# A nuclear solution to WTC bombing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 13, 2001, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227 "2001-09-13T01:51:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Abundibot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@Abundibot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abundibot)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/201 "2001-09-15T18:48:48Z")
… whether we nuke Afghanistan, Bin Laden, whoever… we still won’t know what’s to come next, just as we don’t know what’s to come next right now. That’s how a war of terror is fought. There is no uniform, there is no flag. The fact that everyone is calling it a “war on terrorism” is just a stupid joke, because it’s not a war. The use of the term “war” in this situation is, well, antiquated. That’s simply not how it is going to work. There’s no such thing as a treaty, or even a cease fire with Terror. It’s stupid because Terror is merely an idea. How do we declare war on an idea? On a concept? It’s a given that terrorism is bad and we hate it and must remain ever-vigilant to prevent these kinds of disasters in the future, but what does declaring war mean? These aren’t enemies we can defeat by sanctions, market manipulation – damn we can’t even throw _money_ at the problem. Flexing muscle only deepens their resolve as this wanton use of muscle is precisely why the US is hated in so many corners of the world. So go ahead. Nuke Bin Laden. Make some people feel better. But Bush’s use of words like “War” and “Win” simply do not apply, because one can only win a game where there are rules. When there aren’t rules, how does the game end? - Jon ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/202 "2001-09-15T18:59:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > > > [@](#): > > > > there is definitely reason behind it besides simple fundamentalist megalomania. > > **What is that? Can you give me a hint since you are so determined?** I been saying it over and over again, **erislover**. Oil profits. European and American companies need a continuous supply of oil to make profits, and enough stability in the Middle East to guarantee that continuous supply. Thus they will use their not inconsiderable economic influence to steer their home governments to interfere in the governments of the Middle East to ensure that stability, whether it means propping up dictators and despots or recruiting and training two-bit terrorists to counteract other outside influences. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > So there is no reason behind my political ideas either? :rolleyes: Two insults against one compliment. Thanks, pal. > > **I have no fucking idea what makes you say that. Please reread what I said.** OK, let’s put your quote back up. > [@](#): > > **We know all we need to know about people who are diametrically opposed to what we can be said to stand for in the west, including the socialists and communists who genuinely seem to want freedom as well, and surely want equality.** D’you think I started the thread on the Russian Revolution in here to play devil’s advocate? You’re saying all you need to know about my political position is that I’m diametrically opposed to what the West can be said to stand for. In other words, my arguments need not be considered seriously because they’re motivated by nothing more than an irrational hatred of the West’s vaunted freedoms. I don’t know, maybe I am misinterpreting what you say. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. How should I have interpreted this statement? > [@](#): > > **Let me tell you about warfare, Olentzero: the whole world has suffered from it in varying degrees over the course of history. You know who is to _blame_ for this? God, in whatever form he takes (whatever religion or lack thereof). Period.** Um… I just scared the Tzeroling by laughing so hard. Are you saying we have God on our side and the Arabs don’t? > [@](#): > > **It created a world of limited resources and creatures who needed those resources to survive.** The resources can’t be that limited. We’ve gotten this far technologically and socially and haven’t hit the ceiling yet. > [@](#): > > **That is a recipe for fighting. We did not create the people who did this, people who do these things _happen_ and they justify their shitty actions in a political context.** These things do not just _happen_. There are material - solid economic and political - causes for these acts and they cannot be ascribed simply to god or lack thereof. They can be understood, and understanding them does not justify them. > [@](#): > > **Lesse: we need to understand them, we made them, we helped them, and we bombed them… that is quite a sob story you are giving me between the lines Olentzero. You’re a nicer guy than that, so I just don’t get what is going on. At all.** It’s not a damn sob story. I’m not trying to play up any sympathetic light on these idiots. But saying “Islamic fundamentalists hate the West” and thinking that explains everything is as blinkered and narrow-minded as you claim they are. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If you admit that bombing previously has made the angry dogs angrier, how can you support more retaliatory bombing now? > > **Because we’re bombing to come after the terrorists now, not the governments we previously bombed. And I hope we don’t stop.** Well, since Bush & Co. are talking about ‘ending nations that harbor terrorists’, I don’t think you can validly claim we’re only going after the terrorists. > [@](#): > > **You know what, I am reminded of the great Hagbard Celine who answered just such a question. Why us? "Because [we’re] there, schmuck."