I’m feeling charitable today so I’m going to assume this was a genuine typo.
And of course he’s such a fine upstanding principled man that you’ll take his word on things, right?
:smack: Yes, it was.
Feel free to call it a Freudian slip instead if you like.
It’s consistent with the rest of his behavior - the Saudis kicked him out of their country because he was too extreme for them, for Heaven’s sake. So where does he head? THe freaking Taliban.
Although you have a point - he threw out a bunch of stuff about the environment in the past that I thought was basically trying to align himself with eco-terrorists.
But yes, I believe him when he talks about his commitment to Islamo-fascist terrorism.
Regards,
Shodan
Except our history in the M.E. demonstrates pretty clearly that’s not true. It’s decidedly not how we operate there.
I think Shodan is using the American definition of the word “ignore”. Which is “we will sell weapons, manipulate, fund or otherwise prop up regimes left and right to further our own interests and screw with yours, but make a point not to mention anything about it in public” 
ok, and yet:
So a good reason to sacrifice yourself is because America supports Israel? So, we’re talking about attacking a larger, more powerful, further away country, because it is one of the countries that supports Israel, and you’re peeved at Israel because it’s armed. And that makes sense?
In the likely case that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, will terrorists attack Iran? Oh wait, of course: they’ll attack a country that supports Iran.
Besides, as I pointed out (and you ignored), the guy most credited with seeding the idea of offensive jihad, just plain didn’t like america, with its “individual freedoms” and “mixing of the sexes”. So plainly, yes, not liking the lifestyle can be enough.
If the opinions of a proportion of the population are sufficient reason for attack, then no country is safe.
Does there have to be 100% agreement that the wars were wrong before america is safe?
btw I obviously am not one of the people saying “we’re doing nothing wrong”; as was clear from the very start of my post.
Saying it’s because of America’s ties to Israel is mind-numbingly ignorant.
It makes perfect sense if you look at it using some subtlety and consider of various objectives.
It won’t make any sense if you just take a simplistic view.
Have you ever heard the aphorism: Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
You are being deliberately obtuse. They didn’t attack the US because Israel got nuclear weapons, the attacked the US because it was applying a completely lop sided set of rules to determine its actions in the area and those actions were consistently makeing Arabs worse off.
I’m sure he has more than one view.
What makes you think it was this particular view that caused people to act the way they did?
That’s a complete non sequitur.
Trying to pretend that its just some weird dislike of another culture is mind numbingly stupid.
[/QUOTE]
Saying it’s because of America’s ties to Israel is mind-numbingly ignorant.
[/QUOTE]
Straw man alert!
Not the ties to Israel, the demonstrable double standards that are applied.
That’s a completely different thing. 
ROFLMAO!
I just love the way you’re basing a whole argument on what bin laden said.
Because, of course, he’s the mots honest and trustworthy of persons, isn’t he? 
What lop-sided set of rules? How were Arabs worse off?
e.g. in the case of the gulf war, it was a UN-sanctioned intervention, of 34 nations (with significant saudi and egyptian forces) aiming to push iraqi troops out of kuwait.
If you mean some of the US more covert actions, well, many of these benefitted al qaeda until just before 9/11.
But is there any reason to suppose any of his views support your argument?
Well Sayyib Qutb wrote 24 books espousing his particular world view.
Among the readers of these books was a certain osama bin laden, who attended weekly lectures on the material.
Naw, it’s relevant because your implication was america was attacked because the american people are pro-war. Well…not all of them are. How many need to be anti-war before the country is safe?
There can be a bit of American exceptionalism the other way – that Americans are uniquely evil, or stupid, or arrogant. Are we really more evil than the Imperial British? How arrogant would Finland be if it was the most powerful and wealthy country in human history, she could conquer any country she wanted at the drop of the hat, Finnish culture was displacing the natives wherever it went, Finnish was the language everyone wanted to learn, and so on.
