Bin Laden was responsible first for the bombings of US military sites in Saudi Arabia, and then the World Trade Center, and then US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (simultaneous), and then the 9/11 attacks on the Trade Center and the Pentagon. He claims these escalating attacks are justified because of the US presence in Saudi Arabia and the “holy places.” The Kyoto treaty and ABMs are way out of the equation here. The US knew Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, as did the ruling Taliban, which did nothing in the form of giving up information to bring this mass-murdering cretin to higher authorities, UN or otherwise. The Taliban could have prevented this war, and their subsequent fall from power. They didn’t. But what was good for the Taliban wasn’t necessarily good for Afghanistan and it may be better off in the long run. (Bin Laden may be better off, in fact, and I can’t understand why he is hiding from US troops while encouraging the young impressionables to become martyrs. Shouldn’t he be dying a horrible, very public death for a good cause?) Anyway…certain anti-American sentiment may be “justified” but in this case, I’d very much like to see Bin Laden and his extensive networks exterminated regardless of what the mainstream media says. And I’d very much like to see the naysayers, as in this thread, blame a known and powerful terrorist for the attacks on Americans rather than look for ways to excuse those actions.
Well It seems “I had it coming” if I have offended someone (I am certain i did it) my apologies, I’ll buy a slang dictionary. I meant that all evidence pointed out that something like that could happen at anytime. It shocked the world, of course the U.S. but the state department, the military etc “Had it coming” they should have taken mesaures before.
You can argue about culture, etc. but all of muslim countries DO form a comunity. What would happen if someone attacks Canada, easy you’ll intervene. The same can be said about every country, if Uruguay is threatened by anyone we would help. All of these I said before.
That is a very sensitive region, you don’t go, bomb (no matter what they did) get out and think no one will react.
Since Pancho Villa launched a small invation almost a hundred years ago, you have never been directly attacked. Therefore the shock, and the eagerness to strike back. Lucky you. Twice we we suffered terrorist attacks during the nineties and all we could do was bury our dead (more than 200 hundred). I know the feeling.
But, again, acting in anger is not what a goverment is supposed to do. That is why you should question every decission they make, and that is why we also have the right: after all we will all suffer the consequences
I’m gonna keep pounding this point until you acknowledge it: The U.S. showed a great deal of restraint before launching its current initiative. You seem to want to forget that a month was spent gathering information and working through diplomatic channels before the first bomb hit Afghanistan soil. Those are not the actions of a nation blindly lashing out in anger without fear of reprisal or concern over the opinion of other nations. I specifically recall State Department officials flying around the globe, showing the proof gathered by the U.S. to other nations, before action was taken. The U.S. wanted to make sure it wasn’t branded as “reactionary” in its determination to punish those who attacked it.
To claim otherwise is to turn a blind eye to history – or worse, to rewrite it to suit your own agenda or beliefs.
I’m gonna keep pounding this point until you acknowledge it: The U.S. showed a great deal of restraint before launching its current initiative. You seem to want to forget that a month was spent gathering information and working through diplomatic channels before the first bomb hit Afghanistan soil. Those are not the actions of a nation blindly lashing out in anger without fear of reprisal or concern over the opinion of other nations. I specifically recall State Department officials flying around the globe, showing the proof gathered by the U.S. to other nations, before action was taken. The U.S. wanted to make sure it wasn’t branded as “reactionary” in its determination to punish those who attacked it.
To claim otherwise is to turn a blind eye to history – or worse, to rewrite it to suit your own agenda or beliefs.
Mea culpa on the double post. The browser said I’d timed out, and I didn’t check the board.
Apology accepted, Estilicon . I jumped on you because most of the people who’ve been saying “the U.S. had it coming” know EXACTLY what that phrase means in American and British English, and they use it because they MEAN that. Sorry, but no country deserves to be the target of a massive organised terrorist attack.