** That explanation didn’t satisfy me when I read it, and it doesn’t satisfy me now. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/203 "2001-09-15T19:06:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*olent: > > > [@](#): > > > > n other words, the CIA found someone who already had terrorist leanings and trained him in skills they intended to use against the > > Russians. If bin Laden hadn’t already had terrorist leanings the CIA would have found someone who did. > > Yes. We trained him to fight Russian **soldiers**. > > Soldiers. \*\* Soldiers are men and women as well. The methods he was trained in are not something that would work only on soldiers and not civilians. bin Laden was trained in the organization of terror, and the methods are fully independent of the intended objects. bin Laden was taught methods that would work on _any_ target. The willingness to use it on any target was quite probably there before he was recruited by the CIA, and it was obviously deemed an acceptable risk. Now ordinary Americans are dealing with the consequences. Which we did not deserve. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/204 "2001-09-15T19:32:09Z")
Olentzero, you keep claiming that this is about economics. Have you read anything I’ve posted? Bin Laden HATES Saudi Arabia and Egypt almost as much as he hates the U.S., BECAUSE they have money and live a ‘decadent’ lifestyle. He doesn’t want money for his people. He sees American wealth as a great corruptor. Countries that accept American Wealth are sycophants and traitors. Bin Laden wants the Middle East to look like him - radical Islamic fundamentalism, devoid of any sort of western influences. America is the great Tempter - our extravagent displays of wealth, our freedom, our treatment of women as equals… All these things cause people the Middle East to move away from radicalism and towards a western, materialistic society. That has nothing to do with _meddling_ on our part - it is an intrinsic fact of our very existance. As long as we exist on the planet as the greatest, strongest, free people, we will be a threat to what he perceives as the proper role for mankind. People have wondered what the ‘strategic’ purpose of these attacks were. The purpose wasn’t strategic - it was cultural. He wants us to surrender our freedom, to become like him. More importantly, he wants to show the people in the middle east that he has power, so that he can gain more influence over them. If they come to believe that he is powerful enough to seriously damage a great superpower, they’ll start to follow him, because thousands of years of cultural history tells them to follow those with power. This is a fundamental battle between two diametrically-opposed views of how mankind should live. Thinking that it’s just about foreign aid or a few troops stationed at military bases trivializes what’s going on. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/205 "2001-09-15T20:17:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > **He doesn’t want money for his people. He sees American wealth as a great corruptor. Countries that accept American Wealth are sycophants and traitors.** That didn’t stop him from getting money and training from the CIA back in the 80s, did it? The United States was concerned over the fate of Afghanistan primarily because any expansion of the Soviet sphere of influence into the Middle East constituted a direct threat to the oil it extracted from the countries in the region. It didn’t matter who ruled Afghanistan as long as they weren’t friendly to the USSR, and they were looking for anyone who would destabilize the Russian presence. That is meddling, and it gave bin Laden a wider and firmer base to continue his operations after he was no longer Washington’s man in Kabul. > [@](#): > > **Bin Laden wants the Middle East to look like him - radical Islamic fundamentalism, devoid of any sort of western influences.** I make no claim for what bin Laden believes or has believed over the last twenty years. But he wouldn’t be as powerful and as influential as he is today if the US hadn’t given him support and training in the Afghan war. > [@](#): > > \*\*This is a fundamental battle between two diametrically-opposed views of how mankind should live. Thinking that it’s just about foreign aid or a few troops stationed at military bases trivializes what’s going on. \*\* Quite the opposite. Reducing the terrorist attacks to an Armageddon-style battle between progressive Western culture and fundamentalist Islam trivializes the complex situation that is the United States’ pursuit of oil profits and the international interference it exercised to guarantee them, which is the seedbed for men like bin Laden to grow into something bigger than an irate cleric. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/206 "2001-09-15T20:45:13Z")
Oh for God’s sake. Okay, you got us! At one time in the past, we trained the man. What in hell that has to do with anything is completely beyond me. That was a different time, and a different war. We also trained and supported Ho Chi Minh at one time. Members of the German army treined in the U.S. Timothy McVeigh was a U.S. solider. What’s your point? You are busy trying to point fingers at past actions, while the rest of us are trying to establish the situation as it exists. You keep making the claim that this is economic, when Bin Laden himself has said that U.S. money is not only not what he wants, but a great evil in the world. He hates any country that accepts U.S. aid in any way. You’ve got a biased, twisted world-view that is filtered through your own brand of Marxist-Leninist thinking. As a result, you make almost no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/207 "2001-09-15T20:51:41Z")
