The reason for the terrorists attacks on the US.

[Reeder]

You keep hearing from the Bush admin that they hate us and attack us because they hate democracy.

The fires were still burning intensely at Ground Zero when Colin Powell declared: "Once again, we see terrorism; we see terrorists, people who don't believe in democracy..."


"The threats we face are global terrorist attacks. That's the threat. And the more you love freedom, the more likely it is you'll be attacked."


As recently as July of this year, the spokesman for Homeland Security, Brian Roehrkasse, declared: "Terrorists hate our freedoms. They want to change our ways."

Quotes lifted from this article..

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1529

Why can't our government admit that perhaps these attacks are because of our policies?

I know that these [policies long predate the Bush admin, but to not admit that perhaps things we have done, and are still doing, adds fuel to the fire.

Until we can own to our policies that might be seen as demeaning or downright hostile to others, things will not change.

[Shodan]

Well, the policy that caused the World Trade Center attacks was that of defending Kuwait from invasion by Iraq.

I am sure that kicking Saddam's ass out of Kuwait was demeaning to him, but I don't think we should have done nothing during the first Gulf War.

Most reasonable people agree that Osama bin Laden and his ilk attack the US because he feels that modern, Western secular democracy is threatening to his brand of fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. And the US is seen as the epitome of that form of society.

Are you suggesting that the US has been demeaning to the rest of the world by being a successful, prosperous, and free society? And are you suggesting that we should not work toward that as a vison for the rest of society?

I think those who say that terrorists are threatened by our freedom and our success are right on the money.

If you want to define being a functioning Constitutional republic as provocative, you can do so, but I suspect most Americans would object if you tried to get the US to abandon this "policy".

You are entirely correct that "things will not change". So long as we offer a successful alternative to the absolutist vision of many terrorists, they will continue to attack us.

So be it. I would rather suffer the risk of terrorist attack than live under the regime of an Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.

Regards,
Shodan

[Jonmarzie]

Originally posted by Reeder
Why can't our government admit that perhaps these attacks are because of our policies?

Reeder, as tempting as it is to put the blame of September 11 on the policies of the United States, it wasn't the government's fault. It's no more their fault as it is when a pretty woman who wears provocative clothing gets raped. Terrorism of the September 11th variety is not the inevitable conclusion of US foreign policy. Could the United States have changed it's policy so that such an attack would be less likely? Yes, of course. Did we deserve it? Was it our fault? Not in the least.

We should change our policies, though, such that such things are less likely to happen. Our foreign policy, especially in the last few years, has been abyssmal. It is a sign of poor leadership when a countries' allies are frightened of it.

[Reeder]

Well, the policy that caused the World Trade Center attacks was that of defending Kuwait from invasion by Iraq.

Huh????

You really need to get your story straight. That line is not even historically correct.

[Brutus]

Originally posted by Reeder
Huh????

You really need to get your story straight. That line is not even historically correct.

Most ironic statement ever, given the source.

[Roger_Mexico]

Shodan, this board is about dispelling ignorance, not propagating it. Not even the most whacked out conspiracy theorist would spout the sort of rubbish you just posted. To say that the 9-11 attacks had anything to do with the 1991 gulf war is just...stupid.

I don't know what policies Reeder was referring to, but it might have something to do with these policies:

"In Freedom’s name America made sure that any
possibility of secular democratic reform in the Middle
East was shut off. Mount a coup against Mossadegh in
the mid-1950s, as the CIA did, and you end up with the
Ayatollah Khomeni 25 years later. Mount a coup against
Kassim in Iraq, as the CIA did, and you get the
agency’s man, Saddam Hussein.
What about Afghanistan? In April of 1978 a populist
coup overthrew the government of Mohammed Daoud,
who had formed an alliance with the man the U.S. had
installed in Iran, Reza Pahlavi, aka the Shah. The new
Afghan government was led by Noor Mohammed
Taraki, and the Taraki administration embarked on land
reform, hence an attack on the opium-growing feudal
estates. Taraki went to the UN, where he managed to
raise loans for crop substitution for the poppy fields.
Taraki also tried to bear down on opium production in
the border areas held by fundamentalists, since the latter were using opium revenues to finance attacks on
Afghanistan’s central government, which they regarded
as an unwholesome incarnation of modernity that
allowed women to go to school and outlawed arranged
marriages and the bride price. Accounts began to
appear in the Western press along the lines of this from The Washington Post, to the effect that the mujahedin
liked to "torture victims by first cutting off their noses, ears and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another."
At that time the mujahedin were not only getting
money from the CIA but from Libya’s Muammar
Qaddafi, who sent them $250,000. In the summer of
1979 the U.S. State Dept. produced a memo making it
clear how the U.S. government saw the stakes, no
matter how modern-minded Taraki might be or how
feudal the muj. It’s another passage Hentoff might read
to the grandkids: "The United States’ larger
interest...would be served by the demise of the
Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever set backs this
might mean for future social and economic reforms in
Afghanistan. The overthrow of the DRA [Democratic
Republic of Afghanistan] would show the rest of the
world, particularly the Third World, that the Soviets’
view of the socialist course of history being inevitable is not accurate."
Taraki was killed by Afghan army officers in
September 1979. Hafizullah Amin, educated in the U.S.,
took over and began meeting regularly with U.S.
embassy officials at a time when the U.S. was arming
Islamic rebels in Pakistan. Fearing a fundamentalist,
U.S.-backed regime in Afghanistan, the Soviets invaded
in force in December 1979.
Robert Fisk wrote in the Independent on Sunday, "I
was working for The Times in 1980, and just south of
Kabul I picked up a very disturbing story. A group of
religious mujahedin fighters had attacked a school
because the communist regime had forced girls to be
educated alongside boys. So they had bombed the
school, murdered the head teacher’s wife and cut off her husband’s head. It was all true. But when The Times
ran the story, the Foreign Office complained to the
foreign desk that my report gave support to the
Russians. Of course. Because the Afghan fighters were
the good guys. Because Osama bin Laden was a good
guy. Charles Douglas-Home, then editor of The Times,
would always insist that Afghan guerrillas were called
‘freedom fighters’ in the headline. There was nothing you couldn’t do with words." (3)

How the U.S. contributed to the rise of dictatorships
and terrorism in the Moslem world

Syria, 1948 - The U.S. helps to overthrow
national rulers; Syria becomes terrorist state.
Iran, 1954 - The U.S. overthrows nationalist
Mossadegh, puts the shah in power, his
corruption and oppression set the table for the
rise of fundamentalism resulting in the 1979
Islamic revolution.
Egypt, 1955 - After the U.S. tried to kill
nationalist Gamal Abdel Nasser he turned to the
Soviets.
Iraq, 1958 - The U.S. puts Col. Kassem in
power, who then turns into an anti-American
dictator.
Indonesia, 1967 - The U.S. overthrows Sukarno
leading to the army and mobs killing 500,000
Sukarno supporters.
Libya, 1969 - The U.S. helps a young officer,
Moammar Khadafy, seize power in Libya, then
tries to kill him in 1986.
Iraq, 1975 - The U.S. helps Saddam Hussein (a
former CIA operative) seize power. In 1979, the
U.S. encourages Saddam to invade Iran in an
effort to crush Iran's Islamic revolution. Over
700,000 people die in the war.

http://www.libertocracy.com/Transfer/Articles/USPolicy/Taliban.htm

[Reeder]

Is the line correct Mr. Brutus?

[Fang]

Originally posted by Reeder
Huh????

You really need to get your story straight. That line is not even historically correct.
OBL has openly stated that the main (though not only) reason he is after the US is the basing of US troops on "sacred" Saudi soil. Since the basing of US troops in SA was a direct, and some might say necessary, consequence of the decision to protect Kuwait from Iraq in 1991, Shodan's statement is correct.

[Beagle]

Other than going back in time and letting the Soviet Union conquer Afghanistan what other reasonable options do we have?

[Reeder]

So we went to war in '91 to protect Kuwait from invasion from Iraq?

And all this time I thought we went and kicked him out after he had already invaded.

Silly me..what was I thinking?

[Reeder]

So we went to war in '91 to protect Kuwait from invasion from Iraq?

And all this time I thought we went and kicked him out after he had already invaded.

Silly me..what was I thinking?

