The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

BWhite · 2004-09-22 21:15:08

http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juan … 62124]Juan Cole offers a persuasive rationale (IMHO) as to "why" al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks.

Bottom line? al Qaeda seeks to replace the current nation-state system with a system where all Muslims exist under a single religious government.

The world comes later, but Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey come first.

Al-Qaeda wanted to build enthusiasm for the Islamic superstate among the Muslim populace, to convince ordinary Muslims that the US could be defeated and they did not have to accept the small, largely secular, and powerless Middle Eastern states erected in the wake of colonialism. Jordan's population, e.g. is 5.6 million. Tunisia, a former French colony, is 10 million, less than Michigan. Most Muslims have been convinced of the naturalness of the nation-state model and are proud of their new nations, however small and weak. Bin Laden had to do a big demonstration project to convince them that another model is possible.
Bin Laden hoped the US would timidly withdraw from the Middle East. But he appears to have been aware that an aggressive US response to 9/11 was entirely possible. In that case, he had a Plan B: al-Qaeda hoped to draw the US into a debilitating guerrilla war in Afghanistan and do to the US military what they had earlier done to the Soviets. Al-Zawahiri's recent message shows that he still has faith in that strategy.
The US cleverly outfoxed al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, using air power and local Afghan allies (the Northern Alliance) to destroy the Taliban without many American boots on the ground.
Ironically, however, the Bush administration then went on to invade Iraq for no good reason, where Americans faced the kind of wearing guerrilla war they had avoided in Afghanistan.

Comments?

Trebuchet · 2004-09-23 01:41:32

I opened this thread expecting to find some halfbaked, inane theory than blamed the US in a roundabout way, and got a pleasant surprise.

This actually is a large part of my thinking about why Al-Qaeda launched 9/11, and other terrorist attacks. Of course, it is not the only reason, because simply saying "They want to establish a unified 'Ummah (Islamic community)" doesn't address why they decided the best way of accomplishing this was by violently attacking a superpower in a manner which would enrage it to no end. Your link explains what they thought would happen, but not why, and it doesn't address the other factors.

The first thing to remember about our current enemies is that they're not strictly rational. While they plan things out logically enough, they, like some other movements in the past (fascism being an excellent example) have a worldview shaped by their will to believe in certain ideas. In this case, the central dogma that Al-Qaeda unquestioningly accepts includes a view of Islam as being the only pure and proper way, and any culture, nation, or system not based on Islam being decadent and seriously flawed and thus fragile (among other things). Absolutely fixed beliefs of this nature are incredibly dangerous to hold, because reasoning from this false premise leads you to incredibly stupid ideas, like killing thousands of people on network television by suicide attack in the biggest city of a superpower state. In their view, America is a weak, decadent country, distracted by comparatively scantily-clad women, alcohol, and scandal-mongering. Bush was not terribly wrong when he talked about the terrorists hating us because of our freedom. They viewed our freedom as license, which we freely indulged in; hence their contempt. Al-Qaeda expected us to cave like, well, France.

Another reason is also steeped in that unquestioning fanaticism. Al-Qaeda has something of a mystical bent to its pronouncements, and tends to pick 'historical' days to launch attacks when they can. To a degree, the concept of jihad has infused warfare with a magical element, and they view the act of violence as a transformative act, turning what would just be senseless carnage into a sort of perverse morality play, one where they live out a fantasy of being martyrs dying in the service of their god. The fact that this tactic may be suboptimal doesn't really impact them; this would conflict with the drama they have scripted for themselves.

The last reason is, well, sheer freakin' stupidity. No one (other than a large, nuclear power) seriously contemplates kicking the tiger in the butt like that. You simply have to be out of your gourd to provoke a nuclear power in that way, especially with the probability that the fourth plane was aimed at the White House or Congress. The United States did briefly consider, then dismissed, a nuclear strike against the Al-Qaeda camps out in the middle of nowhere.

(Actually, I've since come to the conclusion that such a course might have been wise. We would have:
A) Probably been able to use the temporary goodwill of the world to largely paper over the shock of using nuclear weapons. We could always claim, with a large measure of truth, that we were under extreme stress and confusion.
B) Osama would be unquestionably dead, having been vaporized.
C) Not even people in their wrong minds would seriously allow terrorists in their borders after that sort of spastic US response.)

