911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

falkor · 2004-09-06 02:33:17

http://www.pcsos-national.co.uk/911.html]

understanding why

The initiators of the attacks decided to implement their plan after America has provoked immense hatred throughout the world. Not because of its might, but because of the way it uses its might. It is hated by the enemies of globalization, who blame it for the terrible gap between rich and poor in the world. It is hated by millions of Arabs, because of its support for the Israeli occupation and the suffering of the Palestinian people. It is hated by multitudes of Muslims, because of what looks like its support for the Jewish domination of the Islamic holy shrines in Jerusalem. And there are many more angry peoples who believe that America supports their tormentors.
Until September 11, 2001 ? a date to remember - Americans could entertain the illusion that all this concerns only others, in far-away places beyond the seas, that it does not touch their sheltered lives at home. No more.

understanding world leaders, their position?

This is not a battle between the United States and terrorism but between the free and democratic world and terrorism.
This mass terrorism is the new evil in our world. The people who perpetrate it have no regard whatever for the sanctity or value of human life.
We, the democracies of the world, must come together and defeat and eradicate it."
- Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the darkest days of European history,
America stood close by us
and today we stand close by America.
- EU President Romano Prodi

http://www.pcsos-national.co.uk/911.html] god bless america

MarsDog · 2004-09-06 05:31:57

god bless america

God has blessed (doomed) USA with world oil resources to use for Commuters.

dicktice · 2004-09-08 17:09:08

What's this I hear on the radio about a new hardcover book by a Peter Lance, just out, called "Cover Up"?

Rxke · 2004-09-08 23:42:35

I *still* don't understand this "war on terror" idea...

It's like saying war on war, really... Fighting the symptoms, like every terrorist is the same, but you have political terrorists, crazy terrorist, extreme left-right-Christian,Muslem, sect, drug-crazed, aliens rule the government... terrorists...

Why not war on poverty, lack on education, human-rights violations,...

*those* are the sources of terrorism, terrorism is just an outcome of a situation, experienced as intolerable by certain people (and, of course, exploited by 'leaders with an agenda...')

I just saw a documentary series, where safety specialists from over the world agreed you *can't* eradicate terrorism by pounding down the *terrorists*, as long as the breeding-grounds for said terrorists are still there... Yes, specialists from America, too, left-and rightwingers, all agreed upon this, and they looked quite uncomfortable with the idea...
Some said, after a bit of pushing, yes the Arab world has legitimate feelings of being treated unjust, because Israel gets away with everything, and the young hotheads only see their (Arab) side of the story... And interviews with Mullahs, lamenting the world gets this picture of a crazed Arab society, riddled with terrorists, while it's only a fraction of a percentage of *bad, untrue muslims* (their words,) that stoke up young, easily influenced kids and youngsters to go and blow themselves up.

Terrorists are brain-washed kids without a clue. Terrorist-leaders are ruthless opportunists, going where they can easily 'harvest' unhappy people, people they use as trash, throwaway guided missiles.
Give them no place to go, no place where they can reap the 'fruits' of misery, by alleviating said misery, and they become powerless, unpopular.

Aw well endless discussion.

MarsDog · 2004-09-09 00:22:53

Why not war on poverty, lack on education, human-rights violations,...

Too expensive, no quick returns on investment.
Urgent need is for world oil prices to drop.

Now that the Muslim Terrorists have Russia's attention,
will we see startup of prison camps in Siberia ?

Gennaro · 2004-09-09 01:54:05

I *still* don't understand this "war on terror" idea...
It's like saying war on war, really... Fighting the symptoms, like every terrorist is the same, but you have political terrorists, crazy terrorist, extreme left-right-Christian,Muslem, sect, drug-crazed, aliens rule the government... terrorists...

Right on!

Islam is of course an expansionistic religion by its very nature. Still, it takes a bit of aggravating to get Muslim people to behave like super-Beibars and get on such a retarded program in this day and age.

Who wanted a "war on terror"? The neocons. What special place does Israel occupy in every neocon's heart? Connect the dots.
It really has nothing to do with oil.

With the risk of being labeled anti-American (I'm not), I think this article might be worth reading:

http://antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467 … cleid=3467

As for Chechnya it's been going on for years and it also has a long history of primarily Communist oppression before that. It's a provincial matter in some sense, which doesn't mean it isn't important and entails a risk of a central Asian domino none of us would like becoming a reality. It's just that even if Israel was discontinued as a state I'm sure it would have zero impact on the Chechnyan independence movement/terrorists, while that concern is highly important driving force for the Arabs and bin Ladin.

