# The Top Five Lies About this War

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [October 16, 2001, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790 "2001-10-16T19:35:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/61 "2001-10-18T14:44:26Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Vinnie Virginslayer \*  
> **Agreed, but I think we can agree that the Nazis took the concept of total warfare to a new level.**

True enough. But my point was that the bombing of Dresden wasn’t really an example of total warfare but an example of overkill on the part of the Allies.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*I’m quite positive our total warfare tactics and wholesale destruction of his country contributed to Hitler’s decision to kill himself. \*\*

I doubt it. I bet it had more to do with the fact that there were a bunch of angry Russians a few minutes from his door. To be quite frank, if I had to choose between being captured by the Red Army after I ordered as many atrocities committed on Russia as Hitler did or killing myself to avoid it, I’d kill myself every time. Plus, some of the Nazi leadership killed themselves rather than go through the trials at Nuremberg.

Hitler killed himself so that he would not be brought to justice (or tortured for years on end by the Russkies). It had nothing to do with our tactics used against his country.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/62 "2001-10-18T16:17:12Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by Eternal \*  
> > Keep in mind the American public has still not been given conclusive evidence that either 1) bin Laden was behind the attack, or that 2) bin Laden was even actually in Afghanistan (I know the Taliban seems to say he is, but since everyone thinks the Taliban is a bunch of liars, we can all assume they’re just trying to cover their ass here, right?). So we’ll have to assume that the casaulties we’re inflicting are justified.
> 
> Blah, blah, blahblahblah. I keep hearing this, and it makes no more sense on repetition. Why, pray tell, would the US guvmint be going after bin Laden if _they_ didn’t have “conclusive evidence” that bin Laden was behind the attack, from 1993 through the present?[sup]1[/sup] They need a scapegoat? If that’s the motivation, the obvious person would be Saddam. Everyone already hates him, he is much easier to get at, we already had a large force ready to engage him, and Iraq has real military targets that would make much cooler explosions on CNN. Besides which, he is the bigger long-term threat.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Not that the public seems more interested in having an ethical justification than just taking some degree of brutal action, whatever its form.
> 
> Why yes, you are correct, sir. I have an orgasm every time I read the New York Times about the previous day’s attacks.
> 
> Sua
> 
> [sup]1[/sup] [sub]Once more, for the record - we have conclusive, public proof, including confessions, that bin Laden was involved in the African embassy bombings. We don’t need proof about WTC to have justification and need to go after him.[/sub] \*\*

A couple of minor points- the general consensus in Washington, from what I’ve read, is that even though Saddam is a very bad guy, any potential successor from the power structure would probably be not only much worse, but would also probably not be able to consolidate his power, leaving Iraq with fighting factions having access to Saddam’s arsenal. If this is indeed the thinking in Washington, I don’t think they would very willing to take him out just to have a scapegoat. They seem to be actively downplaying any Iraq link in the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax. Bin Laden OTOH is a real good scapegoat (I am not saying here that he was not behind the 9/11 attacks, just that if the US was looking for a scapegoat, he’d be a very good choice.)  
Second, Bin Laden’s culpability for the African Embassy bombings is a good reason to go after him for them, but no reason at all to go after him for the 9/11 attacks. If somebody else did the 9/11 attacks, we should be going after _them_. JDM

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/63 "2001-10-18T16:25:24Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Eternal \*  
> \*\*Keep in mind the American public has still not been given conclusive evidence that either 1) bin Laden was behind the attack, or that 2) bin Laden was even actually in Afghanistan (I know the Taliban seems to say he is, but since everyone thinks the Taliban is a bunch of liars, we can all assume they’re just trying to cover their ass here, right?). So we’ll have to assume that the casaulties we’re inflicting are justified.
> 
> Not that the public seems more interested in having an ethical justification than just taking some degree of brutal action, whatever its form.
> 
> Just thought I’d throw that out there.
> 
> _runs_ \*\*

This has been hammerred here, and in reputable meadia as well, but here goes:

The evidence has been presented to NATO - they were convinced of bin Laden’s guilt. The evidence has been presented to the Government of Pakistan, they were convinced.