[Monty]

Reeder: And perhaps the terrorists attack us just because they like to kill. Ever think of that?

[El_Kabong]

Why can't our government admit that perhaps these attacks are because of our policies?

Well, it's tempting to point out that so far, no one has commandeered aircraft to fly into buildings in Toronto and Otttawa. It's worth asking, I think, why is that?

OTOH, what substantive difference would admitting to past political failures, mostly committed by persons now dead, make? The issue of the moment in the Middle that has people most pissed off is not what the might have been done in Iran in the 1950's or Libya in the '60's (especially not that one), but continued US support for an Israel that is widely seen as oppressor in the region, and the continuing fallout from our serial adventures in Iraq.

What is it with Americans wanting so desperately to believe that their government is solely responsible for every worldwide political tragedy of the past 50 years? It seems like some kind of twisted form of reverse jingoism.

Look, no matter what argument one may make in favor of people in the Middle East or elsewhere having a hard-on for the USA, flying passenger jets into buildings full of innocent civilians is wrong and bad. And I think it's naive in the extreme to think that a US admission of long-past diplomatic blunders would suddenly make everything rosy.

But hey, it probably wouldn't hurt all that much if we did admit such.

[Reeder]

Let me see Monty..

Terrorist..I want to kill someone!!

Let me see..should I kill my neighbor or spend bucks just to kill Americans?

Give me a break.

[Monty]

Reeder: So you are now an expert on the criminal mind? I was just postulating one reason why someone would kill those who that person does not consider to be close.

[Rashak Mani]

Originally posted by Shodan
Well, the policy that caused the World Trade Center attacks was that of defending Kuwait from invasion by Iraq.

And the US is seen as the epitome of that form of society.

So Terrorism started in 1991... good to know. What killed those Marines in Lebanon then ? Do you have any real idea of what the terrorists are angry about ?

The US WAS possibly the epitome of democracy... not anymore. If America really valued democracy they would cherish the UN... not step over it. What is more democratic than the UN ? Certainly not the Oval office by itself.

Shodan I recommend you stop watching films where the Loonies have no motivation other than to kill and the US is the beacon of democracy... because they have been more like the beacon of the despotics with their Third World coups and CIA plots.

[Rashak Mani]

El Kabong I agree the US certainly gets blamed for way more than they are responsible. Somethings were done by the British before them. That is the price of claiming to stand on higher moral grounds sometimes...

Then like you said... they keep acting like it wasnt their fault and keep supporting Israel way beyond what is necessary for its security. Admitting their faults is the first step in avoiding NEW mistakes and meddling... which is exactly what they are STILL doing. Your just creating a new generation of future terrorists.

Its not so much about admitting the past errors either... but being aware and open about them. The american people have to be more aware of them ... to keep politicians from doing it again.

[Monty]

I'd dearly love to see how you determine that the UN is democratic, Rashak.

[An Arky]

I absolutely seethe at the whole "they hate our freedom" horseshit. They hate our permissiveness, which they view as moral turpitude, but they do not hate the fact that we're a democracy, that our citizens have rights, etc. They most definitely hate us for supporting Israel.

I don't think apologizing for past abuse of sovereignty of other nations is going to deter them at all, but discontinuing current abuse of sovereignty of other nations might help. It would help me to know that my government is not full of hackneyed cold war zealots who think nothing of fucking with other countries.

[Publius]

A great deal of course, depends, on which terrorists we are talking about. The old Eastern European terrorist groups were decidedly different in nature from the modern Islamist terrorist groups, for example. Of the latter, there are further significant differences between Hizbullah, al-Qaida, Hizb-i Islami, etc.

I think a real answer to the question of why terrorists attack the US requires a fairly exhaustive analysis of 20th-century world history, at the least. I don't think there's any single deciding factor in play, particularly not one that can be described in a few sentences on this board.

[Magiver]

There's 1 group of people that can't seem to work or play well with others. They have a common thread worldwide and it isn't democracy. It involves the deliberate attack of civilians for purposes of terror. They have completely subverted a religion to their own purposes of death and distruction. When not busy killing Jews, Christians, Hindus and anybody Western they subject their own group to the severest forms of religious dogma. And then they fight to see who's version of dogma gets to rule.

Everybody on this board involved with: drugs, homosexuality, infidelity, abortion, music, or blasphemy would find themselves severely beaten or dead if they were under the rule of this group.
And this same group of people was vehemently against Saddam. Where were all the brave warriors and suicide murderers when it cam time to save Kuwait (and Iraq) from Hussein? They weren’t sitting in their mud huts knitting prayer books. They were training to kill and conquer.

“If we just leave them alone I’m sure they will go away”. That was said more than once by a lot of Hitler’s victims.

[Publius]

What one group is that, Magiver?

Originally posted by Magiver
Where were all the brave warriors and suicide murderers when it cam time to save Kuwait (and Iraq) from Hussein?

Just as an interesting aside, I believe Usama Bin Ladin offered his services to the government of Saudi Arabia in re-mobilizing the mujahidin to defend the Kingdom and expel the apostate Iraqis from Kuwait. The fact that they refused, and opted for the aid of the United States and the West instead, seems to have left him somewhat embittered (to say the very least).

It's been a while since I read up on the details of this event, so if any other posters would like to enlighten me on the subject I'd greatly appreciate it.

[John Mace]

Reeder:

Let's be crystal clear here. Are you saying that the US itself is to blame for the 9/11 attack on the WTC? I ask this in all honesty, as I can't tell from your OP whether this is what you propose.

Don't equivocate. Le us hear your version of who is responsible for the attack.

[Magiver]

Originally posted by Publius
What one group is that, Magiver?



Just as an interesting aside, I believe Usama Bin Ladin offered his services to the government of Saudi Arabia in re-mobilizing the mujahidin to defend the Kingdom and expel the apostate Iraqis from Kuwait. The fact that they refused, and opted for the aid of the United States and the West instead, seems to have left him somewhat embittered (to say the very least).

It's been a while since I read up on the details of this event, so if any other posters would like to enlighten me on the subject I'd greatly appreciate it.

You are absolutely correct. Bin Laden sited the defiling of holy Saudi land (by having US troops stationed there) as one of the reasons for attacking the United States.

20/20 hind sight would have put all the troops in Kuwait. Different topic. I would finish by saying the Saudi's chose correctly. Bin Laden would have been severly trounced on a wide open battle field. He couldn't pull his little terrorist BS because Saddam would have just wiped out towns to get to him.

[Master Wang-Ka]

Some excellent points have been made here this evening.

Perhaps terrorists DO like to kill. I mean, given a choice between being a subject of a crappy little country, being beaten and tortured occasionally by the secret police, being poor, and so on... and running around with a rifle and a bandanna over my head... well, the choice seems pretty clear.

I'm astonished that no one has brought up the major bugaboo between us and the Arab world, though -- our support of Israel.

Historically, the Arab world has been a mishmash of nation-states. They didn't even bother with borders, for the most part, until the British imposed them on them during their last big spate of colonialism. And you'll notice the British got the hell out when they could; it took a guy like Lawrence Of Arabia to deal with the Arabs. And you'll also notice that Larry did it on the ARABS' terms.

They fought a lot. Hell, they still fight a lot. Rivalry and blood feuds are part of the culture. This does not change the fact that, ethnically, they are Arabs, and just because Ahmed and Abdul are kicking the shit out of each other, that doesn't mean either will be particularly happy to see Uncle Sam show up and break up the fight.

Shodan makes a good point, though. The Kuwaitis were deliriously happy to see us after Saddam marched in there. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The UN whipped Israel up as an act of legislative fiat right after WWII. They decided to put it right in the middle of all these Arabs, though. And there, all the hassles began.

The Palestinians, who were there before the kibbutzes got put in, weren't happy. Admittedly, if the Israelis HADN'T moved in, they'd still be there, the poor country cousins of the Arab world, still being looked down upon and occasionally beat up by the Saudis, the Jordanians, and so forth. (It's worth noting that the Saudis have enough room and enough cash to simply CREATE New Palestine, right there in Saudi territory. For all that they bleed for the Palestinians, they sure don't seem real anxious to do that.)

...but the Jews moved in, and the Arabs promptly attacked them. In force. And the Jews promptly sent them home with a collective assful of buckshot (try any search engine, using the terms SIX DAY WAR, YOM KIPPUR WAR, and so on).