But in terms of moral culpability I don’t think criticizing average American citizens is helpful. I don’t think it makes sense to criticize Soviet citizens for not acting to stop the USSR’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, or for putting missiles in Cuba and almost extinguishing all humans north of the equator, or whatever issue you wish to bring up. They simply had little to no influence on Soviet policies. Scolding regular Americans for their government’s never ending desire for full spectrum dominance, or killing boatloads of Muslims in pursuit of ME hegemony, or their attempts to make corn the dominant life form on the planet – these criticisms are similarly misguided. Unless you seriously expect us to collectively start an armed revolution there’s almost nothing anyone can do about what our betters do.
I wouldn’t blame those evil, stupid Finns either.
The rule that says that if Israel gets nuclear weapons the US turns a blind eye but if an Arab nation is suspected of getting them the US pushes for sanctions and, in some cases, invades on made up charges.
The rule that says Israel can sit on illegally occupied lands indefinitely without sanction but if an Arab nation illegally occupies land it gets attacked and turfed out.
(You can argue spurious points about a ‘coalition’ but the people involved knew who the prime movers were. )
They get sanctioned.
They get invaded.
Simple logic.
If you really want to believe that a group of people killed themselves because they so disliked someone else’s ‘lifestyle’, you go right ahead.
Of course, you have to reconcile the fact that the people who did so seemed to spend a lot of time enjoying the ‘lifestyle’ they so despised.
You also need to convince yourself that they spent all that money in the hope that the US would suddenly see the light and convert itself into an intolerant theocracy rather than the slightly more likely hope that an attack would make the US see that it was far from invulnerable and possibly reconsider its interference in the Middle East.
That’s just plain untrue. :rolleyes:
Well, if one wants to know why someone did something, and they say “I did it because of thus-and-so”, that seems like a pretty fair basis for an argument. Especially when this statement of motive is consistent with what that person has done for most of his adult life.
You don’t have to believe it, of course. You can make the claim that bin Laden attacked the WTC because of the US double standard. Unfortunately for you,
[list=A][li]You need to produce evidence that he said that this was his motive, and [*]you have also cut the ground from under your own counter-argument - if he is lying when he says he attacked the WTC because of our lifestyle, he is equally likely to be lying when he says it was anything else.[/list][/li]So on my side, we have bin Laden’s speech, and his actions. On your side, you got bupkis.
Regards,
Shodan
Except, Bin Laden, didn’t actually do it, did he. It was a bunch of other people all of whom are now dead.
None of the people who flew planes into buildings had been doing it consistently.
ROFLMAO.
This is a hilarious example of blatant double standards.
You claim that on your side you have the statement of Bin Laden which proves the POV you favour. On the other hand, if he says the opposite you claim that would be meaningless because he’s a known liar.
I think that most people of any intelligence tend to accept that people involved in multiple murders are not the most reliable informants on their own motivation. If they were, hardly anyone would ever be convicted of murder because they would all claim some reasonable motive.
Your sole evidence for your view are some of Bin Laden’s reported sayings.
These you would allow to trump any logical argument such as why a group of people gave up their lives in order to something that could never change the thing they allegedly hated (but nonetheless indulged in).
It’s not as if my view is unusual. See Here for the opinion of an ex US congressman.
And the fact that the sayings are consistent with his actions throughout most of his adult life. Your evidence, on the other hand, seems to be seems to be nothing at all.
I am afraid your argument does not make a whole pile of sense.
If you are saying that bin Laden and Co. attacked us because we invaded Iraq, 9/11 happened in 2001, and we didn’t invade Iraq until 2003. bin Laden probably wasn’t retaliating for something that didn’t happen yet. Also, if you are saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11, I will be tactful and ask for a cite,
Also, you haven’t phrased the “rule” correctly - If an Arab nation invades Kuwait, and, as a condition of cease-fire, agrees to accept the burden of proof that she has divested herself of WMD, and then violates that agreement over a dozen years or so, then they face “serious consequences”.
If you are talking about Iran, then Iran is not an Arab nation, and you still have not phrased the “rule” correctly - If a nation that sponsors terrorism signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and then goes ahead and begins to violate their sworn word by attempting to develop nuclear weapons, they face sanctions. N.B. no, Israel has not signed the NN-PT.
Regards,
Shodan
Again, I will be tactful, and ask if you really want to use rense.com as a cite.
