vary. The American military percieves armed, active combatants as "the enemy," while terrorist organizations typically percieve an entire native population as "the enemy."

However, the two share the same objective foundation. One cannot be less evil than the other.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd be just as understanding if your mother or child burned alive because some "terrorist" thought them as "the enemy." It is nice to theorize about all this, but something has to be done. And right now, nobody can stop us. Whether good or bad? It really doesn't matter does it? Because we'll keep on doing it until leadership changes, and even then, the next leader will inherit the world from the present one. The "RIGHT" thing is not always possible in a world with no rules, where war is an acceptable solution. It is easy to do the "right" thing for us, because we live in a nation of laws. The international environment has no laws, "international law" is a shaky thing that can be almost always bypassed by the whole sovereignty thing. With no laws around, there can be no right thing. Not between nations at least.
 
the hypocricy of the original post is really ammusing, out of all the different examples you used, only
"Iraq 1992 to 2002: Conservatively killed 500,000 children with the sanctions, possibly 2 million"
has any numerical significance compared to deaths from natural disasters (and that took ten years, natural disasters take days)

emphyrio, you can hardly balme american supporters for being biased, for, you are equally biased, but on the other side

so shut the hell up
 
"The international environment has no laws, "international law" is a shaky thing that can be almost always bypassed by the whole sovereignty thing."

False. The United States is a member of an interdependent society of nations, whose legal structure is vital to America's security and prosperity. The more economically developed a nation is, the more vital conformity to international law becomes.

It was a long time ago that the need for a system other than anarchy between states was recognized, just as it was for relationships between individuals. You can look back to Hugo Grotius, the Geneva Conventions, and the UN Charter for some representative milestones. International law did not spring up out of "liberal" or "internationalist" ideas- it evolved out of stark necessity.

That you dismiss this system as "a shaky thing that can almost always be bypassed by the whole sovereignty thing" is the same as to conveniently ignore any fundamental civil law, "bypassing" it on the basis of personal exceptionalism. For instance, you could drive through red lights when you are in a hurry. This behavior would have consequences. You are correct that any action is possible, but your rationale utterly fails, in examining the concept of international law, to begin to address the inevitability of consequences.

I'm not sure I could hold your attention long enough to elaborate on the consequences of rogue national behaviors. It's the leading component of the more horrific episodes of world history. Even if you have no interest in that subject, you should know that the present US economy would collapse without the system of international law under which we trade with the world. When I say collapse, I mean to the extent that social order and federal union could not be maintained: Like the looting of Baghdad, but on a grander scale. We depend on the norms of international law for our national survival, including ultimately, order in our own streets.

As a leading member of the community of nations in terms of economy and global involvement, our behavior is more scrutinized than (for instance) the foreign policy of Palau. In the present context, US foreign policy is the most scrutinized on the planet, and our adherence, or lack of it, to the highest international principles of national behavior are not only impacting perceptions, but hard realities concerning the status of the USA among other nations in the future.

You are in the company of the present US Presidency in ignoring these fundamentals of international relations. You and the President's men won't have to take my words, or of others more qualified, that this ignorance you and your leader display is folly for all of us.

We will watch what happens to us now. If you are an American, your life will be directly and negatively impacted by the consequences of the reckless exceptionalism already put into motion by this Bush Administration. Unless we learn from the hard lessons ahead, the United States will continue converting our promise into misfortune, by acting in defiance of reality.

This is not Hollywood- It's real life. We have to watch for those annoying red lights that limit our freedom. If we refuse to function within the basics of international law, we inevitably will fail to see what's about to hit us in time to avoid being hurt badly.
 
hypewaders,

oh, i do not disagree with you that we are interdependent along with other nations. and i agree with you that international law is a great thing. but it only works if all parties are involved and agree to cooperate. sovereignty will override all international law principles if a nation choses to exercise that right. iraq chose to attack kuwait, and the international community, through UN, endorsed an attack against them in support of kuwait. the reason that happened was because the international law had an endorsment of nations that could inforce it. on the other hand, if we (US) choose to invade afghanistan, without any international law precedent, we can do it, and no one will stop us because they have not the power to enforce their version of international law. i'm sure that US does not violate trading or scientific international law. we chose to exercise our sovereignty where it suits us best, in this case, invasions if need be.

i agree with you that just using sovereignty to do what we want is not good practice. but in my previous post i was illustrating the point, and i still stand by it, that we will do what is in our own best interest. the point being, we have a 4 year memory as a nation. and that is our measure of consequences.

and it is unfortunate that we are on a certain course as a nation. however, our hand is forced because we have the power to extend our influence across the globe. if we are attacked, we have the means to retaliate. the school of thought being that if we show weakness we will be picked apart. we are the force behind international law. if we are weak, the international law will lose that much more credibility. remember the league of nations? that did not last very long now did it.

but lastly, my point was that we were attacked and we retaliated. why is spain not retaliating? uhm, perhaps because they do not have the means. what did you think when spain began withdrawing from iraq? a terrorist attack resulted in spains withdrawal. what kind of message does that send? if i were a terrorist, i would attack another state in hopes that it would work. now, if you're a terrorist, and you attack US, and then you just get completely annihilated, that sends a message. notice the shift against non-US targets? soft targets? international workers? because they are easier. whether the strong arm of the united states is legal? are our methods looking at consequences down the road? probably not. but it's working isn't it? and that keeps you safe.

i know, long term we might be f*#$ed. But with a 4 year memory and outlook, what better plan than to treat the symptoms?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top