Now, this bugs the shit out of the Arabs to this day. NO WAY could a buncha ragtag (insert Jewish plural slur of your choice here) have beat up the Faithful of several countries. Plainly, it must be due to the backing of the evil United States and the western-controlled UN!

...and this is a line that continues to the present day. P.J. O'Rourke tells a story about how a Beirut taxi driver lectured him on American foreign policy -- "You know, most of the taxes you pay go to Israel, eighty percent."

Why not? The smarter Arab leaders finally figured out that Israel wasn't going to go anywhere, and made it a matter of national policy to hate Israel... and, by proxy, those evil Western infidels who buy them all those jets and bombs and provide the supports that are obviously the only thing keeping Israel from blowing up and burning to ashes, spontaneously, from its own rotten evil insidiousness.

George Orwell made an excellent point: if you want to distract your people from their troubles or from the issues, create someone or something for them to HATE. Hitler made an art out of it.

And today, the leaders of several Middle Eastern nations have done it so well, it cost Anwar Sadat his life, and has spawned a new generation of crazy homicidal maniacs. After all, when you have a young man who's got very little to lose... and has been raised to hate Israel and the United States... and, hell, SOME folks over there even offer to give your family MONEY if you blow yourself up especially STYLISHLY... well... why NOT?

Kind of like homicidal Goth posers, you know?

Yes, I'm being facetious, but not by much. Only over the past couple of years has Saudi Arabia cooled it a bit about how evil and rotten us Americans are for propping up evil, rotten Israel... the fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi (as is Bin Laden), I suspect, has rather disturbed the royal family, and while they find us useful as a bugaboo for their own people, they aren't anxious to alienate us. We run their oil industry, for one thing.

The Syrians, though, from what I understand, are utterly rabid about it, and the Jordanians aren't much milder.

THIS is what cost a bunkerful of American marines their lives in Beirut. "Americans = EVIL!" It's taken for granted over there, for the most part. Nearly every Arab I have ever met has been kind of surprised, after getting to know some Americans, to discover that we aren't a berserk, Jew-worshipping merry band of pornographers, rapists, and so forth who routinely hold car chases and shootouts with our own police...

...but y'know what? They can't all come over here and chat with us, or attend barbecues with us.

All they have is their own state-run media, and word of mouth. And they have had a LONG time to stew in their hatreds. And there are any number of people who know quite well that a judicious combination of religion... hatred... and fervor... can equal a lot of political power, right quickly. I very much suspect that THIS is what Osama Bin Laden is really all about. Why be a successful international businessman... when you could, with a little time and effort, maybe own something... MORE?

[Dave_D]

Originally posted by Publius
What one group is that, Magiver?



Just as an interesting aside, I believe Usama Bin Ladin offered his services to the government of Saudi Arabia in re-mobilizing the mujahidin to defend the Kingdom and expel the apostate Iraqis from Kuwait. The fact that they refused, and opted for the aid of the United States and the West instead, seems to have left him somewhat embittered (to say the very least).

It's been a while since I read up on the details of this event, so if any other posters would like to enlighten me on the subject I'd greatly appreciate it.

Of course they made the right decision in turning down Osama/Usama. I mean if I remember correctly the end result of his "work" in Somalia was that their civil war actually got worse and that he is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousand of Somalis. Of course it was a good advertising campaign for him, he must have got alot of "buyers" for his product so why would Osama care?

[Rashak Mani]

Originally posted by Wang-Ka
George Orwell made an excellent point: if you want to distract your people from their troubles or from the issues, create someone or something for them to HATE. Hitler made an art out of it.


You made a very long story to say that Arabs have a morbid hate of the US due to ONLY the beggining of Israel... you should know better.

The US has supported time and again despots in the region... helping wars to weaken them up. The US deposed what was described in a book as "a kind of Thomas Jefferson of Iran". Then they openly and financially held up Israel with a multi billion dollar annuall aid.

So yes the US stirred the hornets nest more than 50 years ago and kept doing it for several decades.... the general populace only noticed when 9/11 came along but seems to be in denial about it. After all how could the champion of democracy support horrid despots and assassinations ?!

BTW you quote above is valid for the current Bush distraction tactics too...

The Arab leaders and Bin Ladin arent correct thou... I wont suggest they have the right for payback... but those are the reasons that make them do it. To say they are only rabid drooling dogs means the US will never defeat them.

Know thy enemy....

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by An Arky
I absolutely seethe at the whole "they hate our freedom" horseshit. They hate our permissiveness, I don't know if 'freedom' and 'permissiveness' can be seperated like that.

[An Arky]

Of course they can. Permissiveness in our society wasn't brought about by the Govt. The freedom that politicians refer to, I assume, stems from our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. Sure, these freedoms allow societal permissiveness to flourish, and our political and social arenas are linked, but when I hear a Govt. official talking about freedom, I assume they are talking about our form of democracy, not the sexual revolution, or rap music, etc.

[T. Mehr]

Originally posted by El_Kabong

I think it's naive in the extreme to think that a US admission of long-past diplomatic blunders would suddenly make everything rosy.


No, not rosy, but it would set the stage to avoid these 'blunders' as you like to call them, in the future.

[T. Mehr]

Originally posted by Fang
OBL has openly stated that the main (though not only) reason he is after the US is the basing of US troops on "sacred" Saudi soil. Since the basing of US troops in SA was a direct, and some might say necessary, consequence of the decision to protect Kuwait from Iraq in 1991, Shodan's statement is correct.

The US allways and desperately wanted to have bases in the region. It has nothing to do with Kuwait, it's a nice excuse though.

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by Wang-Ka
All they have is their own state-run media, and word of mouth. And they have had a LONG time to stew in their hatreds. And there are any number of people who know quite well that a judicious combination of religion... hatred... and fervor... can equal a lot of political power, right quickly. I very much suspect that THIS is what Osama Bin Laden is really all about. Why be a successful international businessman... when you could, with a little time and effort, maybe own something... MORE? Ummm... not quite the case.... but close. There are some remarkably worldly and well educated indiginous peoples in the MENA region - and I'm sure that they view their extemist fanatical countrymen with justifiable disdain - so it's a disservice to assert that ALL citizens with the MENA region are equally uneducated and disenfranchised.

But that being said, yes your post Wang Ka was a beauty - no doubts. I daresay it took you a fair old while to write too! And it was sufficiently well written that I enjoyed reading all the tway through - albeit with the awareness that you made one or two broad brushstrokes.

Nonetheless, something worth noting is the very nature of terror, and what it means, and what it does to the human psyche.

If someone was to read this thread, and moreover, if they were some freak on the planet who HADN'T ever heard about September 11, then they might be excused for thinking that an entire nation had declared war on the USA on that dreadful day. But that isn't the case, really, is it? In the cold hard light of day, the honest, and very sad truth is that but a mere handful of mesmerised fanatics were able to pull off arguably the greatest military attack in history - in the narrow context of manpower used compared to yield obtained.

Now, please my lovely American friends, don't for a moment start to believe that I reckon that September 11 was a military operation, let alone a justifiable one. All I'm saying here is that in pure tactical terms, considering the amazingly small number of people involved, compared to the extraordinary events which unfolded, September 11 was an incredible example of lethal planning and execution.

But you know something? 9/11 was also a bit like a killer worldwide virus - insofar as it only ever gets to hit once while the initial defences don't exist. After the initial onslaught, the defences change, and often, the defences change to offensive footing - which is ultimately what we're seeing nowadays.

Still, we have to consider what terror does to us, here in the Western World. And for that matter, what it does to the innocent civilians of Israel too I guess. At the very least, it paralyses us - like a Kangaroo staring into the headlights of an oncoming 18 wheeler - that is, death approaches or seems imminent and yet we still look on transfixed.

Ultimately, the long term solution, it seems to me, is to undermine the true reasons for why certain regions on this planet enable fertile soils for terrorism to manifest itself. This requires a really concerted effort by those of us in the Western World to permanently do away with the inequities of this world, to raise the living standards of those less fortunate than us, and to raise their education standards and their civil institutions. It's a long haul - no doubts about that.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Rashak Mani
So Terrorism started in 1991... good to know. What killed those Marines in Lebanon then ? Do you have any real idea of what the terrorists are angry about ? Where do you get "Terrorism started in 1991" from the statement that Osama bin Laden caused 9/11 because he was angry that US troops set foot in Saudi Arabia?