Trebuchet · 2004-09-23 02:01:46

The issue I disagree most with in that article is actually the conclusion that the terrorists might 'win' the war on terror. A significant hardening of opinion is going on in the United States, and also to some degree in Europe, about the Middle East. This would be much more apparent if the invasion of Iraq hadn't occurred, which has largely obscured that shift of opinion. Just as the Middle East has had a swing towards thinking of the US as the big bad enemy, a similar shift has been underway in the United States, Europe, and Russia with every terrorist attack, suicide bomber, and beheading. Islam, as a whole, has a population less than four times that of the US alone, and the qualitative difference between the US and the Islamic world is such that the US would enjoy fairly huge odds in an all-out battle, and it is unlikely that the entire Islamic world would be involved as a monolithic whole. Right now, this is a comparatively nondeadly war. However, the mutual cycle of hate will cause things to escalate for a while, and eventually, the gloves will come completely off.

I fully expect that, before this thing is finally over, at least one Muslim country in the Middle East will be a shattered wreck, having been nuked to a fare-thee-well by somebody. My handicapping on 'somebody' runs Israel-US-Russia-Europe. I'd rather it didn't happen, but I don't think I'm going to get my wish. Decentralized fanatics can't help but keep expanding the number of enemies they have, and they will continue to cause greater and greater revulsion among those that they have with escalating attacks.

If you don't believe me that a fairly substantial number of people have been mentally preparing themselves for that, you should probably casually probe people on whether they think we'll end up nuking someplace over there if things keep going on like this. You'll be surprised. I know I was.

Gennaro · 2004-09-23 03:19:38

Bottom line? al Qaeda seeks to replace the current nation-state system with a system where all Muslims exist under a single religious government.
The world comes later, but Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey come first.

Sure, but I don't need al-Qaeda to tell me that. I could grab any devout Muslim "refugee" off the street and he'll inform me that's why we "Christian" khuffirs are inferior, because we oppose God's purpose of global Islam. Wanting to have our own country is also the intrinsic reason why we are "racists". The thinking is kind of analogous to the faction of Globalists currently in power in the US. Here, a country is legit only if it respects “democracy” and keeps its borders wide open for immigration and world finance.
Muslims don’t have a country, they have a religion. To put a wordly state in front of Universalist faith, like the Baathists did, is more or less sacrilege.
There is also a loose end in Cole's otherwise impeccable reasoning. The US invaded Iraq seemingly for no reason. It just sort of happened. But wasn't Bush and the network eager to go into Iraq immediately following 9/11, expressing a fixed mindset (to the extent that the campaign in Afghanistan almost appears as a detour) on how the act could (i.e should) be linked to Saddam?

What I'd like to know. At what moment in time did bin Ladin claim responsibility for 9/11? If I recall correctly, bin Ladin's initial reaction was to condemn the attacks. Pretty awkward for a terrorist organisation.
I'd also like to know what evidence there is for al-Qaeda being behind 9/11 at all.

From Cole's article:

It remains to be seen whether the US will be forced out of Iraq the way it was forced out of Iran in 1979. If so, as al-Zawahiri says, that will be a huge victory. A recent opinion poll did find that over 80 percent of Iraqis want an Islamic state. If Iraq goes Islamist, that will be the biggest victory the movement has had since the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. An Islamist Iraq might well be able ultimately to form a joint state with Syria, starting the process of the formation of the Islamic superstate of which Bin Laden dreams.
If the Muslim world can find a way to combine the sophisticated intellectuals and engineers of Damascus and Cairo with the oil wealth of the Persian Gulf, it could well emerge as a 21st century superpower.
Bin Laden's dream of a united Muslim state under a revived caliphate may well be impossible to accomplish. But with the secular Baath gone, it could be one step closer to reality.

So why do I get these visions of Nostradamus' AD 2080 suite flashing through my head?

You twits!

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-23 06:20:43

What I'd like to know. At what moment in time did bin Ladin claim responsibility for 9/11? If I recall correctly, bin Ladin's initial reaction was to condemn the attacks. Pretty awkward for a terrorist organisation.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/ … ...n11.xml

The official story is that bin Laden claimed responsibility in Nov. of 2001. Actually, there's a few fringe loonies who insist that the video in which he claims responsibility is fake, in part because bin Laden is wearing an old US Army jacket, which is certainly curious, but it is cold up in those mountains and the Taliban wasn't exactly known for its high-end textile industry...

As for the Caliphate issue, clearly that's what they have in mind. But I submit to you that bin Laden miscalculated. Perhaps, that's really up to the American people now... :hm:
They attacked us knowing we'd respond militarily. They also believed, not without ample justification, that the US was a paper tiger, unable to take casualties and prone to withdrawing at the first sign of difficulty. The expectation is we'd go in, get our asses handed to us in a guerrilla war, then go home in shame while Osama is acclaimed as the man who drove the Great Satan from the lands of Islam, ready-made Caliph.