And then of course we have these guys who doubt the 9/11 scenario alltogether. The Pentagon conspiracy thesis is probably the most extreme of their theories. Pretty cool flash movie on the matter (and since they they're often lefties as well wanting to equate Bush with Hitler - certainly a very inappropriate comparison, one wonders if they even faintly understand what Adolf is talking about in the introductionary sequence?):
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pentagon.htm … tagon.html

Euler · 2004-09-09 03:05:47

Who wanted a "war on terror"? The neocons. What special place does Israel occupy in every neocon's heart? Connect the dots.
It really has nothing to do with oil.
With the risk of being labeled anti-American (I'm not), I think this article might be worth reading:
http://antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467 … cleid=3467

The motivation that the article gives does not make much sense. At the time when Gulf War 2 was launched, the Iraqi army was in ruins and in no condition to stop Israel from doing anything. Meanwhile, the article seems to ignore Saudi Arabia, which has a very strong military (#8 in the world in military spending) and is the only Arab county that spends more on it's military that Israel does. If any country is going to stand in the way of Israel’s ambitions, it is much more likely that Saudi Arabia will do it than Iraq.

Gennaro · 2004-09-09 05:22:30

Possibly. I don't necessarily vouch for the article but it does seem to present a lot of empirical conjecture (given that the claims, for instance about the operation of the US congress, aren't false).

If I'm allowed some theorizing, Saudi Arabia is already in the pocket isn't it? As far as I know the coalition is the best guarantee the royal house has for its continual existence.
Besides, Saudi Arabia didn't present a credible target, having supported the Allies during Gulf War I and everything. Iraq did, or at least could be trumped up. And who says this is primarily about getting bin Ladin and his sort? As long as that boogie man and Muslim fundamentalist terrorism remains, the powers that be benefits from the boost of credibility it offers.
What they may percieve as their strategic enemies could be secular Arab powers of the kind Saddam, Nasser and Khaddafi have represented. People who are able to actually question the legitimacy of the Jewish state. In that sense crazy bomb throwers are the best enemies the Zionist faction can get.

This would be long-term and not dependant on what threat Iraq represented for the time being. Correct, it was no threat. But what military threat do countries like Iran or Syria represent? None either. Even so there have at times been much talk about how they should be attacked as well.

And the aggressiveness towards Iraq started long before 9/11. Even the writings of leading neocons reveal as much. Something strange happened at the end of the 80's. Hussein the anti-Islamist hero suddenly turned into Saddam the wretched, because of that little Kuwait intermezzo. He's even alleged to have contacted US officials shortly before the invasion to question whether he was allowed to march in and got what he percieved as a favourable (i.e non-committal) reply.
If so why would he be certain he wasn't allowed to attack it? The west hadn't cared one cent about him starting the war on Iran. On the contrary, western media during the 80's made his regime a bulwark for western interests.
Looked from the other end, how stupid could the man be?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-09 05:36:16

I *still* don't understand this "war on terror" idea...
Why not war on poverty, lack on education, human-rights violations,...

Well, I must first say that whenever the US government starts one of its "War on..." projects, it usually means big money and no progress. This one has the virtue of actually involving war, which we're good at, and so far has gone much better than the "War on Drugs", "War on Poverty", and whatever else I'm neglecting to mention.

But by way of explanation of this particular "war on" the underlying idea is exactly what you suggest. Only we can't very well alleviate the poverty of the people in question when their nations are ruled by despots, nor can we educate them when those same despots control the national media. Human rights violations again require a change of who holds power. Military action, the "war" part is just the first step, followed by the much-maligned "nation building" which entails the points you raise.

Eliminating the conditions that breed terrorism is precisely the objective, which is why the use of military action to initiate it appears unfocused to anyone looking for clear causal reasons for each specific move. "War on Terror" really isn't the best term, but they could hardly call it the "War on Militant Fundamentalist Islamic Terror" now could they, what with all the PC BS we're mired in.

Israel isn't really that big a factor. It's a convenient rallying point, but not the major root cause. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow the terrorists would continue, this time with a new central theme.

Gennaro · 2004-09-09 06:09:06

But by way of explanation of this particular "war on" the underlying idea is exactly what you suggest. Only we can't very well alleviate the poverty of the people in question when their nations are ruled by despots, nor can we educate them when those same despots control the national media. Human rights violations again require a change of who holds power. Military action, the "war" part is just the first step, followed by the much-maligned "nation building" which entails the points you raise.

One could also argue that the US has traditionally always drawn the "human rights" card whenever it was beneficial to some percieved interest and otherwise let it be.

Eliminating the conditions that breed terrorism is precisely the objective, which is why the use of military action to initiate it appears unfocused to anyone looking for clear causal reasons for each specific move. "War on Terror" really isn't the best term, but they could hardly call it the "War on Militant Fundamentalist Islamic Terror" now could they, what with all the PC BS we're mired in.

If this was a war on "Militant Fundamentalist Islamic Terror" why hasn't secular regimes been backed instead of attacked?

Israel isn't really that big a factor. It's a convenient rallying point, but not the major root cause. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow the terrorists would continue, this time with a new central theme.

That really all boils down to who's holding the strings and how policy-making is actually carried out.