If you start to doubt all the parties invloved, you have to start talking about a very large-scale conspiracy.

Also mentioned, many times, was the fact that not all evidence can be talked about publicly - this is to protect sources and strategies.  
“i don’t understand you americans”

Now we’re even - I can’t begin to understand you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/64 "2001-10-18T18:06:24Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Neurotik \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \*  
> > The U.S. was attacked in an incredibly violent way, causing greater loss of life than any other single battle in U.S. history.
> 
> **Absolutely not true. Well, at least the greater loss of life than any other single battle in US history part. Gettysburg had 20,000 killed on the Union, and another 20,000 killed on the Confederate side. I could bring up many others. I doubt the WTC would even come in on the top 10.**

Your numbers are incorrect, **Neurotik**. You have made the common error of thinking that a “casualty” means the combatant was “killed in action.” This is untrue. From this [site](http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/day3/getty4.asp):

> [@](#):
>
> Casualties generally included anyone who deserted, was captured, missing, wounded, or killed. In essence, if a soldier was not present during muster, he could likely be counted as a casualty.

From the same [site](http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/day3/getty4.asp), the total of those killed in action is:

Union: 3155  
Confederate: 2600-4500

Note that this includes the total killed over the course of the 3-day battle. The number killed at the WTC is certainly comparable, and occurred in a single morning. I believe it is certainly possible that WTC resulted in greater loss of life than any single day in U.S. history. (Also, whether one should include Confederate KIAs is debatable as well, I suppose. Similarly, should the WTC hijackers be included as casualties?)

Would you care to bring up your “many other” examples that demonstrate how insignificant the loss of life was at WTC?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Vinnie\_Virginslayer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/53a042/32.png) [@Vinnie\_Virginslayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vinnie_Virginslayer)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/65 "2001-10-18T18:30:17Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Neurotik \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by Vinnie Virginslayer \*  
> > **Agreed, but I think we can agree that the Nazis took the concept of total warfare to a new level.**
> 
> True enough. But my point was that the bombing of Dresden wasn’t really an example of total warfare but an example of overkill on the part of the Allies.
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*\*I’m quite positive our total warfare tactics and wholesale destruction of his country contributed to Hitler’s decision to kill himself. \*\*
> 
> I doubt it. I bet it had more to do with the fact that there were a bunch of angry Russians a few minutes from his door. To be quite frank, if I had to choose between being captured by the Red Army after I ordered as many atrocities committed on Russia as Hitler did or killing myself to avoid it, I’d kill myself every time. Plus, some of the Nazi leadership killed themselves rather than go through the trials at Nuremberg.
> 
> Hitler killed himself so that he would not be brought to justice (or tortured for years on end by the Russkies). It had nothing to do with our tactics used against his country. \*\*

What was my original point again? 😃

Dresden was an extreme example of our total warfare campaign against Germany, destroying an entire country not just military targets. The Russians benefitted from our campaign allowing them to get that close to Hitler, just as we benefited from their offensives as well.

And the leg bone connects to the thigh bone . . .

BTW, can you imagine what the Russians would have done if they caught Hitler?

You, know I’m feeling extrmely masochistic today, I’ll sum up my points about setting aside morality when fighting a war by quoting Col. Kurtz as played by Marlon Brando in “Apocalypse Now” (boy am I going to get ripped for this! 🙂 ):

- . . .we went into a camp to inoculate it. The children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us, and he was crying. He couldn’t see. We went there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile–a pile of little arms. And I remember…I…I…I cried, I wept like some grandmother.

I wanted to tear my teeth out, I didn’t know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it, I never want to forget.