However, I’m going to quibble a bit with the rest of your post. The United States HAS been attacked directly since Pancho Villa’s time - specifically, on December 7, 1941. Consider the response the attackers met with. The same logic you apply to the U.S. about considering the probable future reactions to any planned course of action is just as applicable to the countries in the Middle East. Past history has shown that the U.S. WILL retaliate with massive military force if it is seriously harmed (and I’m sure that you have to agree that an attack that kills thousands of people and causes major damage to infrastructure must be classified as serious harm). The Taliban KNEW that Osama Bin Laden was running a terrorist organization that had carried out several attacks on U.S. targets, and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing which his organization planned came VERY close to destroying the Trade Centers. He was obviously intent on causing serious harm to the United States. They harbored him in their country anyway. Now, if YOU were the leader of the government in Afghanistan, would you shelter this man in your country and allow him to build terrorist training facilities on your country’s soil, considering what history has shown the probable response of the U.S. will be if any of his group’s attacks cause serious damage? Face it, if the Taliban had given a shit about the welfare of the people they were SUPPOSED to be responsible for (ordinary Afghans), they would have NEVER allowed Bin Laden to operate on their soil. If your government doesn’t desire a military confrontation with the U.S. (or with Russia, or China, etc.), then your government won’t aid individuals who seek to PROMOTE such a conflict with the U.S. (or Russia, or China, etc.). Bin Laden wanted a war with the U.S. - well, now he’s got one. It’s too bad that ordinary Afghans are suffering because of it, but the responsibility for their suffering lies DIRECTLY with their so-called government, the Taliban, which betrayed their interests in favor of promoting their religious ideology.
Not even that will help. What you really need to buy, in no particular order, is:
[ul][li]English-Spanish Dictionary[/li][li]Spanish-English Dictionary[/li][li]Estilicon-Reality Dictionary[/li][li]Brain of any primate of a higher order than yours (that would be the brain of any primate)[/ul][/li]
Right. Lot’s of things can happen at anytime. That doesn’t mean that every victim of every crime deserved it. Your position, which you have yet to retreat from, is that a particular victim deserved to be subjected to a particular crime. That’s just stupid.
Horse apples. The US State Department was busy doing its Diplomacy thing, the US Department of Defense was busy doing its treaty-following and nation-defending thing. And both outfits had taken measures.
Not really. Now please explain why one Muslim country has attacked and is currently occupying another Muslim country.
Incorrect. Currently, the United States of America and Canada are both parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). If anyone attacks any member of NATO, ALL members are considered as having been attacked. You might recall, perhaps during one of your rare forays into Reality (if you have made any), that NATO envoked that very clause of the Treaty in response to the attacks on the United States last year. There is also the potential that if the US attacks Canada (say, we get find out they’ll send another Bill Shatner our way), then we won’t defend Canada.
Really now? Is that because your country is so hep on honouring treaty obligations? After all, how much help did Uruguay provide y’all when your country attacked the United Kingdom in 1982?
That’s really kind of hard to tell giving the way you parse things.
What? My Star Trek Universal Translator[sup]tm[/sup] just flashed an error message informing me it’s only designed to translate from one language to another language.
Horse apples. The Territory of Hawaii, then a part of the United States of America, was directly attacked less than 100 years ago.
More horse apples.
And, at least once, you launched a terrorist attack. You attacked a country not then at war with you and you didn’t even bother with the formalities of the Geneva/Hague Conventions regarding it.
What?
Monty, several times you have insulted me and my reaction has always been mostly well mannered. That will happen once again today. You are a disgusting little fellow. Y
Another lesson of history we do honour all the treaties we signed. We must be one of the few countries in the war that lost terrotory even after winning a war twice. We defeated both Brazil and Paraguay but in order to solve the problem once and for all we went to an “international mediaton” both times, we lost.
After Malvinas (Falklands) a similar thing happened with Chile. Another time we lost. Another interesting thing is that during the 1830 both U.S.A and U.K had signed treaties of friendship with us and latter attacked us. All of that is in the past.