Only we were too slick in Afghanistan and if we stick it out in Iraq we'll throw a big rock into the works. But if we break, bin Laden is proven right and America and the West loses big time. This is the early stages of a clash between civilizations, the same fight that's been going on between Islam and the West for the last thousand years. We can finish it now, or let it get much worse for some future time.

Think of the children as my liberal associates are so fond of saying.

The problem is we can't just ignore the situation because they'll keep hitting us with terror attacks to goad us in, but going in gives them exactly the opportunity for guerrilla war they want. The only real option is to use a combination of heads-on-poles SpecOps and when full military commitment is called for doing so in a manner and with such resolve to crush the opposition.

Which means that while the Iraq war is justifiable and can further our objectives, at present we are fucking it up severely! If you start to take Fallujah, take Fallujah to paraphrase Napoleon. Democracy is all well and good, but it takes time. While a worthy and beneficial long-term objective, we would at present be much better served by focusing on security and order.

For the moment the pieces are already on the board, it's merely a question of how we move.

And as Bill likes to point out, a question of what game the other guy thinks he's playing.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-23 06:57:09

Why 9/11?
Why Bali?
Why Beslan?

Islam means 'submission'. A Muslim man submits totally to Allah; a Muslim woman submits totally to a Muslim man. It's an all-encompassing religion which describes precisely what a person must do every day, every week, every year. Morality is controlled in every detail and there's no need for an individual to have a say in the running of the state because there's no room to debate the word of Allah.
Islam was born at a time when Arabia was a violent tribal society and people were ruled by the man with the biggest army. The authoritative nature of Islam, and the allowance for violence within it, reflects the era and the place of its origin.

The West could hardly be more different. Church and state are separated. Our laws are no longer directly connected with any religion and are constantly evolving. Men and women are equal under the law and their sexual behaviour and preferences are no business of the state. Nudity and sexual activities are regularly displayed in movies and on television. Tobacco and alcohol are used openly and many other drugs are used covertly.
Within broad limits, you can do almost anything you want to do. There's a price for it but we call it freedom and we love it.

Fundamentalist Islam sees us as decadent, weak-willed, and disobedient to Allah; in other words, an abomination before God. Their duty is to convert us. In the old days, that would involve a direct jihad, or Holy War, with them holding a blade to our throats and 'asking' us to accept Islam. It was possible then simply to cross borders and establish an Islamic Federation by force of arms. (See a history of the Moorish Empire.)
That's a lot harder these days because nations are better organised, have internationally recognised borders, standing armies, and allies. Astride all of this is today's leading power, the United States of America, the most prominent secular (read 'decadent') country and the world's policeman in many ways. That a country as decadent and disobedient to Allah as the U.S.A. should become as wealthy and as powerful as she has is not only an insult to God but a definite indication of involvement with Satan. America's support for beleaguered Israel hasn't earned her any respect in the eyes of Islamic extremists, either!
While all of the West will have to be converted ultimately to Islam, by whatever means necessary (perhaps including nuclear persuasion), the U.S. was the obvious first target for Al Qu'aida back in 2001.

Islamofascists aren't in this with any rational demands or to claim reparation for indignities suffered back in colonial times. There's nothing to talk about and no horses to trade. Their aim is the Islamification of us all and we can either go along with it or be killed.

It's not a nice situation to be in and I'm starting to think there's no easy way out.
:bars:

Palomar · 2004-09-23 07:09:04

That a country as decadent and disobedient to Allah as the U.S.A. should become as wealthy and as powerful as she has is not only an insult to God but a definite indication of involvement with Satan. America's support for beleaguered Israel hasn't earned her any respect in the eyes of Islamic extremists, either!

*The U.S.A. and Israel are the best friends the Islamofascists have, as our existence has kept them "in business" all these decades.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-09-23 07:21:33

Islam means 'submission'.

Christianity means 'follower' of the Messiah. That guy Islam recognizes as a Prophet, but not as a son of god.

A Muslim man submits totally to Allah; a Muslim woman submits totally to a Muslim man.

Quite a few fundamentalist Christians see it the same way.

It's an all-encompassing religion which describes precisely what a person must do every day, every week, every year.

