Question about 9-11

Yes it does. They have every right to call you “anti-American” just as you have every right to make unpopular statements about America. That’s what free speech is. They are in no way infringing on your rights or preventing you from making whatever statements you want.

Actually, one of the platforms of the Communist party was that they advocated the violent overthrow of the American government. The Smith Act, passed in 1940, made it illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of the American government. The Smith Act was overturned in the Supreme Court’s 1957 decision of Yates v. U.S. (wherein the Supremes said that you could advocate the violent overthrow of government as an abstract doctrine, but couldn’t pursue it as a goal). But for nearly two decades, being a member of the Communist party was illegal, and with good reason.

The atmosphere surrounding the McCarthy hearings was fed in part by people who failed to see a logical distinction between advocating the violent overthrow of the American government in practice and in principal. Frankly, I can’t blame them. While I agree that the McCarthy hearings were driven largely out of McCarthy’s self interests, and often resulted in travesty, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the hearings were all about picking on a few poor, helpless, innocent individuals. Communism posed a real threat to America and democracy. The McCarthy hearings were one – probably overzealous – part of a larger battle where we were on the right side.

I think the OP does have a point in that some Americans seem to cling to 9/11 as if they were the only country in the world that ever got attacked. European opposition to the war was portrayed as anti-American, as if 9/11 somehow obligated everyone here to support the war (see some of the comments in this thread as an example). And a lot of people in countries where bomb scares have been a fact of life for decades kind of resent the implication that it’s more important now that it’s happening in America.

And I know that implication isn’t (always) intentional, but that’s the way it has frequently come across.

QUOTE]*Originally posted by Payton’s Servant *
It is bullshit to go about it the way McCarthy did, because McCarthy’s method was bullshit to begin with, as were all of the supposed facts & numbers that he bleated and screeched out about how many Communists were in which department of the government.
[/quote]

Stipulate that McCarthy was <totally> wrong in his accusations and <totally> venal in his motivations. The OP still did not make clear whether it was attacking only those McCarthy-specific problems, or anti-communism generally. Hence my question.

[quote]
**Since when does being a Communist make someone guilty of anything? As I recall, even back during the 1950’s, the Communist Party was not outlawed in the United States, which makes your comment above, very ** asinine indeed.

[quote]

Since either 1947 or 1954, depending on what law you want to look at. The Smith Act ('47) made it a criminal act to teach or advocate violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Arguably the communists, and their paymasters in Moscow, did teach or advocate this. The Communist Control Act ('54) effectively outlawed even passive membership in a communist organization. So, your recollection fails you. The Act was later deemed unconstitutional to the extent that it was applied to membership, with no overt acts to advance the subversive goals of the communist party – however, the Supreme Court subsequently upheld sanctions against persons based on active,
knowing membership in such an organization with a specific intent to further the unlawful goals of the organization. United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 265-66. The allegations of HUAC were, for the most part, based upon the theory not only that the targets were mere communist sympathizers or members, but that they were actively working to further the illegal goals of the communist organization. You may not agree that this was true. You may not agree that the communist goals should have been illegal. You may not agree that communist party membership should have been proscribed. However, the law did exist and the HUAC investigations were neither extralegal nor ultra vires. Thus, perhaps my views are only somewhat asinine and not “very asinine.”

Much worse than oppression? That’s pretty bad. But my query presupposed that some people suffered some bad consequences. Many who suffered the consequences were probably guilty of behavior that was in fact illegal at the time. I’ve asked for an enumeration of how many suffered innocently, and how badly they suffered – I assume some did. My question then is whether such quantum of unjust suffering, in itself, completely discredits anti-communism. I don’t think it does, which was my point (as opposed to a defense of McCarthy, which I don’t here undertake).

Well, actually, we have caught and or killed most of the dudes responsible for the 9-11 attacks, and driven the head honcho into hiding. Whats more, the nation that actively supported Al-quada was stopped from actively supporting terrorism for good.

Now, Iraq had very little to do with the 9-11 tragedy. But look at it this way- let us take a hypothetical personal incident. Let us say your daughter is run over, on purpose by your crazy neighbor. Well, after doing what you could to him, let us say that your other neighbor, his freind- make public statements that "he was glad it happened, that she deserved it, that he’d support more such killings, and then he painted a mural of the tragedy on his garage door. Don’t you think that a little ass-whuppin might be in order? Oh, and he was known to support his son in running over your other neighbors pets- and was known as a wife beater, and once broke into his other neighbors house, stole everything and crapped on the carpets.

Now- I did not & do not support the invasion of Iraq- it set a very bad precedent. But damn if I didn’t think that this very evil man deserved a serious ass-whuppin. The world is a better & safer place without Saddam.

But I ask you this, Tarantula- why can’t the Irish get over the British taking over a section of your dinky little island? After all, that was something like 600 years ago- why not simply let it go, and stop killing dudes over it? After all, after centuries of “dodgy foriegn policy” and in-fighting, I would have thought that such a take over was inevitiable? But you know what- I still remeber 9-11. Do you remember when the English first took over Dublin?

I’m amazed that anyone would still defend McCarthyism.

You’re right, it wasn’t a “few” innocent people, it was thousands of them.