Bin Laden may not be motivated because we have money, but he manipulates many in his organization to think that way. “They have everything, you have nothing, don’t you want to get back at them, blah blah blah…” That’s how people like this guy work. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/208 "2001-09-15T20:56:13Z")
That’s true, and it’s a good point. Thanks, Guin. ---
**Author:** ![oceans\_11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/b2d939/32.png) [@oceans\_11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oceans_11)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/209 "2001-09-15T21:02:34Z")
**Olentzero** : Yes, you are ABSOLUTELY right. Yes, the U.S. trained and financed OBL. Bingo. Bullseye. You get the big gold star. Thanks for pointing that out to us, we would never have known otherwise. Oh, and yes, you are also right in the fact that the U.S. continues to further its’ own goals. Absolutely. I guess we should be looking out for the welfare of other countries _first_. Should we do it alphabetically? Or maybe a lottery system? Then when everyone else is happy, we can look after ourselves. So now that this is cleared up, in your infinite wisdom and perfection, what’s the solution to the problem at hand? WWOD? (What Would Olentzero DO?) ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/210 "2001-09-15T21:13:00Z")
We should not be trying to GAIN our wealth at the expense of others, which is pretty much SOP. ---
**Author:** ![Mossadegh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Mossadegh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mossadegh)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/211 "2001-09-15T21:25:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by oceans\_11 \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > WTCs destroyed \<-------\> The military presence and buildup in the Persian Gulf during peace time. > > The Pentagon \<---------\> The imposing of worldwide economic sactions. > > We’re not even sure who did this yet, how do _you_ know their motives? \*\* I’m being a bit presumptuous. As are most of the folks here discussing this topic. We _aren’t_ sure who did this. But if the attack was masterminded by a Middle Eastern zealot, I can assure you those things will be on their laundry list of complaints. \*\* > [@](#): > > Do you believe any of the actions you listed in your post _justifies_ their response?\*\* Do _I_ believe it justifies their actions? Not at all. Nothing, absolutely \*\* NOTHING \*\* justifies these actions. My intent with that response was to show Dixie Dipshit how lame his thinking was and how much he has in common with the same people he hates so much. \*\* [quote}How about the "illegal and unnecessary presence of Iraqi troops in Kuwait? \*\*[/quote] Because Kuwait was illegaly mining Iraqi oil fields. That was what that “border disagreement” that April Glaspie was talking about prior to the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Basically, her response was “the US doesn’t care how you settle your disputes.” [QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* \*\* > [@](#): > > No, it doesn’t JUSTIFY them, it just EXPLAINS them! Exactly! {i]Nothing\* justifies civilians dying. ---
**Author:** ![Mossadegh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Mossadegh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mossadegh)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/212 "2001-09-15T21:40:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*Oh for God’s sake. Okay, you got us! At one time in the past, we trained the man. What in hell that has to do with anything is completely beyond me. That was a different time, and a different war. We also trained and supported Ho Chi Minh at one time. Members of the German army treined in the U.S. Timothy McVeigh was a U.S. solider. What’s your point? \*\* Sam, I can’t speak for Olent’s point, but I can tell you how this may be another aspect of the problem. If these monsters are roaming the country side, then for one reason or another, they will unleash their terror. Removing Bin Laden is the first step. But if there are any others like him, then it’s just a matter of time before another resurfaces. It’s starting to look like they should all be found and neutralized. That was my point with my other post. That folks like Bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh were useful at one point, but extremely dangerous once that use is gone. So unlike the inanimate objects of war that we can leave to rot in scrapyards, these fuckers have, for lack of a better term, a mind. And apprently, those minds have a strong tendency to malfunction and cause **SEVERE** human suffering. They are as much a part of the problem as any other threat to human life. My apologies for my other poorly formatted post. My morning cup of coffee hadn’t kicked in yet. ---
**Author:** ![Mossadegh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Mossadegh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mossadegh)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/213 "2001-09-15T22:31:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by oceans\_11 \* > \*\ ***Olentzero** : Yes, you are ABSOLUTELY right. Yes, the U.S. trained and financed OBL. Bingo. Bullseye. You get the big gold star. Thanks for pointing that out to us, we would never have known otherwise. > > Oh, and yes, you are also right in the fact that the U.S. continues to further its’ own goals. Absolutely. I guess we should be looking out for the welfare of other countries _first_. Should we do it alphabetically? Or maybe a lottery system? Then when everyone else is happy, we can look after ourselves. > > So now that this is cleared up, in your infinite wisdom and perfection, what’s the solution to the problem at hand? WWOD? (What Would Olentzero DO?) \*\* Again, I can’t speak for Olent, but may I suggest a few potential solutions? 