Hmmm... Easter, Christ-mas, Sunday mass (not to mention mass every other day), daily prayer, giving thanks over every meal, Sunday school for children, tithing, Sabbath, Lent, Good Friday, rules on food, sex, relationships, cleaning, bathing, thinking, paying taxes... the list goes on. Christianity is no different Shaun.

Morality is controlled in every detail and there's no need for an individual to have a say in the running of the state because there's no room to debate the word of Allah.

Ten Commandments aren't open for debate, and many of our laws are based on those. Those came from God, and we don't question it.

The authoritative nature of Islam, and the allowance for violence within it, reflects the era and the place of its origin.

The Crusades, a religiously motivated war (ostenibly) was motivated by Christianity, and allowed by the teachings of the Bible. The Popes of yester year had standing armies. Fundamentalist Chrisitan's declare that it is not a sin to kill those who perform abortions. If you listen, you might hear the moderate Islamists saying that violence is not part of Islam- just as moderate Christianity says violence is wrong.

The West could hardly be more different. Church and state are separated.

Many Western states have a national religion, England for example, our mother country.

Men and women are equal under the law and their sexual behaviour and preferences are no business of the state.

We have anti-sodomy laws on the books in some states. Adultery is a crime in our military, and we impeached a sitting president for the same behavior. We disallow public nudity on public television, have censors who review all movies, and fine people for using vulgarities on the public airspace. Prostution is condemned, and punished in a majority of our land here.

Fundamentalist Islam sees us as decadent, weak-willed, and disobedient to Allah; in other words, an abomination before God.

As does any fundamentalist interpretation of any religion. The Quakers feel the same way, but they just farm. The Mormons go out and convert others, the Roman Catholics try to keep theirs, and the Fundy Christians have TV. Sorry to mention all this, but it seems you condem all of Islam.

Why must we fear a small splinter group of radicals? Sure, we need to stop them from hurting people, but how do they really represnt a threat to our way of life? This isn't all of Islam that is calling for the things the radicals are calling for.

BWhite · 2004-09-23 07:31:50

The West could hardly be more different. Church and state are separated. Our laws are no longer directly connected with any religion and are constantly evolving. Men and women are equal under the law and their sexual behaviour and preferences are no business of the state. Nudity and sexual activities are regularly displayed in movies and on television. Tobacco and alcohol are used openly and many other drugs are used covertly.
Within broad limits, you can do almost anything you want to do. There's a price for it but we call it freedom and we love it.

Don't forget, Shaun, one of President Bush's most treasured domestic initiatives is to cut back on funding secular social services and then give that funding to "faith based" social service providers who openly seek to convert the recepients.

If I could ask one question to President Bush and force him to give an honest and extended answer on broadcast television it would be:

"How do you reconcile your religious faith with the scientific evidence for evolution?"

IMHO we will win the War on Terror unless those elements within America who favor an anti-science interpretation of Christianity prevail in our ongoing cultural divide. Forward looking will always beat backwards looking, yet too many of the Bush voters believe evolution is a false and evil doctrine.

Palomar · 2004-09-23 07:39:42

*Most Middle-Eastern nations are theocracies.

The U.S. isn't.

Would some Christians like to see the U.S. a theocracy? Seems that way.

But it isn't.

No one has ever ordered me as an adult (and on threat of punishment) that I must attend a religious service, I must contribute a portion of my earnings, I must wear such-and-such attire to the religious service, etc.

If the U.S. stays true to its separation of church from state stance, said "marching orders" won't happen.

There's a big difference between Iran (theocracy) and the U.S. (secular).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-23 07:48:13

IMHO we will win the War on Terror unless those elements within America who favor an anti-science interpretation of Christianity prevail in our ongoing cultural divide. Forward looking will always beat backwards looking, yet too many of the Bush voters believe evolution is a false and evil doctrine.

Which brings us to one of the quandries of our cultural divide and the war we find ourselves embroiled in. On the Right we have many with a deeply religious view of the situation, underming efforts at a rational solution and making further mayhem and death likely. On the Left we have people equally blinded by a "religion" of their own which espouses delusional self-destructive nonsense, also making mayhem and death likely.

Taking sides with the present factions is like choosing whether to be drowned or suffocated. Left and Right both have seeds of failure growing within them, Right will go too far in the fight and Left will cower in the corner.

For our enemies this is a religious war. We cannot let it become so for us, but at the same time we must understand that the reasons they fight are not mundane earthly reasons on which we can reach a compromise. The Right will make us more like them while the left will in many ways submit to them. Neither can win this war alone if left to do as they wish.

clark · 2004-09-23 07:54:26

The Right says we can understand them enough to know that there is no compromise.

