If he had rejoiced in it, that and grumbling would get you free beer.
That is not the point, read what I had quoted in my posting (cite by DrDeth):
DrDeth had to admit that no link between 911 and SH could be made, so he justified the Iraq war by the “fact” the SH was “happy” about 911, or whatever he wanted to say with this comparative story.
Even if SH had displayed happyness for the victims, I would find it rather disgusting to wage a war and to kill civilians for this reason (“Don’t you think that a little ass-whuppin might be in order?”), and that is the least I can say.
Saddam Hussein did not display “happyness” or whatever:
“Yes, the hand of God is on the arrogant and the oppressor, but that does not change our concern for people.”
CNN.com - Saddam offers 'humanitarian' aid to U.S. - September 20, 2001)
I even remember that he condemned the attacks right after they had happened (I was quite surprised on that), but I do not find a link on it 
Usage can be easily determined by googling and noting the many hits, including this from Billy Shakes:
“Who would take well my verse in time to come,
if it were filled with what should come to you?”
I’d tend to doubt that there are any grammarians who have a problem with it, but I would like to hear if you know of any.
Yes, there were problems with the airlines - we probably would have lost United eventually anyway. But we went from a situation where air travel was expanding, most airlines were at least breaking even, and hiring of personnel from ticket agents to pilots were at historic highs to the present, where only one airline is in the black (and that just barely - Southwest), air travel is contracting, and folks are being laid off in droves. A complete reversal of the trend, a reversal that happened on September 11, 2001. Add in the vastly increased cost of security (with quesitonable real benefit) it only worsens the problem.
My take on this? They should have let United and even AA go belly up, taken the short term pain, and the remaining airlines would have been much, much healthier. And, to be honest, I think the only real improvement in security has been in better cockpit doors. Otherwise, I don’t believe there’s been real change, just window dressing.
See, this is what I don’t get about the religious fanatic types that want us dead. What, exactly, did we do that justifies killing 3000+ people, including a significant number of non-US nationals? From what I’ve gathered (and yes, I do read other than just US media) the complaints are more or less
-
We buy their oil. I suppose invading and taking their oil, as the British Empire arguably did before us, would be preferable? Truth is, we don’t want to be bothered running their countries and simply buying what they have to offer is much simpler and easier for us. And if no one bought their oil there would be all that money for their rulers to lavish on palaces and toys for themselves
-
There are US troops in Saudi Arabia. True, there are. And we were asked to put them there by the Saudis because, at a certain point, Saddam Hussein was trying to gobble up neighboring countries like Kuwait and the Saudis were concerned they were next. Stationing troops in SA was not greeted with a whole lot of enthusiasm here in the US for a variety of reasons, among them questions about should we be renting our military out for hire (that was a perception by many), why are we propping up what is, to many American eyes, a number of despotic governments, and issues about how our sevice women would be treated in SA. The Saudis have asked us to leave. Fine, we’re moving to Qatar, which apparently does want us (or at least our money). Apparently that’s not good enough - even while we’re moving out Al Quaeda bombs Saudi Arabia. So I guess that excuse was blowing smoke all along, wasn’t it?
-
We’re not Muslim. You know, that’s just too bad. They’re going to have to grow up and learn to co-exist with folks who aren’t exactly like them. I mean, here in the US I’ve lived in cities where you find 50+ ethnic varities on one city block, with Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, and what have you all living in the same freaking building. Do we all love each other? Of course not - but we do manage to live side by side without killing each other. Why can’t they?
Judging by what has happened in Saudi Arabia and Morocco of late, though, I think this is also another bogus excuse. These folks seem to have zero qualms about blowing up Muslims as well as “infidels”. Or maybe they weren’t muslim enough.
- We don’t acknowledge them as lords of creations, masters of the Earth, and our rightful overlords. Know what? We don’t and we ain’t going to. Because they aren’t.