If you would like to respond to what has been posted, feel free. If you would like to make up things from nowhere and respond to that, expect to be called on it.
Originally posted by Rashak Mani
The US WAS possibly the epitome of democracy... not anymore. If America really valued democracy they would cherish the UN... not step over it. What is more democratic than the UN ? Certainly not the Oval office by itself.
Again, one or more of us has no idea what you are talking about.

Are you claiming that ObL attacked the World Trade Center because we don't support the UN? The first time he did it was long before George Bush was President. Do you have any idea what the terrorists are angry about?

Driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait was the subject of a UN resolution, which was voted on and passed. What exactly is "undemocratic" about that? And the subsequent war of 1991 was the basis for al-Queda's attacks on America.

And what exactly do you mean by "democratic"? You seem to be claiming that the actions of a freely elected President and both houses of Congress are less "democratic" than the UN. And this is why the Marines were attacked in Lebanon.

In short, what the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?

Regards,
Shodan

[Dogface]

America is to blame for everything. All Americans deserve to die. Just ask any European.

[Blackclaw]

Originally posted by El_Kabong
Well, it's tempting to point out that so far, no one has commandeered aircraft to fly into buildings in Toronto and Otttawa. It's worth asking, I think, why is that?



Because Canada is not a great power on the world stage. If Canada was a super power, it could be assured that it's policies - be they either action or the choice not to take action - would sooner or later irritate some group that is willing to kill civilians to get their way.

The US is a target for Bin Laden because the US supports Israel and because it is a powerful nation that is not an Islamic state. He could care less if the US is a democracy or a dictatorship. As long as it does not fit into his view of the way the world should be, the US will be a target. As far as Bin Laden is concerned, the most powerful nations on the planet should be Islamic states. US changes in Mid-east policy may move it up or down the priority list, but won't change its target status unless it becomes an Islamic state that fits his vision of what an Islamic state should be.

[Dogface]

Exactly. Totalitarians hate anyone who is not of their variety of totalitarianism. Look at liberals and conservatives in the USA for an example of this.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Dogface
America is to blame for everything. All Americans deserve to die. Just ask any European. Bla bla bla.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Rashak Mani
The US WAS possibly the epitome of democracy... not anymore. If America really valued democracy they would cherish the UN... not step over it. What is more democratic than the UN ? Certainly not the Oval office by itself.
[/B]


1) In light of the recent car bombing in Iraq, it doesn't appear that terrorists value the UN any more than we do.

2) According to this USA today poll (http://usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/0630.htm) (admittedly, probably not the most accurate but whatever), Bush seems to have strong support. Seems to me that by any accepted definition of 'democracy', Bush is doing what he's supposed to be doing. Or do you only accept democracy when it supports you political views?

3) How can the UN be 'democratic' when a significant number of its members represent states where democracy does not exist?

[T. Mehr]

Originally posted by Shodan


Driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait was the subject of a UN resolution, which was voted on and passed. What exactly is "undemocratic" about that? And the subsequent war of 1991 was the basis for al-Queda's attacks on America.


That is not true! Osama had no aliance with Saddam whatsoever. Iraq was a secular state which was not acceptable for Osama at all.
Any connections between these two guys is fabricated!

[anewthought]

Why can't our government admit that perhaps these attacks are because of our policies?

Events leading up to Al-Qaeda's declaration of war against USA:

Soviets invade Afghanistan in 1979

Mujahideen resistance becomes a magnet for thousands of Islamic youth, who all go to fight for Afghanistan against USSR.

Bin Laden rises as a leader for the resistance, forming his own 'mini-army' and profits off the fighting.

The US enters this situation when it begins to send money and supplies to the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets. In addition members of the CIA were sent to train the Mujahideen, including Bin Laden in ways of combat.

The Soviets pull out of Afghanistan after 'Bin Laden' & friends help defeat them. This gives him a big head thinking he can defeat the USSR he can defeat any nation. He retained all of his islamic contacts formed in Afghanistan and moved back to Saudi Arabia. No doubt at this time he formed his plans with his other contacts to evolve Al-Qaeda beyond just a fighting force into a region wide Islamic movement.

Saddam invades Kuwait. Bin Laden takes it upon himself to push the Saudi's to attack Iraq. He wants to use his base of fighters to do the fighting from Saudi Arabia. Instead the Saudi's allow US troops to come over instead and station themselves in Saudi Arabia and go to war against Iraq.

This turned to anger when the Saudis turned down his offer to provide an army of mujahideen to defend the kingdom after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Instead, half a million US soldiers were invited onto Saudi soil - a historic betrayal in Bin Laden's eyes.

Never a wholehearted supporter of the Saudi regime, Bin Laden now became an out-and-out opponent and began to direct his efforts against the US and its allies in the Middle East.

This was the turning point. His anger was based on several key points which Bin Laden himself has stated:

1) Allowing 'infidels' and basically in his eyes 'unclean', non-islamic's to base their troops on holy Islamic lands.

2) US involving itself in what he viewed as basically a Middle East problem. In other words sticking our nose into his business.

Already at this time Bin Laden thought of himself as becoming a future leader of the Middle East. He wanted to use his own fighters and established network to force extreme fundamentalist islam on other nations in the area. There is no doubt he viewed the US as inferior to his own operations and he even stated as much many times. In his mind, if he could defeat the U.S.S.R. then he could just as easily defeat the U.S. That is in fact exactly what he set out to do, to drive the U.S. out of the Middle East just as he had drove the U.S.S.R. out of the Middle East.

Now the U.S. started to hunt this guy down and went after him, and then Bin Laden simply learned how to hide.

That is what STARTED the attacks. If you want to blame the source cause of Bin Laden & terrorism vs. the US you would have to blame the following policies:

* US policy to stop the spread of Communism by engaging the Soviet army with money and training. The Cold War.

* US policy to be the worlds police state. By getting itself involved in battles to defend nations such as Kuwait against Iraq.

Now.. We know what caused the attacks to begin against the US. What are the reasons for them to continue beyond this point?

Bin Laden had already turned against the US The US, with troops already stationed in Saudi Arabia, began to get bombed by Islamic Extremists. Their entire demand was that the US pull out of the Middle East all troops and presence.

The pace of bin Laden's attacks on America picked up rapidly in the years that followed, and his aim improved considerably. In 1993, Ramzi Yousef bombed the World Trade Center, working with members of another terrorist group ensconced in New York, Islamic Jihad, a radical extremist organization with branches in Palestinian territories and Egypt. Evidence suggests that bin Laden was behind the 1993 attack. Yousef had trained with the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and his uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed helped support the attack by wiring money to the bomber (at minimum). Khalid would later rise to the No. 3 position in al Qaeda.

What policy is to blame for the US remaining in the Middle East? Global security and the promotion of US interests mostly. There's literally 100 reasons the US could list for the need to station troops in the Middle East.. But basically the main reasons it comes down to is this:

* To hunt down islamic militants & ensure middle east stability.

* To secure the worlds oil supply.

* Location, Location, Location. If you want to be able to strike anyone, anywhere, anytime you need troops and bases all over the globe. That is what the US has, with troops stationed in 100+ countries.

Basically the bottom line is this:

Bin Laden wants (wanted) to become to sole protectorate of the Middle East. The new mafia overlord of the entire region. And then he could use his base of fighters and connections to tear down any regime that did not support his ideas (basically militant islam and the type of islamic state he had going on in Afghanistan). His key idea is to take the wealth of the Middle East (Oil) and secure it ALL for the people who live there, deny the rest of the world any use of it, and turn the Middle East into an islamic mecca while the rest of the world rots away without energy. This is all stated fact from Bin Laden himself.

The United States would never let that happen and has been actively involved in pushing against that very event ever since our embassies were bombed. That is the key bone that caused Al-Qaeda to continue to attack us. The US is in the way of their pushing militant islam around the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1551100.stm

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/osama-bin-laden/

http://www.maximmatt.com/oldnews/apr03/jihad.htm

Decide for yourself. What policies could the US change? It would have to stop being the worlds police state. Would have to stop all of it's interests in the Middle East. And pull back all troops to our soil and let the world deal with itself. But if we did that, what would happen? This Al-Qaeda guy would have taken over the Middle East and right about now I bet he'd be knocking on our doorstep with nuclear weapons.