Palomar · 2004-09-09 06:16:18

[Quote --"I *still* don't understand this "war on terror" idea...

It's like saying war on war, really... Fighting the symptoms, like every terrorist is the same, but you have political terrorists, crazy terrorist, extreme left-right-Christian,Muslem, sect, drug-crazed, aliens rule the government... terrorists...:"--]

*I dunno...after the school massacre in Russia (and car bombings and other human-targeted explosions in Jakarta, Spain, Malaysia, 9/11, the previous hostage crisis in Russia last year when people were butchered, Sudan/Darfur, etc., etc.), I think I understand the "war on terror" quite well.

The thugs perpetrating these violent assaults have long since lost their right to point fingers at the West and denounce us as imperialists. That's exactly what they are.

[Quote --"Why not war on poverty, lack on education, human- rights violations,...

*those* are the sources of terrorism, terrorism is just an outcome of a situation, experienced as intolerable by certain people (and, of course, exploited by 'leaders with an agenda...')"--]

*The terrorists are creating the human rights violations.

As for a war on poverty and lack of education: Many Western agencies HAVE been trying to ease the problem with assistance and help. Why doesn't Saudi Arabia help its poorer cousins? Or the Kuwaitis? They're rolling in $ and oil. Shouldn't they also care about the poverty and lack of education which breeds Middle Eastern suicide bombers? Or is everything -- once again -- the fault and responsibility entirely of the West? I think not.

Besides, not all terrorists are disheveled, impoverished youngsters. Many are well-fed adults who want to strong-arm the rest of the world into submission to their ideological dictates. Wear a bikini on a beach in Africa and get your head lopped off; that sort of thing.

The people funding the terrorists are wealthy. They don't care about feeding and educating their poor -- they're
exploiting them!

What, are we just supposed to sit back and take it?

Apparently lots of folks underestimated and didn't understand Hitler either. Until it was too late.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2004-09-09 06:25:38

Well, well, I've been quoted!!

Dear Cindy, I feel so honoured! This is the first time that has ever happened.
Seems like I can get it right at least sometimes. :laugh:

Rxke · 2004-09-09 07:28:59

But by way of explanation of this particular "war on" the underlying idea is exactly what you suggest. Only we can't very well alleviate the poverty of the people in question when their nations are ruled by despots, nor can we educate them when those same despots control the national media. Human rights violations again require a change of who holds power. Military action, the "war" part is just the first step, followed by the much-maligned "nation building" which entails the points you raise.

Good point, but.... When are Cheney and Co. going for that terrorist-breeding-ground *Russia*?

Only half kidding. Chechen separatist see the Russian govnmnt as oppressors, hence the terrorism. Al Quaida grew big under Russian occupation too, come to think of it...

Which reminds me: the popular soundbite that these terrorists hate freedom makes me want to throw up, every time i hear that dribble. Al Quaida didn't fight the "Commie Ruskies" because they brought them made-in-the-West freedom, they brought secularism, they brought an end to a culture.

Cindy: good point about Saudi Arabia. But why then are they considered to be on the good side? Because they lend their airstrips (sometimes)
Never did I say "it was all the West's fault"

falkor · 2004-09-09 09:55:23

god bless america
God has blessed (doomed) USA with world oil resources to use for Commuters.

and your answer to the conundrum ... is what?

MarsDog · 2004-09-09 14:03:05

There is self deception, "God bless America",
hoping for a miracle, a place in front of the line.
I cannot see an answer, other groups also want to be blessed.

DonPanic · 2004-09-09 14:27:14

(...)The people funding the terrorists are wealthy. They don't care about feeding and educating their poor -- they're
exploiting them!(...)
--Cindy

LO Cindy
As seen in Madrid attacks, terrorism funding relies mainly on drug and mafias traffic whose money goes get washed in fiscal paradises that are supported thanks to westerners multinational trusts that also make big tax free money.
Therefore I think that you are wrong to say that Western has nothing to see with terrorism.
War at terrorism is a empty concept as long as all means aren't used to destroy these wild banking blackboxes in which some of our great leaders and govenors also do hide their money.
War on terror is so usefull to keep people agreing on war funding that feeds fat lot of these westerner politicians and businessmen : http://www.costofwar.com/index-pre-school.html]Cost of War

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-06 02:33:17

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#2 2004-09-06 05:31:57

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#3 2004-09-08 17:09:08

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#4 2004-09-08 23:42:35

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#5 2004-09-09 00:22:53

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#6 2004-09-09 01:54:05

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#7 2004-09-09 03:05:47

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#8 2004-09-09 05:22:30

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#9 2004-09-09 05:36:16

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#10 2004-09-09 06:09:06

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#11 2004-09-09 06:16:18

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#12 2004-09-09 06:25:38

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#13 2004-09-09 07:28:59

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#14 2004-09-09 09:55:23

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#15 2004-09-09 14:03:05

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

#16 2004-09-09 14:27:14

Re: 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy

Board footer