The fact is Monty that war against Brazil started precisely because they invaded Uruguay. So we already did defend them. And please stop raising that war as an example of argentina’s “evilness” and therefore the total lack of validity of my arguments. You are an American and to answer you I am not raising the “not so glorious episodes” of your countries history. i.e. the war against Mexico or worst Spain, the panama revolution, pinochet, nicaragua, etc. As I said before all that is in the past. We are discussing Afghanistan. It seems no one shares my point of view, fine I agree with your disagreement.
About Pear Harbour, that was a militar base outside your continental territory. When I said “directly attack” I meant something like the attack over a city. In fact for you war until 9/11 was always a distant thing. Yes, american soldiers died, also civilians but always far away outside your territory. For me that explains a lot, perhaps I am wrong
I forgot Monty. I don’t like war. I am a pacifist, I believe 90% of the times there is another solution. For the 10% Hitler was right “Only Barbarians declare war”, it causes more casualties for both sides. A good surprise attack is always better. Besides we weren’t that crazy. Our intention was never wage war with the U.K. we miscalculated, a lot.
You’re the little shit that says the United States deserved the attack on September 11th and I’m the disgusting little fellow?
This is proof that you have no idea of what the fuck you’re talking about.
I hope you rot.
Monty, he’s not saying that. He has been pulled up for using the phrase, and has quite clearly explained that he used the wrong words, since English is not his first language. Furthermore he apologised for it. He never once used the word “deserved”, either.
By all means have a go at other inflammatory opinions of his, but in attacking that, you’re wrong.
And then -
Isn’t that what your country did in it’s attack? And the only “miscalculation” was that it started a war with the UK? And if it hadn’t, then it would have been a great idea? Apparently, you were that crazy.
I suppose any critique of your desire to take Hitler’s advice on the laws of war would invoke Godwin’s law.
In any case - the US State Department and military deserved the attack because they didn’t take measures to prevent it. In the same sense, I suppose, as any woman who was raped deserved it for not driving around in a tank. But now the US State department and the military are taking measures to prevent it happening again - and still, it is a bad thing.
I find little value in your post. Perhaps you could add more if you, Tojo, and Osama bin Laden could get together and formulate a description of what it is like to commit a sneak attack, hoping you can scare another country into surrender without fighting - and finding out just how wrong you can be.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m with Shodan here, jjimm. Esti may have said he apologizes but his postings still show he really did mean that. “English isn’t my native language” doesn’t wash with me. It’s not mine either. It’s a cop-out.
I apologized, you don’t accept that. Well Fuck you. I made a mistake, I said I was sorry. End of story. Whatever you do after that is no concern of me soldier.
I do not know what is godwin’s law. If anyone wants to explain it to me I Thank you in advance.
Then English is not your native language, in your profile it says that you are a retired uss. something officer. Your background tells me that unless in your army you are not suppose to read, talk and listen your command with english is far superior than mine.
And finally Monty I told you stop using the Malvina’s argument until at least you read a book or two about the subject. All the countries that wage a war, and loose, make some kind of miscalculation. In our case the problem was that we thought that we could have a margin of negotiation after the occupation of the Islands. We never planned to keep they Islands nby force, we planned to force the negotiation that the U.N. had ordered several years before and the U.K ignored.
You go first, Samboy…head on over to Iran or Afghanistan and start the Movement to Stop Killing Americans…
…oh, that’s right, I forgot…they’ll kill you…
Don’t you get it??? These people were DANCING IN THE STREETS as we were pulling the bodies of WOMEN AND CHILDREN out of the remains of the WTC. Somehow, I don’t think trying to start a dialogue with them will be very efficacious. There is much that the US has to answer for in regards to its position worldwide, ** BUT KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN RANDOMLY ** is not a proper answer.
I have read a few boos on the Falklands.
Oh, I don’t take orders from fools.
Books, even. I have read a few books about the Falklands issue.