To sum up - if they don’t want people to buy their oil they shouldn’t offer it for sale (I dunno, maybe they can drink it or something), it’s up to Saudi Arabia to decide who is and isn’t welcome in their country (not some exiled, citizenship-stripped goofball living in a cave in Afganistan), and for the last two questions - tough luck, it ain’t happening.
All those transcripts of bin Laden video tapes and faxed messages to al-Jazerra that spoke of us as cowards, craven dogs, and soft decadents who would crumble, turn on each other, and destroy our own civilization. All those statements that because they kept the soviets out of Afganistan that it would be awash with American blood if we so much as set foot there. That sort of thing.
Of course, I have no doubt that, on a certain level, these guys would welcome WWIII, armageddon, or just a thumping good war and were somehow expecting Allah to give them a victory. To which I say - if your God didn’t give you the victory you felt entitled to, perhaps you should re-examine your expectations and your own conduct.
You are oversimplifying a complex issue. No, Al Qaeda isn’t a country - it’s a global, multinational organization. The difference is significant on several levels, but it’s just as deadly and just as dangerous (if not more so) than a foreign country that had declared war on us.
Add to that the fact it was headquartered in Afganistan, where the local government at first supported it, then at least in part came under it’s control, at least in some regions, then the invasion of Afganistan begins to make some sense.
An imperfect analogy is the Bhopal disaster in India - you know, that nasty chemical leak. Yes, it was an accident rather than terrorism, and yes, it was a multi-national corporation that was responsible, but the complaints still came home to the US government because the multinational was headquartered here.
Excuse me, how is going into Afganistan after bin Laden and Al Qaeda NOT part of the “war on terrorism”?
As a matter of fact, going into Afganistan did generate some controversy. It was pointed out over and over that since the time of Alexander the Great no one had ever managed to subdue the Afganis, that while they were happy to trade they were rabidly opposed to foreigners telling them what to do, the terrain was not easy, the climate harsh, and the natives could easily turn out to be just as deadly as our stated enemy. There were also qualms about the precedent set for invading a sovereign country whose government hadn’t declared war on us or directly threatened us making it easier to invade someone else (witness the whole Iraq thing) In the case of Afganistan we did manage to produce some real evidence that the people we sought were there, being sheltered and supported by the Taliban government. In fact, I was quite surprised at how little international opposition there was to our campaign there.
Problem is, as Yamamoto said in 1941, someone has woke the sleeping tiger. Once the US gets rolling it’s a juggernaut. You’ve got a very paranoid administration - most of those guys were pretty paranoid even before 9/11 - many operating under an “end-times” extremist Christian mythos, with an incompetant puppet at the head who is very good at playing cowboy on TV and letting his generals run a war but unable to deal with a faltering economy. Their “war on terrorism” - from the first compared to the unsuccessful “war on drugs” - was bogging down with no bin Laden caught and the population starting to ignore the “sky is falling! sky is falling!” pronouncements of the goons in DC. Then Hussein balks at UN inspections. What was he thinking? The US was a loaded gun looking for a target. If Hussein had been more cooperative earlier the US would not have had any justification for starting a war. By the time he started cooperating it was too late. AND the current US president is the son of the one he first opposed and the son of someone he tried to assasinate (supposedly).
And, despite some of the published polls, the war in Iraq was NOT a popular one and was bitterly opposed by many. A lot of folks are asking why some of our kids got shot and killed invading a country that was not a direct threat to ours. The proof we were promised is not forthcoming. I don’t know what some people want - a bloody coup in Washington? - but under our system we don’t just string an unpopular leader form the nearest lamppost. Usually, we wait until the next election. As Mr. Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all of the time, most of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
The next big test (from my viewpoint, baring any more mainland attacks) is the next election. The US has NEVER suspended or even postponed a presidential election, not during any emergeny or war, not even during our civil war. If the bozos down in Washington attempt to do anything of the sort in the name of the “emergency” THEN you will see all hell break loose in the streets. But I don’t think the west wants to see that happen. Al Qaeda would be immensely please, however.