Communism is legal. It’s not even a particualrly dangerous ideology in its pure form. The USSR was a totalitarian regime with a quasi-socialist economic system. It wasn’t communist. There was never a shred of evidence that any American communists were ever a threat to the US. There were never any “commies” exposed in the government. All there EVER were were slurs and inuendos. Anyone with a liberal or pacifist ideology was tagged as a communist “sympathizer”. This was a meaningless term which allowed McCarthy and his thugs to categorize virtually anybody as a “pinko” regardless of what their party loyalties were. The “sympathizer” category also included anyone who supported Martin Luther King or the civil rights movement. Hundreds of lives and careers were destroyed simply for having a left of center political philosophy. If you weren’t a hardcore right-winger you were suspect.

To try to give McCarthy any credibility at all is just beyond ignorant.

That’s the point I don’t understand how people can miss. The American’s have never been bombed like this. Actually no one has ever been bombed like this (3000 in 1 go). For it to happen to a relaxed, prosperous populace that lacked a history of terrorist bombing inside its borders it was absolutely traumatizing.

The OP, however, managed to broadly declare that “damn but they need to suck it up” and then dives into some sort of bizarre questioning of why the Pentagon didn’t shoot the plane out of the sky with death rays or something. He then proceeds to question the ability of the US military by wondering why they haven’t found OBL. He then tops it off with a dimissive “Shabby effort” which nicely sums up his train of thought.

Well, actually, that happened a lot during WWII, to England, Japan, Germany . . .

. . . Which doesn’t mean I think “we deserved it” or that we “should get over it.”

The title was supposed to read, “Actually no one has ever been bombed like this (3000 in 1 go).”

sigh. I knew I’d get someone doing that. I was hoping since the topic was about 9-11 we could just work from the “terrorist bombing” angle on this one without me prefacing everything with “terrorist”. Your point stands and I’ll correct myself

“Actually no one has ever undergone a terrorist bombing like this (3000 in 1 go).”

**
As demonstrated above, communism was illegal for a time (during the McCarthy era), and subversive activity on behalf of a foreign government is still illegal. Name someone who was persecuted for merely passively agreeing with some wankerish Marxian ideas about macroeconomics and the source and distribution of wealth, and we can talk about thought crimes; what the anti-communists (and again, I myself am not equating McCarthyism with anti-communism or undertaking to defend J. McC.) were actively hunting was people allegedly in a position, and inclinded, to apply their pro-Soviet views to the detriment of U.S. security.

I’m also tickled by “the USSR wasn’t communist.” Defenders of communism always say that the failure (and crimes) of multiple “communist” regimes does not discredit the ideology, because “real communism’s never been tried.” I tend to think of real communism as that which has actually, I don’t know, existed. It never seems to occur to the “that’s not real communism” crowd to question the viability of a creed that, self-admittedly, can never get past the planning stage without going horribly awry. The parallel argument (which has also arisen in 9/11 debates) is the view that “Islamicists have nothing to answer for for 9/11 because any violent ‘Muslims’ aren’t really Muslims.”

**
Everyone with liberal ideologies? You mean every single Democrat or every single Quaker? Just how were they “tagged?” More to the point, you’re wrong in your factual statement. American communists and Soviet agents gave the Russians nuclear secrets. Fuchs, Hall, Rosenbergs, Hiss.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1778

If you think that enabling the Soviet nuclear program was not a “threat to the US,” then we have nothing to discuss.

Actually, it isn’t the Irish who want Britain out who are still “killing dudes” over it. It’s the ones who want to remain part of the UK.

Insert “for the most part” after “actually” in post above. Before Aro comes along and goes splenetic.

Oh, so calling it a “terrorist attack” somehow makes it worse than a “military attack on civilian targets”.

What everyone (thanks to the patriotic hype from the govt. and the media) continues to ignore or forget, is that it wasn’t only United States citizens who died in the WTC attack.

Probably the most obvious answer as to why it is “still” an issue, is that the current administration, with the assistance of the media, continues to use the whole incident to keep up a low-level paranoia, spiced-up every now and then with “Orange” alerts. It is a strategy that has served very well for popularity polls, oppression of dissent and debate, obscene increases in military spending, mindless “rah-rah” support for unnecessary military offensives, ratings for networks, and sales of flags, commemorative bumper stickers, T-shirts, CDs, and DVDs, and duct tape.

Zero Mostel.

Charles Chaplin.

Ronald Reagan. NOT !

Algerian terrorists tried to hijack a plane to crash it into Paris on Christmas eve 1994. The same MO as 9/11.

Arab terrorists tried to blow up the WTC in 1993.

What was the FAA doing for 6 1/2 years. No reinforcement of doors to cockpit and the media hasn’t been discussing this. What did the FBI know 3 weeks before? What did the CIA know 5 weeks before?

What a crock?

Where was God when Hanoi was being bombed, by the way?

I guess he doesn’t choose sides.

Dal Timgar

Well I’ll assume you saw my correction and yes a terrorist attack is targeted at civilians, a guerrilla attack (as part of a declared/undeclared war) would be against the Government (a la Pentagon attack). I would say deliberately targeting civilians ranks above unintentional targeting civilians. Deliberate military targeting of civilians outside would be have aspects of terrorism, however if you are referring to WWII bombing there was the belief that the bombing would cripple infrastructure. But we’re drifting here. The OP was “why can’t they get over it.”

I’m also well aware that other countries lost people. Canada lost 25 people; one of them was a girl I used hang out with when we were teens

Hmm, yes, “infrastructure”.
These days, the term is “collateral damage”, I believe.

OK, back on topic.

I wonder if the Afghanis have “gotten over it” yet.