PS: The current war against Iraq was perhaps the most ignorant thing this country could have done. It did absolutely nothing to combat fundamentalist Islam and in fact has only made the situation worse. Now, not only does Al-Qaeda have a new training grounds, they get to train against and shoot at US troops. But the tremendous anger this has stirred up with militant islamics in the region is sure to be a huge recruiting benefit for Al-Qaeda.

[Rashak Mani]

Originally posted by msmith537
1) In light of the recent car bombing in Iraq, it doesn't appear that terrorists value the UN any more than we do.

2) According to this USA today poll (http://usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/0630.htm) (admittedly, probably not the most accurate but whatever), Bush seems to have strong support. Seems to me that by any accepted definition of 'democracy', Bush is doing what he's supposed to be doing. Or do you only accept democracy when it supports you political views?

3) How can the UN be 'democratic' when a significant number of its members represent states where democracy does not exist?

1. The people who bombed the UN want to reinstate Baath or to stop reconstruction... if the UN were irrelevant they wouldnt have attacked them. Only Bush thinks the UN is irrelevant. Or do you think they would do a suicide attack just for kicks ?

2. Ok... lets rephrase that. Democracy in the International Arena. Internal "democracy" or better said consensus/support is something Bush does have ... quite differently from Spain and Blair's UK. Bush might be a populist and warmongerer... but thats still democratic. (Thou I do think Bush "won" the election in very dubious ways.)

3. In the international arena thou... the UN for all its faults and problems is Democratic. Perfect ? No way... but better than Bush telling the world what to do. Every country/region has a saying... some have more of course... but everyone gets some participation. Whatever the neo-cons might think about the validity of the '91 resolutions and the legitimacy of the War... the fact still remains that the UN should be in charge. That the US is an invader and not a liberator.

Dont give me the UN is corrupt line either... if the US congress were squeaky clean ok... but the pork barrel stinks.

As for the non democratic countries in the UN... its like saying that the Catholic Church is gay due to the high number of gay members. The UN itself is democratic... even if the member countries arent. In fact its a great way of showing how democracy works... except of course when the bigger members go off disregarding the UN.

[T. Mehr]

Originally posted by anewthought


Decide for yourself. What policies could the US change?

It needs to come up with a credible solution for the mid east. It will never earn the symapthy of bin Laden, but the way it's acting now, it just drives the people towards him.
The disturbing fact is not that one guy is crazy, but that he winns popular support fueld by arrogat US politics...

[mack]

Originally posted by T. Mehr
That is not true! Osama had no aliance with Saddam whatsoever. Iraq was a secular state which was not acceptable for Osama at all.
Any connections between these two guys is fabricated!
I think this article (http://us.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/legacy/bin.laden/) will make Shodan's point a little clearer.

It's not that there was a connection forged between OBL and Saddam during gulf war I. It's that OBL became enraged at the US basing troops in Saudi Arabia as a result of Saddam's activities preceding gulf war I.

[Dogface]

Originally posted by Rashak Mani As for the non democratic countries in the UN... its like saying that the Catholic Church is gay due to the high number of gay members. The UN itself is democratic. [/B]

The UN is not democratic, the UN is oligarchic and bureaucratic.

[T. Mehr]

good point and a good article.
But as I stated a little further above, the Kuwait invasion and the subsequent war was just the occasion for troop deployment. The US whished to be present in the region all along (for reasons outlined by anewthought). And there have been close relations between the Saudis and the US for a long time (based on oil and weapon tarde).

[T. Mehr]

tarde - turd
It's supposed to be weapon trade, of course...
and the above is a reply to mack.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by T. Mehr
It needs to come up with a credible solution for the mid east. A credible solution to what in the Middle East?

We already came up with a credible solution to the invasion of Kuwait, which was to drive Iraq out. Stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia as part of that effort is what caused ObL to attack us.

If you mean a solution to the Palestinian-Israel conflict, we have a road map for that, although it does not seem to have reduced terrorism significantly. If you have a better solution than what is underway, by all means let's hear it, but you are going to need to be clear on how it will reduce terrorism.

If you mean that nobody would attack the US if we hadn't overthrown Saddam Hussein, it has already been pointed out that 9/11 happened long before the invasion was a gleam in Bush's eye. As well as the previous attacks on the WTC during the Clinton presidency, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, Libyan terror attacks, etc.

If you just mean the US will be subject to terrorist attacks until everyone in the Middle East gets along as well as the US and Canada, I think we have at least six thousand years of terror attacks to look forward to.

There you might even be right.

Regards,
Shodan

[Rashak Mani]

Originally posted by Dogface
The UN is not democratic, the UN is oligarchic and bureaucratic.

Well what do you call most "democratic" systems nowdays ? I dont see many people with no money getting elected or many governments working without bureaucracy.

Take for exampe the USA... 2 parties basically dominate and the special interest groups have it all under their wings. To get elected you need a good amount of cash... to become president you need massive amounts of cash and the backing of one of the 2 parties, plus the support of certain groups. Oligarchic ? You bet.

Did the UN needed some kicking around to get in shape... ? Sure did. They are bloated and inefficient. The US government is just as bad if you compare the costs of military development and governance.

So if the UN isn't democratic I dont know who is... the G7 might dominate of course... but the UN still represents the biggest worldwide consensus possible.

PS: Shodan... you seem to think the reasons for Terrorism started pretty recently. You should know better that things have been building up for much longer. They just entered your reality in 9/11.

[Rashak Mani]

Could anyone give me a cite on the theory that Bin Laden wanted to kick Saddam out of Kuwait thru his fighters ? Havent seen anything about that before... I only know about his hating the basing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

Funny enough Saddam gets attacked because he "might" be colaborating with Bin Laden.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Rashak Mani
Well what do you call most "democratic" systems nowdays ? I dont see many people with no money getting elected ...
[/B]


Yeah..we should only elect people who are financial failures. Forget leaders who have demonstrated success in business, law economics or some other endeavor. Let's put some homeless guy or a pizza delivery boy in office.



I hate to tell you this but the UN is not a world government. It is a forum for nations to air their grievences and address various world issues. If the UN was as important as you say they would have done something about Sadaam a long time ago.

[Roger_Mexico]

The decision to base US troops in SA was partly the result of another lie from another Bush. The Pentagon doctored satellite photos to show a buildup of Iraqi troops on the Iraq-SA border. Analysis of commercial satellite photos showed no such buildup. So if you say that OBL wanted to attack the US because of American troops in SA, then yes, those attacks were the direct result of the Pentagon's policy of lying to the world about the justifications for their actions.

"The photographs, which are still classified in the US (for security reasons, according to Brent Scowcroft, President Bush senior's national security advisor), purportedly showed more than a quarter of a million Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border poised to pounce. Except, when a resourceful Florida-based reporter at the St Petersburg Times persuaded her newspaper to buy the same independently commissioned satellite photos from a commercial satellite to verify the Pentagon's line, she saw no sign of a quarter of a million troops or their tanks."

http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/nocasusbelli.html

[Blalron]

Originally posted by Jonmarzie
Reeder, as tempting as it is to put the blame of September 11 on the policies of the United States, it wasn't the government's fault. It's no more their fault as it is when a pretty woman who wears provocative clothing gets raped. Terrorism of the September 11th variety is not the inevitable conclusion of US foreign policy. Could the United States have changed it's policy so that such an attack would be less likely? Yes, of course. Did we deserve it? Was it our fault? Not in the least.

It's not so much a matter as blaming ourselves, but it's a matter of accepting the unfortunate realities of life. It is an unfortunate reality that if a woman dresses provocatively and walks on a lonely alley in a high crime area at 3 AM, her chances of getting raped are drastically increased.

Likewise, if the U.S uses its power to impose certain policies in other countries, a small number of terrorists will be enraged enough to commit acts of terrorism.

Now, the woman may have been perfectly within her moral rights to walk around in a skimpy outfit in a dangerous area. And the U.S may have been within its rights to station troops in Saudi Arabia.

But being pragmatic, they ought to be aware that something bad might occur as a consequence, and try to figure out whether, to them, the value of what they are doing outweighs the possible risks.