That’s because the fascist pig in the attorney general’s office (that’s John Ashcroft, in case anyone was wondering who I was referring to) insisted on going outside the Constitution. Which means the whole mess will languish in the courts for years. If these jerkwads in the “justice” department actually had proof and presented it in court the bozos would be behind bars for life, if not executed. But because Ashcroft hopped over all those “inconvenient” bits that form the basis of our government he bollixed it up entirely. And made the rest of us look bad what with holding people without trial in places like Gitmo.
The others means are entirely too impressive, either. Especially when you have governments willing to shelter international criminals.
So, OliverH, I issue you the challenge, too - what would YOU have done on September 12, 2001?
** Furt ** - I think we’re getting side tracked. Billy Shakes can say any damn thing he likes. That still does not make it correct.
Now, back to the job at hand.
** Grey ** et al. have been saying that I should engage in this debate. I see no reason. I wanted to witness a debate on this topic so I asked for opinions. Other members of the SDMB seemed happy to air their feelings without expecting rebuttal / agreement on each issue.
If this is not allowed on SDMB I must hear it and an explanation from a Mod. Sorry,
So to recap, ** Grey ** Shut your ass and give your mouth a chance.
Thanks to all who have participated. I have learned of some interesting opinions.
There is a reason: it’s in the title of the forum - “Great Debates”. That’s what you’re meant to do here. If you just want opinions, you post thre thread in “IMHO”. Read the FAQs, and you might understand why people are getting frustrated with you.
** jjimm ** - bullshit. If I wanted “Humble” opinions I would just have read the NY Times. I started a debate and there are several people on both sides of the debate - some agreeing with me, some not. I have still not heard anyting that would make me change my original assertion that the US had 9-11 coming to them.
So, once more - get a Mod. to say that what I have done / am doing is wrong, or else beat it, pup.
Thanks all.
BTW - This thread is not offering up any new ideas so I think we should close it.
Thanks all
Tarantula, I am not clear on why YOU think the US “had it coming to them”.
Even if we did - do you think that justifies what happened?
** Broomstick ** - absolutely not. There is no excuse for attacking NY. There was also no excuse for attacking Grenada, but that didn’t stop the US. Hence my statement, that in my opinion and the opinion of a lot of people on this side of the pond, that the US only got what it deserved.
The anger of the American people at the appaling loss of life on 9-11 should be reserved for the American Government that precipitated the attack.
Dude, I am not a moderator, but my advice is please to read the FAQs and the forum rules. If you make a statement in GD, you are meant to defend it and debate it. Saying you “see no reason” to debate is counterproductive and in my opinion is not in keeping with how things are done around here.
jjimm - I have sent this post to a Mod. to ask their opinion on the issue. This should all be resolved presently…
This discussion has gotten quite silly but I believe a corrective is in order here on some factual matters.
Airlines, economic positino thereof
air travel was expanding in the up to 2000 period, but as I recall already had levelled off. While surely the hit of Sep-Nov 2001 was grave, it is absurd to attribute continued stagnation to 11 Sep 2001. Absurd. As in other industries, the bubble of 98-00/01 generated severe over capacity and regardless of the 11 Sep. attacks, the airline industry would be on hard times. Of course it has taken the opp. to blame the troubles on a single event, but if you look at the underlying economics…
Rationales:
Well this is simply illiterate. Never met a radical who was disturbed by the idea of selling the resources at a fair market price. There is a connexion insofar as many (righly) believe that due to strategic and economic interests generated by some of the MENA region being oil producers, the West intervenes to prop up nasty corrupt regimes. The radicals then conclude taking the fight to the US might be the only way to end this. That’s mistaken, and further the idea that the US is the sole key to the regimes they don’t like it probably overdrawn.
Al-Qaeda. There’s no bloody u in there.