The Left says we do not understand them enough to know that there is no compromise.

Moderation? Attack and kill, whoever we capture, we will talk to afterwards. Or, talk to them first, if they don't agree with us, or us with them, kill them.

I guess the above is what happens when both the Left and Right come to concensus.

Palomar · 2004-09-23 07:56:02

For our enemies this is a religious war. We cannot let it become so for us, but at the same time we must understand that the reasons they fight are not mundane earthly reasons on which we can reach a compromise. The Right will make us more like them while the left will in many ways submit to them. Neither can win this war alone if left to do as they wish.

*Bravo!!! EXACTLY; you nailed it right on the head, Cobra.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-09-23 08:03:42

For our enemies this is a religious war. We cannot let it become so for us, but at the same time we must understand that the reasons they fight are not mundane earthly reasons on which we can reach a compromise. The Right will make us more like them while the left will in many ways submit to them. Neither can win this war alone if left to do as they wish.
*Bravo!!! EXACTLY; you nailed it right on the head, Cobra.
--Cindy

Yes, I agree with Cobra. Yet my agreement is why I also believe our military power will not prove sufficient for victory.

When someone owns the world's best hammer, they tend to see lots of nails, even when they are screws. Driving a screw with a hammer is counter-productive.

In other words, the Right is fighting the wrong fight.

In my opinion, much of the rage that fuels radical Islam is the erosion of a patriarchal society. We are fighting male pride and we seek to use tanks and guns to coerce submission to us. (Its the same rage that fuels the popularity of Rush Limbaugh's phrase "femi-nazi" - an unwillingness to accept the radical equality of all humans.)

Good luck using guns to suppress male pride. ???

= = =

And yes, many on the traditional Left are blame-America first while many on the Right believe they are the Earthly incarnation of God's Will.

As Abe Lincoln said, "A House divided cannot stand" and if we are to prevail the "West" must seek out and emphasize what we all share in common rather than what divides us.

Palomar · 2004-09-23 08:36:10

In my opinion, much of the rage that fuels radical Islam is the erosion of a patriarchal society. We are fighting male pride

*I disagree.

Christianity and Judaism both have had their "raging against their neighbors" episodes. Christian Europe 500 years ago isn't a place I would have wanted to live, although most of my ancestors did. Anyway, there was no erosion of patriarchy then prompting their rage...at least based on my reading (which no, isn't exhaustive and no -- I'm certainly not a scholar).

Judaism's rage of the past (Old Testament) seemed directed towards idolatry. I'm not sure all non-Judaic religions/tribes of the time included goddesses in their worship (the feminine principle).

I think the current hostility of the Islamofascists against us is a combination of mistakes we've made in the past regarding policies abroad and ENVY.

We are wealthy and strong, they are not. Age-old resentment.

Their mentality equates success and enjoyment with evil, and poverty and deprivation with good because they haven't figured out the wherewithal to secure/get success and enjoyment. Roundly and completely denouncing us as evil and bad is a salve for their jealous self-righteousness.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-09-23 08:54:51

In my opinion, much of the rage that fuels radical Islam is the erosion of a patriarchal society. We are fighting male pride
*I disagree.
Christianity and Judaism both have had their "raging against their neighbors" episodes. Christian Europe 500 years ago isn't a place I would have wanted to live, although most of my ancestors did. Anyway, there was no erosion of patriarchy then prompting their rage...at least based on my reading (which no, isn't exhaustive and no -- I'm certainly not a scholar).
Judaism's rage of the past (Old Testament) seemed directed towards idolatry. I'm not sure all non-Judaic religions/tribes of the time included goddesses in their worship (the feminine principle).
I think the current hostility of the Islamofascists against us is a combination of mistakes we've made in the past regarding policies abroad and ENVY.
We are wealthy and strong, they are not. Age-old resentment.
Their mentality equates success and enjoyment with evil, and poverty and deprivation with good because they haven't figured out the wherewithal to secure/get success and enjoyment. Roundly and completely denouncing us as evil and bad is a salve for their jealous self-righteousness.
--Cindy

Islam believed itself the "one religion" and eventual master of the world. In a world, global dominance.

Now, we require that they submit to western secular or Christian values, including the equality of women.

When men believe its their duty to submit only to God, asking them to submit to us (an immoral people who drink, do drugs, openly condone homosexuality and free sex) its a head to head conflict.

Think its not a macho thing? Name a dozen prominent Islamic female leaders.