[Magiver]

Originally posted by Rashak Mani
- snip -
1. The people who bombed the UN want to reinstate Baath or to stop reconstruction... if the UN were irrelevant they wouldnt have attacked them. Only Bush thinks the UN is irrelevant. Or do you think they would do a suicide attack just for kicks ?
.

I disagree with 1 word: "irrelevant". Bush tried to kiss as many bottoms as possible before the war. I don't think Bush abandoned UN, I think the UN abandon the United States. Or to be blunt, certain people made it clear they would not support a resolution of war no matter what.

I would think it more accurate to say that Bush thinks the UN is impotent.

Wang-ka well put.

Boo Boo Foo - also well put. I agree that it is the fertile soil of hate that needs to be dealt with. I also think people have to have that inner spark of self sufficiency that strives to grow.

[bizzwire]

from T. Mehr:The US allways and desperately wanted to have bases in the region. It has nothing to do with Kuwait, it's a nice excuse though.

First off I would like a cite and a rationale for this statement.

Second, I always thought that we were there at the request of the Saudis, who saw themselves as the next target of opportunity. (Although Roger_Mexicos little bomb was an eye-opener even if it was from The Guardian).

If the Saudis want us to leave, all they have to do is say so.

[Reeder]

Originally posted by John Mace
Reeder:

Let's be crystal clear here. Are you saying that the US itself is to blame for the 9/11 attack on the WTC? I ask this in all honesty, as I can't tell from your OP whether this is what you propose.

Don't equivocate. Le us hear your version of who is responsible for the attack.

Who is responsible for the attack? Bin Laden of course.

No matter what the US has done he is the one who decided to do the deed.

But I do believe it was the policies of the US that drove him to make that decision.

[YourOldBuddy]

Since were still on that woman analogy. The US is a scantly clad girl walking in shady backstreets at night kicking random pedestrians in the groin and slapping the rest.


OBL made it clear what he dislikes about the US.

The US support for Isreal.
The US deployment in SA.
The US led blockade on Iraq (at the time).

The best the US could do for itself is not to create a climate where nutcases like OBL have an easy time recuiting.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Magiver
I don't think Bush abandoned UN, I think the UN abandon the United States. Or to be blunt, certain people made it clear they would not support a resolution of war no matter what.
This claim has already been proven false many times in this forum. Please stop repeating it.

Originally posted by bizzwire
If the Saudis want us to leave, all they have to do is say so.
The Saudi royal family doesn't want us to leave. OTOH, I believe a majority of Saudi citizens do, largely because of their dislike towards the Royal family.

[Beagle]

The Iraqis attacked Saudi Arabia at Kahfji. They must have massed a few troops to actually invade Saudi Arabia and capture a small city, even if only for one day. The US Marines with some air support made it a short and unpleasant stay. The air support killed seven Marines though.

After the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, how can anyone argue that Iraqi troops were not massed on the border of Saudi Arabia? Is the argument that they were dug into defensive positions, but not preparing to invade Saudi Arabia? There were huge trench systems dug all along the Saudi border which were mostly pulverized by B-52 strikes during the long air campaign leading up to Desert Storm.

Are you, Roger_Mexico, saying that those troops didn't exist, or something else? Maybe there was some other area the Pentagon claimed the Iraqis were massing troops, other than along the Saudi-Kuwaiti border?

[bizzwire]

Go to the source

As regards Roger_Mexico's quote, I dug up the actual article quoted by The Guardian

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/index.html?ts=1061509869

It should come as no surprise that the truth is not quite as cut-and-dried as it would appear. Evidently, analysis of the pictures obtained by the St. Petersburg Times did not show conclusive evidence of the quoted 250,000-man forces said to be massing on the border.
Deja-vu all over again? Perhaps. Perhaps not:

Both analysts say there are several possible explanations for their inability to spot Iraqi forces.

The troops could have been so well camouflaged that they were hidden from the Soviet cameras. However, Zimmerman said that would be a departure from Iraq's strategy during its war with Iran in the 1980s when virtually no effort was made to hide military positions. Both analysts recall seeing Iraqi troop deployments during that war on poorer images from the French SPOT satellite.

It's also possible that the troops were so widely dispersed that the satellite couldn't "see" them because its cameras could not resolve images smaller than five meters, or about 16 feet, across. Or, it might be that glare from the sun on the Kuwaiti sand smudged out troop images, although images taken over Saudi Arabia appear unaffected by glare.

Another possibility is that the Soviets deliberately or accidentally produced a photo taken before the Iraqi invasion.

"We have to take on faith that the image is what the Soviets say it is," Zimmerman said. "I think that's a reasonable assumption because they wouldn't have a motive to misrepresent it, and if they did misrepresent it, and the word got out, they'd never sell another picture to anybody.

Seeing Iraqi troops on the commercially-purchased photos would be proof they were there. Not seeing them is not necessarily proof that they weren't.

p.s. This is in no way intended to be a slam against Roger. More a foil to the Guardian article.

[Age Quod Agis]

rjung:
This claim has already been proven false many times in this forum. Is it difficult to type with your pants on fire?

[Apos]

OBL made it clear what he dislikes about the US.

The US support for Isreal.
The US deployment in SA.
The US led blockade on Iraq (at the time).

Yes, this is pretty clear. It's beyond me how even Shodan can defend someone who, instead of clearly articulating that these are the policies the terrorists are against and the reason for their attacks (and then, hopefully, why these policies are worth continuing even in the face of terrorism), invents some laughable but appealing bullshit about them hating Joe and Susie America's liberty and freedom. Yes yes, the terrorists hate us because our electoral processes just make them sooooo mad. Definately, they went to all this trouble because they hate babies and trees and apple pies.

Phhhbt.

[Roger_Mexico]

Originally posted by Beagle
The Iraqis attacked Saudi Arabia at Kahfji. They must have massed a few troops to actually invade Saudi Arabia and capture a small city, even if only for one day. The US Marines with some air support made it a short and unpleasant stay. The air support killed seven Marines though.

After the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, how can anyone argue that Iraqi troops were not massed on the border of Saudi Arabia? Is the argument that they were dug into defensive positions, but not preparing to invade Saudi Arabia? There were huge trench systems dug all along the Saudi border which were mostly pulverized by B-52 strikes during the long air campaign leading up to Desert Storm.

Are you, Roger_Mexico, saying that those troops didn't exist, or something else? Maybe there was some other area the Pentagon claimed the Iraqis were massing troops, other than along the Saudi-Kuwaiti border?

According to the Washington Post, only about 600 Iraqi troops invaded Khafji. Their purpose was to engage coalition forces, not to invade SA. Khafji is on the coast right next to Kuwait.

"ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF KHAFJI, Saudi Arabia,
Jan. 31—A fierce battle for this deserted coastal town ended today when forces from Saudi Arabia and the emirate of Qatar, backed by American artillery and air strikes, evicted Iraqi troops and tanks,
and freed two trapped U.S. Marine reconnaissance teams.

The 12 Marines had been trapped in Khafji since Tuesday night when the town was overrun by about 400 to 600 Iraqi troops and 40 to 45 tanks in the first major ground action of the Persian Gulf War."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/archive/post013191_2.htm

I am saying that the Pentagon lied about the massive buildup of Iraqi troops on the SA border, in order to justify basing their troops in SA. The pentagon never released their satellite photos which supposedly showed the buildup. There is no evidence that the photos even exist. The Pentagon classified the photos, claiming that revealing them would compromise their intelligence sources. They had no problem showing satellite photos of supposed evidence of WMDs in Iraq recently, or for that matter of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Why suddenly the secrecy? I think the emperor has no clothes. It wouldn't be the first time the Pentagon lied to justify a war, perhaps you remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

At least in this case, the government admitted it had overestimated the size of the ground force:

"After the war, the House Armed Services Committee issued a report on lessons learned from the Persian Gulf War. It did not specifically look at the early stages of the Iraqi troop buildup in the fall, when the Bush administration was making its case to send American forces. But it did conclude that at the start of the ground war in February, the US faced only 183,000 Iraqi troops, less than half the Pentagon estimate."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html

There is more about what the satellite photos did reveal:

"The Times retained two satellite image specialists to interpret the photos: Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist who now is a professor of engineering at George Washington University in Washington D.C, and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who asked not to be named because of the classified nature of his work.