1. A drastic change in US foreign policy. No more “being the nice guy” and attempting to help “democracy advocators” or “freedom fighters” all over the world. Often times, we share a common goal with these people at the onset, but later on we find ourselves at war with them. This policy should be easier to implement since the threat of communism isn’t as prevalent in the world today as it was 20 years ago. So if there are countries that are trying to develop, in what ever way, good luck to them. They have the firm blessing of the US government and nothing else. 2. The systematic discovery of potential terrorist groups around the world through the aide of technology and help from our allies. If we focus on one portion of the world, then we might be missing a pential threat somewhere else. If we focus in on the Middle East, some Muslim Croat from Eastern Europe might unleash his vengance. Or maybe some white seperatist right here in the US might. So we need to employ worldwide assitance (for example Interpol) in trying to detect terrorist activity and recruitment and then neutralizing them. I’m certain that the CIA, NSA, and ONI all have a large list of potential candidates as we speak. 3. Also, we need to let any mercenaries that we train for any purpose that we will forver be keeping an eye on anything they do. We currently do the eaxct samw thing with sex offenders. Well, we need to make have an international version of the same thing. If you’re trained to wipe out entire armies, the potential exists that you might some day wipe out entire civilian populations. So it’s great that you want to be a sniper for some democratic cause, but you better understand that once you’ve been trained, you’re going to be kept under a watchful eye until you die. And this goes for US based “special ops” personnel as well. But I am very interested in seeing what Olent’s response to your question is. ---
**Author:** ![Dixie\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9f8e36/32.png) [@Dixie\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dixie_Son)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/214 "2001-09-15T22:51:03Z")
A much easier solution: Kill every last one of them. Grind their bones into dust. Spread nuclear waste over the land so it will be forever barren. That will solve the problem. A thousand years from now there might be faint memory of some people who once existed in these wastelands. People won’t have to worry about any more Jihad or such since they will all be with Allah. This also solves the problem of what to do with nuclear waste. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/215 "2001-09-15T23:18:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > **Oh for God’s sake. Okay, you got us! At one time in the past, we trained the man. What in hell that has to do with anything is completely beyond me. That was a different time, and a different war. We also trained and supported Ho Chi Minh at one time. Members of the German army treined in the U.S. Timothy McVeigh was a U.S. solider. What’s your point?** My point is that these people don’t arise in a vacuum. There are reasons and events behind their actions and ascribing such actions to some abstract principle or other contributes nothing towards understanding them. > [@](#): > > **You are busy trying to point fingers at past actions, while the rest of us are trying to establish the situation as it exists.** The situation as it exists can only be understood against the background of the past. bin Laden didn’t come out of nowhere with just a bad attitude to start wreaking havoc. Neither did Timothy McVeigh, nor did Hamas or Hezbollah or Eric Rudolph or anybody as bad or worse. > [@](#): > > **You keep making the claim that this is economic, when Bin Laden himself has said that U.S. money is not only not what he wants, but a great evil in the world. He hates any country that accepts U.S. aid in any way.** It has economic and political roots. That’s not to say it’s entirely economic, and I never ascribed bin Laden’s actions to wanting a piece of the American pie. > [@](#): > > \*\*You’ve got a biased, twisted world-view that is filtered through your own brand of Marxist-Leninist thinking. As a result, you make almost no sense. \*\* And you have a biased, twisted world-view that is filtered through an ‘us vs. them’ mentality which goes nowhere towards explaining much of anything and really only justifies blind violence in the name of some abstract concept of national honor. As a result, you just end up sounding off whenever you hear something from my point of view. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/216 "2001-09-15T23:23:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by oceans\_11 \* > \*\*So now that this is cleared up, in your infinite wisdom and perfection, what’s the solution to the problem at hand? WWOD? (What Would Olentzero DO?) \*\* Short term? Don’t turn this tragedy into a war. No retaliation of any kind. Let’s clean up the mess, grieve, heal ourselves and move on. Long term? Sweeping social and political changes that those in power are either incapable of or unwilling to put into effect. The change will have to come from below. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/217 "2001-09-15T23:26:46Z")