Other of the insights found on that site include -
**What Are They Putting In The Water? - Fluoride
FBI Agent Says Oswald Didn’t Kill JFK
Mini-Nukes Were Used In WTC On 9-11
Quasar Clusters Refute Big Bang**
And this, which appears to be more of this Holocaust denial excrement -
The Never Ending Controversy
Auschwitz - Another Analysis
This is your idea of evidence? Well, okay.
Regards,
Shodan
That once again you don’t feel the need to grace us with.
It’s a matter of public record that Sayyib Qutb was primarily motivated by hatred for the West, and that bin laden regularly studied his material. If you wish to dispute any of this, actually say so, and say what your objection is, instead of snide comments.
If Qutb was a hypocrite, that’s irrelevant to my point. What’s relevant is what he teaches in his books.
I said nothing about what they hoped would happen.
The idea that america would be attacked and just say “oh hey, let’s apply sharia law” is just as absurd as your belief that the US would “reconsider its interference in the middle east”.
After 9/11 the world was pretty united in condeming the attacks and approving the mission in afghanistan. This was a pretty big mis-step if the motivation was for the US to get out of the middle east.
A spectacular attack primarily against the West’s commercial hub does not really fit either of those objectives.
Another fantastic response. But just as a reminder, you said: "It’s the ability of Americans to hold up their hands and say: ‘we’re doing nothing wrong and we’ve no intention of changing’ whilst continuing to adopt such a partisan stance that causes such angst. Trying to pretend that its just some weird dislike of another culture is mind numbingly stupid. "
Given that pretending it’s “some weird dislike of another culture” was what you thought I believed were motivation for the attacks, it follows that you’re implying it’s the opinions of american people that are actually the motivation for the attacks.
[quote=“Shodan, post:74, topic:551398”]
And the fact that the sayings are consistent with his actions throughout most of his adult life. Your evidence, on the other hand, seems to be seems to be nothing at all.
Obviously not. Unless they had an unusual degree of foresight.
Blatant straw man. I neither said nor implied anything of the kind.
This is just weasel talk. The US instantly leads efforts to attack Iraqis when they are illegally occupying Kuwait but has done nothing about the illegal occupations by Israel.
The above is completely an utterly disingenuous.
All I was citing was an ex US congressman stating his views to show that the views I’d mentioned were not unique.
I cited one page - not an entire site. I’ve never heard of the site - it came up on a google search - and had no interest in it.
The page was cited because it was written by a 20+ year US congressman, it can be found elsewhere on the net.
It’s not a snide comment.
It’s simple logic that people do not deliberately sacrifice their lives just because they dislike someone’s lifestyle, no matter that people they knew may have held such views.
It’s also a matter of simple logic that terrorists make attacks in order to make those they believe are oppressing their fellows suffer in the hope that they will modify their behaviour. Or, in some cases, for simple revenge.
Your stance is that, pretty much uniquely in the annals of terrorist atrocities, a group of people intentionally and unavoidably sacrificed their lives over a matter of ‘lifestyle’. :rolleyes:
Of course it was a mis-step.
In case you hadn’t noticed, these people were insane!
Of course it does. In the terrorist mind it’s a simple equation: “You hurt us == we hurt you. Then maybe you think twice about hurting us”
Straw Man Alert
You are pretending that where I said ‘Americans’ above, I meant ‘all Americans’. Given the nature of this site and the preponderance of people here who are prepared to consider things in an open minded manner, that’s a grotesque twisting of the real intended meaning of ‘some Americans’.
Your “logic” sucks almost as much as your coding. You apparently wish to deny that the words and actions of the ringleader are any kind of evidence of his motives. Yet the only evidence you can produce is some crackpot who has his asshattery published on a Holcaust-denying, anti-fluoridation website.
Come on now - you won’t believe what the ringleader of the attacks says. Why do you believe this ex-Congressdolt? He wasn’t involved in the attacks.
Like I said, the fact that you consider this sort of thing as evidence and deny what is straight from the horse’s mouth gives much insight into how seriously to take your “logic”.
Although I have no doubt that your views are not unique. Would that they were. ’
Instead they seem to be shared by various assholes, crackpots, lunatics and shitheads who also worry about UFOs and think that The Protocol of the Elders of Zion is a documentary.
Regards,
Shodan