However more to the point (a) it was the Saudi government that asked, be careful not to confuse government with people, same for Qatar, same for Qatar [which does not need our money at all, it’s security] (b) we rather stayed longer than was politically prudent, for anyone © being in bed with the corrupt bastards does generate blowback (d) the US is not pulling out all forces, contra the impression. One of my dear drinking buddies in military intel here in the region is about to start a new tour in SA, after departure - the al-Qaeda people are not stupid and know very well a US presence will remain. That’s not wrong mind you, but if you follow their logic, the bombing of military and civilian supports to a regime (the Saud) they consider kafir is quite sensible.
Grow up? Amusing really, but the radicals are not children, they’re something quite dangerous. Your average Mohammed is quite tolerent in general of foreigners and the like, I can report, but the radicals really do not like foreign polluting presence.
Not really not being Muslim, it’s the power relationship.
It’s not a “bogus excuse” it is quite simply a rather bloody logic, and yes, indeed the group the Moroccan intel assoc. with the attacks indeed feels it is lawful to blow up ‘bad Muslims’ who they feel they can effectiely ‘excommunicate.’
Rather has played against them, however, these attacks. Reports in Moroccan have Moroccan youth throwing rotten fruit at marching Islamists, and the head of the Jamaat in Egypt did an interview in al-Hayat denouncing Takir wal Hijra as themselves operating outside Islam.
Well, this is a bit upside down, their (the radicals) complaint, which does not totally lack in validity, centers on Western interfence in their societies. Now the responses and answers are utterly wrong headed, but as in other areas they are also not utterly without basis.
The soothing tones of love. :rolleyes:
If you want to debate that America, not Americans, had 9-11 coming I suggest you ask a mod to lock this one and open a new one. Or maybe do a search over the past 2 years, unless of course you plan on getting over it.
I’m sure, in person, this fishing for views would’ve been better handled, but I doubt it.
Grey,
We’re all doing okay here. Let’s just stick to the point that I think America (and quite a few of the right-wing, gun toting, red-neck Americans) deserved 9-11.
It is a simple discussion of double standards - the US bombs whatever country they don’t like, and now the big 737-motherfucker chickens are coming home to roost. I can’t believe that any American ever thought it was going to work out differently.
Thanks though…
Moderator’s Note: There is no requirement that a person do a good job of making a reasoned argument (it will just make your stay in Great Debates a lot more pleasant if you do), and I don’t suppose we can require anyone to make any argument at all. Certainly lots of people will pop in to a debate thread to make a quick factual correction/nitpick. There’s nothing inherently wrong with starting a debate about a topic one is genuinely uncertain about, in hopes that others will be able to shed some light on the topic for you. It is important to be mindful of the injunction against trolling.
I would have to say that if a poster does seem to be taking a position in his or her original post, especially on a sensitive and emotionally charged issue, and then refuses to engage in debate with anyone about it, the resulting thread will, at the very least, likely generate more heat than light.
Finally,
Direct insults are definitely against the GD rules.
All - apologies for the insults.
Pity that, although bad arguments sometimes have a great deal of entertainment value.
No wonder people say I’m entertaining…
This was your point?
The problem with condoning the attacks is that left-wing, tree hugging, bark munching Americans that died in the attacks likely did not deserve to die.
Foreign policy is the result of government actions. The government is the result of the actions of people. So the populace (in a democracy) has secondary responsibility when foreign policy is enacted on their behalf. If you’re pissed off at American foreign policy you take it out on those directly responsible. Those being the military and American government representatives/bodies. You’ll note that OBL et al managed to hit at least 1 government building (possibly failed with respect to the congress/white house) while wiping out 4 civilian aircraft and 2 civilian commercial towers. It seems to me that the attacks were primarily at Americans not America. The hope being that the Americans would be scared into forcing foreign policy change through their elections.
They may want to rethink that approach.
I disagree on that one. They were very much targeting symbols of American influence, the White House, the Pentagon and the World Trade centre.