While Iraqi troops cannot be seen, it is easy to spot the extensive American military presence at the Dhahran Airport in Saudi Arabia. "We could see five C-141s one C5A and four smaller transport
aircraft, probably C-130s," said Zimmerman. "There is also a long line of fighters, F-111s or F-15s
on the ground. In the middle of the airfield are what could be camouflaged staging areas. "We did not find anything of that sort anywhere in Kuwait. We do not see any tent cities, we do not see
congregations of tanks, we do not see troops concentrations, and the main Kuwaiti air base appears deserted. It's five weeks after August 2, 1990, and what we can see, the Iraqi air force has not flown a single fighter to the most strategic air base in Kuwait. There is no infrastructure to support large numbers of (military) people. They have to use toilets, or the functional equivalent. They have to have food. They have to have water at the rate of several gallons per man per day. They have to have shelter. But where is it?"."

http://www.mideastfacts.com/iraq_saudi.html

[bizzwire]

from rjung
The Saudi royal family doesn't want us to leave. OTOH, I believe a majority of Saudi citizens do, largely because of their dislike towards the Royal family.

Well, it looks like we've come full-circle.

As a sovereign nation, we can only treat with, and accomodate, the desires of other sovereign nations. We can't tailor our policies to satisfy every Tom, Dick, and Mahmoud in the middle east. So, are you're saying is that we shouldn't listen to the heads of state of a given nation but must consider the desires of every crank, lout, and mouth-breather with a chip on his shoulder and a belt-full of C-4, ball bearings and rat poison? If so, then the OP is correct, and we got what was coming to us.

[Magiver]

Originally posted by rjung
This claim has already been proven false many times in this forum. Please stop repeating it.



.

Proven? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That's funny. Are you supposed to be Judge Judy. You left out "IMO".

I be repeating it as many times as I see fit. :)

[T. Mehr]

Originally posted by Shodan

If you have a better solution than what is underway, by all means let's hear it, but you are going to need to be clear on how it will reduce terrorism.

Unfortunately I don't. And I don't think anyone has. The point is, that the US is not exactly popular in the middle east because of the ways it pushes it's own political and strategic goals with no respect of local religions, beliefs, cultures etc.


If you mean that nobody would attack the US if we hadn't overthrown Saddam Hussein...

That's of course crap. I don't see how you can read taht out of my statement.

[T. Mehr]

Originally posted by Blalron
But being pragmatic, they ought to be aware that something bad might occur as a consequence, and try to figure out whether, to them, the value of what they are doing outweighs the possible risks.

Yeah, but this would mean, you'd have to be diplomatic and you'd have to think before you act.
And the current administration seems not to be very good at any of these disciplines.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Rashak Mani

PS: Shodan... you seem to think the reasons for Terrorism started pretty recently. You should know better that things have been building up for much longer. They just entered your reality in 9/11. No, I have specifically mentioned terrorist incidents pre-dating 9/11, such as the two previous attacks on the World Trade Center.

If you can't read, please don't post. If you are being deliberately stupid, same advice.

Regards,
Shodan

[T. Mehr]

Originally posted by bizzwire
First off I would like a cite and a rationale for this statement.

Here is a rather long document from 2000:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

[Rashak Mani]

Shodan your the thick one... the former attack on WTC was a few years before. So lets see your first post in this thread shall we ? Bang in a bit to see if it gets in... the US is no angel and a lot of shitty stuff was done in the cold war.


Originally posted by Shodan
Well, the policy that caused the World Trade Center attacks was that of defending Kuwait from invasion by Iraq. I am sure that kicking Saddam's ass out of Kuwait was demeaning to him, but I don't think we should have done nothing during the first Gulf War.

Most reasonable people agree that Osama bin Laden and his ilk attack the US because he feels that modern, Western secular democracy is threatening to his brand of fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. And the US is seen as the epitome of that form of society.

Are you suggesting that the US has been demeaning to the rest of the world by being a successful, prosperous, and free society? And are you suggesting that we should not work toward that as a vison for the rest of society?

I think those who say that terrorists are threatened by our freedom and our success are right on the money.

If you want to define being a functioning Constitutional republic as provocative, you can do so, but I suspect most Americans would object if you tried to get the US to abandon this "policy".

You are entirely correct that "things will not change". So long as we offer a successful alternative to the absolutist vision of many terrorists, they will continue to attack us.

So be it. I would rather suffer the risk of terrorist attack than live under the regime of an Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.

Regards,
Shodan

Lets go by paragraphs:

1. Defending Kuwait caused the WTC ? (better freeing Kuwait)Nope
2. Bush could be more secular... its not that simple
3. The US might be free and prosperous... but they have been supporting Despots all over the world. From Iran to Latin America the Coups were always to put in heavy handed desposts. Not democrats. So yes... the US didnt have that vision for the rest of society.
4. They arent threatened by US sucess... just its foreign policy and arrogance.
5. Again what policy you do INSIDE the US isnt what your doing OUTSIDE. US policy was always divide and conquer... keep friendly desposts to avert communism. Communism isnt nice... but desposts arent either.
6. Things wont change while the US keeps giving good reasons for people to support terrorism. Without support and cash these terrorists are way less effective. So killing them is less important than winning the minds and hearts of the Arab World so that they will stop financing these discontents. If the US doesnt change... why do they expect others to change ?
7. You have a choice... the Iraqi werent given one. They might have preferred UN rule ? They seem to be complaining about your choice of security for them by daily attacks.

So wake up and smell the coffee... the US is no paragon of democracy outside its borders. Even inside the Florida debacle seemed very Banana Republic too me. It sure could do a bit more to ensure the stability of capitalism too. So what if the US was defending its interests ? They do have the right to do so... but they miscalculated or overdid their hand. Payback time was WTC.

Now instead of just crazily thinking you can shoot every terrorist alive... how about making sure the things that generated the wackos is changed ? How about helping create a better world where terrorists will have less chances to prosper ? How about letting Israel know that its policies wont be defended blindly with American Blood ? Saddam was product of American Policies... so before you call anyone stupid make sure you know what is happening. Stop waving the flag and start getting your ideas straight.

[Rashak Mani]

Response to the Iraq had or hadnt massed troops on the border with Saudi Arabia...

That fact is irrelevant. Having taken Kuwait the Iraqi could in a week join enough troops to attack Saudi Arabia. (If that would be sucessful is another issue.) The US being a bit far would have at best deployed lightly armed Marines and Paratroopers. Infantry, even if elite, in the open desert isnt what you want to fight 7-72 with. Bringing tanks takes time...

So the US, the world too of course, couldnt risk Saddam having the 3 main oil producing countries. I dont think it was Saddams plan to attack Saudi Arabia.... but still... it might have become later on. So they dispatched troops as fast as possible.

[Beagle]

Rashak Mani is right. If you accept the historical fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait and at least tried to invade Saudi Arabia with a substantial armored force, why does the prepositioning of the forces matter that much? It's not like armored columns sit around to be struck by air attacks if they can avoid it. Hiding from satellites is just part of doing business in the modern military. I'd assume that troops are trained to do it all the time. I'd do it to save my ass. YMMV.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Rashak Mani
Shodan your the thick one... the former attack on WTC was a few years before. So lets see your first post in this thread shall we ? Bang in a bit to see if it gets in... I'm the one who pointed this out to you.
Originally posted by Shodan -

As well as the previous attacks on the WTC during the Clinton presidency, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, Libyan terror attacks, etc.
Read the whole thread before you respond, is that too much to ask?

And could we use our "big boy" voice in Great Debates?

Regards,
Shodan

[Gaudere]

Rashak Mani:Shodan your the thick one

[Moderator Hat ON]

Rashak Mani, do NOT call your fellow posters "stupid" in this forum. If you absolutely must insult them, do it in the BBQ Pit.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Alan Owes Bess]

If you want to find out Osama Bin Laden's reasons, why don't you simply read what he actually said following the attacks on the twin towers. Let's take the Al Jazeera version first, one step at a time:

Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalucia would be repeated in Palestine. We cannot accept that! Palestine will become Jewish.

So formerly Moorish Spain of 700 years ago becoming tragically Muslim free, with a danger of a similar thing happening in Israel is Reason #1.

And what America is facing today is something very little of what we have tasted for decades. Our nation,since nearly 80 years is tasting this humility. Sons are killed, and nobody answers the call.