:rolleyes: We should not exterminate ANY nation. That is the most sickening, bigoted, and ignorant position anyone can say. We should not strive to exterminate ANY race of people, as that would put us on par with Hitler. However, if we eliminate terrorist organizations, that’s a Good Thing. If we convince nation-states that it is NOT beneficial, but instead extremely destructive, to harbor and aid terrorist groups in their activities, that’s a Good Thing. The combination of these two should eliminate most extremist Islamic groups in the Middle East. If everything goes right, conventional weaponry should work just fine in achieving these goals. We should also be able to do it with the minimum of civilian casualties. However, we should not forego nuclear weapons as a consideration. Aside from those few ignorant people advocating the destruction of the Middle East, no one has said we should use city buster nukes. If nukes are considered for use, they will most likely use tactical nukes, and that would be for special wide-area targets that conventional weapons could not destroy easily. The use of nukes should come when A) We have conclusive evidence that the target is the right target, B) That it is a valid military target, and C) If conventional weapons could not adequately destroy that target. If these criteria are met, I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with using what is really just a Big Bomb. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/218 "2001-09-15T23:27:40Z")
**Mossadegh** ’s proposals are quite interesting, actually. I fully agree with point 1, but 2 and 3 only go to redress facets of problems that have much deeper social and political roots. Not that I wouldn’t support them, necessarily, but I’d certainly push for further and more drastic changes. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/219 "2001-09-15T23:28:00Z")
The rolleyes was meant for Dixie Son. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227/220 "2001-09-15T23:30:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > I been saying it over and over again, **erislover**. Oil profits. European and American companies need a continuous supply of oil to make profits, and enough stability in the Middle East to guarantee that continuous supply. Oil profits? OIL PROFITS? Those nations can make so many of their citizens filthy rich, and _we’re the ones holding them back?_ What…the…fuck? > [@](#): > > OK, let’s put your quote back up. > > > [@](#): > > > > **We know all we need to know about people who are diametrically opposed to what we can be said to stand for in the west, including the socialists and communists who genuinely seem to want freedom as well, and surely want equality.** > > D’you think I started the thread on the Russian Revolution in here to play devil’s advocate? No, _I don’t_, but if you noticed I’m not very keen on communism and socialism and feel that they largely contribute to a lack of freedom as well. But my point was that **western** ideals are largely represented as **capitalistic** and I wanted to clarify what I thought western ideals were more about as I was using the term. Freedom, equality, plurality, etc. So this was an attack not just on “American” ideals, but those ideals which I said were western. Ok? This was an attack on capitalists, socialists, communists, Christians, regular Muslims-- people everywhere who like freedom and equality and respect other people’s beliefs. > [@](#): > > You’re saying all you need to know about my political position is that I’m diametrically opposed to what the West can be said to stand for. Nope. > [@](#): > > Um… I just scared the Tzeroling by laughing so hard. Are you saying we have God on our side and the Arabs don’t? No. I said that if you are looking to blame someone you aren’t going to find them on earth, if at all. > [@](#): > > These things do not just _happen_. There are material - solid economic and political - causes for these acts and they cannot be ascribed simply to god or lack thereof. They can be understood, and understanding them does not justify them. I think many people in this thread understand them just fine. I think you are trying to turn it into something more than hatred put some sort of political plight. Bullshit, I’m sorry. > [@](#): > > It’s not a damn sob story. I’m not trying to play up any sympathetic light on these idiots. But saying “Islamic fundamentalists hate the West” and thinking that explains everything is as blinkered and narrow-minded as you claim they are. If you say so. > [@](#): > > Well, since Bush & Co. are talking about ‘ending nations that harbor terrorists’, I don’t think you can validly claim we’re only going after the terrorists. Well, that all depends on what the governments do in the face of a real Amercian attack, doesn’t it? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **You know what, I am reminded of the great Hagbard Celine who answered just such a question. Why us? "Because [we’re] there, schmuck."** > > That explanation didn’t satisfy me when I read it, and it doesn’t satisfy me now. Shame. It might get you to not think of everything in terms of dollars and politics. Thee are many things that motivate the human animal, and we speak of them in terms of dollars and politics, but those are not the causes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-nuclear-solution-to-wtc-bombing/81227.md?page=12)