= = =

One reporter claims the whole Najaf fiasco started when a mid-level Marine officer decided to buck an informal agreement (forged by the "wimpy" Army guys) and drove a Hum-vee convoy past the front of Sadr's house.

Sadr got pissed and kidnapped a few Iraqi policemen as payback.

The mayor of Najaf got pissed and asked the Marines to "get tough"

Weeks later Najaf is in ruins and Sistani steps in to end the fighting.

clark · 2004-09-23 08:59:41

Name one female pope.

Palomar · 2004-09-23 08:59:53

Think its not a macho thing? Name a dozen prominent Islamic female leaders.

*Yes, they are a macho culture (understatement).

But I don't think their attacks on us (9/11) is based on their revulsion towards the concept of gender equality.

Sure, it factors in somewhere along the way -- but it's not the basis for it.

They want to see us brought down and submissive as wealth and status go, first and foremost.

And the pigs are wearing trousers and standing on their hind legs.

--Cindy

P.S.: Have seen more female Muslims giving themselves up as suicide bombers lately. I wonder what "their reward" in the afterlife supposedly is? Maybe the honor of mopping Allah's floors, because I doubt they'll get laid by 70 male virgins.

BWhite · 2004-09-23 09:01:04

Name one female pope.

Catholic preists wear dresses.

clark · 2004-09-23 09:01:44

And now they cross-dress, Oy vey! :laugh:

Palomar · 2004-09-23 09:12:07

*Another thing: I get a kick out of the radical anti-West/anti-U.S. clerics who wear eyeglasses. If everything which came from us is evil and "of Satan," then according to their own "logic" so are eyeglasses. Considering how much they extoll the virtues of submission and suffering, shouldn't they be content to go around squinting and suffering from headaches?

Hypocrites.

And I'll bet their homes are outfitted with every Western-devised/invented luxury and creature comfort they can afford. Which, of course, their followers don't also enjoy.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-09-23 09:12:14

Remember, Cindy, that the British officers have complained from the beginning that the American occupatipn tactics were too macho to be effective.

That runs head-on into the pride of the Islamic male.

Kick down a man's door, rummage through his bedroom, terrify his wife and daughters, prove that he cannot protect them from strange foreigners (which destroys his pride, false pride perhaps but pride nonetheless) and then leave the house in shambles after finding nothing and then be surprised he hates you afterwards?

Palomar · 2004-09-23 09:22:07

and then leave the house in shambles after finding nothing and then be surprised he hates you afterwards?

*They hate us regardless. They're indoctrinated with hatred; any non-believer is "the infidel" to be crushed, killed, destroyed. Theirs isn't the first religion to promote such a mind-set, of course. And it won't be the last.

But of course that doesn't excuse our behaviors, which should be human-rights oriented at all times. If we aren't consistently holding ourselves to a higher standard of decency and fair treatment, we're only hurting ourselves in the end.

And no matter how fair, kind, humane anyone is (consistently), there will always be the haters who would still want to attack, rend and kill whatever disagrees with their worldview.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-23 09:23:06

*Another thing: I get a kick out of the radical anti-West/anti-U.S. clerics who wear eyeglasses. If everything which came from us is evil and "of Satan," then according to their own "logic" so are eyeglasses.

That reminds of this cartoon I saw a while back and had the foresight to save.

clark · 2004-09-23 09:25:58

Now that cartoon has possibility Bill. :;):

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-22 21:15:08

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#2 2004-09-23 01:41:32

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#3 2004-09-23 02:01:46

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#4 2004-09-23 03:19:38

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#5 2004-09-23 06:20:43

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#6 2004-09-23 06:57:09

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#7 2004-09-23 07:09:04

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#8 2004-09-23 07:21:33

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#9 2004-09-23 07:31:50

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#10 2004-09-23 07:39:42

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#11 2004-09-23 07:48:13

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#12 2004-09-23 07:54:26

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#13 2004-09-23 07:56:02

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#14 2004-09-23 08:03:42

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#15 2004-09-23 08:36:10

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#16 2004-09-23 08:54:51

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#17 2004-09-23 08:59:41

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#18 2004-09-23 08:59:53

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#19 2004-09-23 09:01:04

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#20 2004-09-23 09:01:44

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#21 2004-09-23 09:12:07

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#22 2004-09-23 09:12:14

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#23 2004-09-23 09:22:07

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#24 2004-09-23 09:23:06

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

#25 2004-09-23 09:25:58

Re: The reason for 9/11 - Thoughts?

Board footer