Whatever this rant is supposed to mean, it has been going on since the time of Calvin Coolidge, or thereabouts. Possibly the infidel Western world is deemed to be fully responsible for the low estate of the Muslim world. Reason #2.

And when those people have defended and retaliated to what their brothers and sisters have suffered in Palestine and Lebanon, the whole world has been shouting.

Probably the Israelis are the main focus of his ire here. Reason #3.

And there are civilians, innocent children being killed every day in Iraq without any guilt, and we never hearanybody. We never hear any (inaudible) from the clergymen of the government.

This would refer to the ante bellum boycott of goods into Iraq which supposedly caused great suffering over and above that inflicted by Saddam Hussein and his cohorts. Reason #4.

And every day we see the Israeli tanks going to Jeanine (ph), Ramallah, Beit Jalla and other lands of Islam.And, no, we never hear anybody objecting to that.

Israel, again. Reason #5

I say these events have split the whole world into two camps: the camp of belief and the disbelief. So everyMuslim shall take — shall support his religion.And now with the winds of change has blown up now, has come to the Arabian Peninsula.

Reason #6, I suppose, whatever it means.

The source of all that stuff is Here (http://www.september11news.com/OsamaSpeeches.htm)

So, Osam bin Loser has given everyone his reasons, such as they are, and although some of his rants are too incoherent to understand completely, there is no real need to speculate further on what he and his followers believe or on how they are likely to behave in the future.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Age Quod Agis
Is it difficult to type with your pants on fire?
Since clairobscur isn't here to debunk the whole "certain people made it clear they would not support a resolution of war no matter what" bullstuff (again), you can read the details for yourself here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3800706&highlight=france+and+veto#post3800706) (the most recent re-iteration I could find):

And France *never* stated it was opposed to war in all cases. It was even ready to participate in such war *if* and only *if* :

1) The inspections could have been carried on during at least a reasonnable period of time (one month or two has been mentionned)

2) The inspections showed that there was WMD and Irak wa refusing to destroy them OR Irak wouldn't allow the inspection team to do its job

3) The war would be allowed by the UNSC on the basis of 2)

Chirac *never* ruled out a french military involvment in Irak, and even warned the french population about it during a TV speech.


All these things have been staten dozens of times, by dozens of posters on this board, but still, France's position is still completely misrepresented again and over again, on the basis of out of context bits of quote.
We're supposed to be fighting ignorance here, remember?

[magicman]

I hate to say it but i think many people are missing the point of most terrorism, if people listen closley to what people like Osama Bin Laden are saying then people would realise that its not what America believe in that dirves the terrorists to target them, its the fact that America sees it as its duty to spread its self worldwide, most people in the middle east want nothing to do with the USA they want to fight their own conflcits, without help from the USA, they don't want a MacDonalds in every town, they don't want American companies interfering in their lifes, which is why i think that sice the USA attacked Iraq it has given terrorists more reasons to attack America, don't get me wrong the USA did what they had to do and get rid of Saddam Huessein, but by doing so it has opened the door for a lot of new attacks.

[Rashak Mani]

Originally posted by magicman
...its not what America believe in that dirves the terrorists to target them, its the fact that America sees it as its duty to spread its self worldwide...

Just add something to your comment: Remember that for the devout Muslims the US and the West are sinners, over sexed and without morals. The US spreading out does mean their "pure" gets "infected". In general I agree with you thou. Osama would like to see the Arab world kept free of these influences principally.


PS Beagle... where did I talk of hiding from satelites ? :)

PS Moderator Gaudere I didnt start the stupid calling... check a few posts before.

[Monty]

Rashak: Please provide proof of your assertion that "for devout Muslims the US and the West are sinner [...]." Last I checked, there were more than a few Muslims in the United States and some of them are <gasp> in the Armed Forces. I hear they're devout, especially the Muslim chaplains.

[ChaosGod]

Originally posted by msmith537
[B]Yeah..we should only elect people who are financial failures. Forget leaders who have demonstrated success in business, law economics or some other endeavor. Let's put some homeless guy or a pizza delivery boy in office.
The point actually is, even if you are Jesus Christ himself, you won't be elected without a shitload of money, and the backing of the biggest players.

PS: Bush is a financial success?

[Rashak Mani]

Originally posted by Monty
Rashak: Please provide proof of your assertion that "for devout Muslims the US and the West are sinner [...]." Last I checked, there were more than a few Muslims in the United States and some of them are <gasp> in the Armed Forces. I hear they're devout, especially the Muslim chaplains.

Taking their values... we westerners drink alcohol, use skimpy clothes, our women dont cover hair or anything much in fact. We eat pork and fornicate a lot. We show sex on TV and we let women walk freely.

In fact for a devout [insert religion here] anyone outside their group is a sinner and devoid of virtue usually.

[Monty]

I'm a westerner and I don't drink alcohol or wear skimpy clothes. I don't eat pork (or any other meat for that matter, unless you count unfertilized chicken eggs as meat). I don't show sex (or anything else, for that matter) on tv.

Your last statement is an utter falsehood and can only be based on complete ignorance. There are plenty of religious groups which not only do not hold that those outside their group are sinners but preach that each person has their own virtue.

So, in short, next time you start a statement with "In fact," follow it with a fact instead of an utterly bigoted comment.

[Monty]

p.s. Malaysia is an officially Islamic country; its government has Islam as the country's official religion. Quite a few people there, not Westerners, mind you, do not cover their hair. Quite a few people there wear what many in other countries would consider to be skimpy attire. The women of that country wallk freely.

[Rashak Mani]

So change devout for fanatic... now it makes sense ?

Its just how Osama & Co. sees us... not how all muslims see us.

[Monty]

Then that's what you should've said at the outset instead of saying it was all of us in the West. And FTR, I seriously doubt Osama's all that devout. Just look at his track record.

[msmith537]

Look. The terrorists don't care about the fact that we drink and smoke and do all kinds of non-Muslim things. They are not trying to steal our American way of life or take over the US. It's about POWER. What they want is to establish new or strengthen existing Islamic fundamentalist theocracies all over the Middle East. America and the West are a threat because of our direct involvement there. People see American freedoms and they begin to question why can't they decide what to wear or who to pray to or even if to pray at all.

Terrorists worry that American cultural influences will undermine Islamic totalitarianism.

They worry that American financial influence will force Islamic leaders to adopt a more moderate position.

And they worry that American military might protects us from them.

[Monty]

msmith537: Correct! IIRC, some of those terrorists who carried out the attacks on September 11, 2001 drank booze and smoked before they carried out the attack. They were even cavorting with "skimpily dressed" women! That just helps to prove my assertion that it's not Islam they're interested in--it's just killing.

[Rashak Mani]

Another one trying for the Loony explanation... this isnt a film where the main villain has no real motivations and is psychotic.

[Alan Owes Bess]

some of those terrorists who carried out the attacks on September 11, 2001 drank booze and smoked before they carried out the attack. They were even cavorting with "skimpily dressed" women!

I keep bumping into this assertion so often and from so many sources. Including people who write for magazines and such, but they always make the assertion as if it's a given.

I'm not suggesting it's untrue, but has this claim ever really been verified by any reputable authority at or near the time it was supposed to have happened? Hell, I'll settle for a reasonably reliable source.

As far as researching the motivations of those who wish harm on the USA and its allies, a UK Muslim group is throwing a 2nd anniversary celebration conference on 11 September for what it describes as the Magnificent 19 Here (http://almuhajiroun.com/)

The press releases covering two recent bombing events are quite interesting, but I believe it would be even more interesting to read the papers presented at this seminar in order to gain greater understanding and insight into their motivations.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Rashak Mani
Another one trying for the Loony explanation... this isnt a film where the main villain has no real motivations and is psychotic. [/B]

Osama is a billionare so that would make him "eccentric", not "looney".

You never see Osama or Arafat or Hamas's leadership getting fitted for bomb belts or driving exploding trucks. For them it is about power. Maybe they have some warped sense of patriotism or religeous devotion. Maybe not.

But there are always people who are angry about something- whether it's Israelis living on their land or jobs being exported to China or whatever. The people who lead these terrorist organizations find these angry people and warp religeon or nationalism so as to focus their rage against some unwitting target. "You know who's fault it is that you have to live like this? America's! Now here's your chance for revenge!"