And then I realized–like I was shot…like I was shot with a diamond…a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, “My God, the genius of that, the genius, the will to do that.” Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. **And then I realized they could stand that–these were not monsters, these were men, trained contras, these men who fought with their hearts, who have families, who have children, who are filled with love–that they had this strength, the strength to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, then our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral and at the same time were able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion, without judgment–without judgment. Because it’s judgment that defeats us.** \*

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/66 "2001-10-18T20:51:00Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by llamasex \*  
> We haven’t been using dimplomacy, we have made demands.  
> They have made offers to us, and we have this zero tolerance attitude where we just recite the “action not negotiation” mantra.

So… because they haven’t been practicing diplomacy the way you want, they aren’t practicing diplomacy? “If you give up ObL, we won’t attack you” _is_ diplomacy. It’s not particulary generous diplomacy, but we aren’t really in a generous mood right now. We have no obligation to allow the Taliban to dictate terms to us. If the terms they offer are not acceptable, we continue bombing.

> [@](#):
>
> They ask to see evidence (Like we would if some other country wanted one of our people) we go NO, it isn’t time for negotiation

We have given them evidence. They say the evidence we’ve given them isn’t enough. Too bad. They do not have the right to decide what is and what is not enough evidence. Now, do you have a cite that if another country were asking for extradiction, we would ask for proof?

> [@](#):
>
> They ask for him to be tried in a 3rd party country (I think this is a fair request, I think an american trial would be biased)

Have they named a country? If not, it’s useless posturing.

> [@](#):
>
> They are getting some, but it isn’t what is needed. My main problem with it is the intention behind such actions, once again we don’t car about these people, we are just using them for our own means.

So the fact that we are giving them food shows that we don’t care about them?

> [@](#):
>
> The evidence released so far has not conclusively(SP?) linked Bin Laden to the attacks on the WTC.

Haven’t you been listening? That’s what the trial is for. And we can’t have a trial until the Taliban hands him over, now can we?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/67 "2001-10-18T21:00:27Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by llamasex \*
> 
> 1. We tried to actually work out a peaceful solution. I just ran a small search the earliest I could come up with is [http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/edtb09202001.htm](http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/edtb09202001.htm)  
> which has the phrase, now mantra of the Bush admin “action not negotiation” so by sept 20, 9 days after the crash, we know who did it and have done all the dimpolmacy that is needed to be done.

Lack of negotiation is not the same as lack of diplomacy. We gave the Taliban a peaceful way of resolving this conflict. Therefore, we tried to resolve this peacefully. IT is not our fault that the Taliban refused our offer.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. We are dropping Aid to help the people. The Aid is a pure PR move, with us over here and the people over there.

The intent is obviously to help the people. There may be ulterior motives, but that does not change the fact that we are helping them with the purpose of helping them.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Bin Laden has been proven guilty. What has come out is some circumstancial evidence implying his guilt from the UK press, the white house said para"I don’t think the american public wanted or asked for proof"

Whether the government has released the proof is irrelevant to whether ObL has been proven guilty.

> [@](#):
>
> side note:  
> Extradition treaties agreed to by the United States  
> require evidence that would show the accused to have  
> violated the laws of both the United States and the  
> demanding country.

Who cares? None of those treaties apply to Afghanistan.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Blacksheepsmith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@Blacksheepsmith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blacksheepsmith)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/68 "2001-10-18T22:26:10Z")

</div>

gex gex:

So. Before September 11, Evil Man #1 Bush spent all his time just sitting around, praying someone would do something–_anything_–so he could fulfill his lifeling dream of bombing the hell out of innocent children?

Nonsense.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dryga\_Yes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@Dryga\_Yes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dryga_Yes)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/69 "2001-10-18T22:42:25Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ElwoodCuse \*  
> \*\*How to deal with anti-war protesters:
> 
> 1. Approach the protester.
> 2. Ask the protester if he feels we should use military action to stop terrorism?
> 3. Wait for him to say “no.”
> 4. Ask him why?
> 5. Wait for him to say “because we shouldn’t contribute to harming other humans with senseless violence.”
> 6. Punch him square in the face.
> 7. Wait for him to get up.
> 8. When he is ready to hit you back, remind him that he should not contribute to harming others with senseless violence.
> 9. When he agrees, hit him in the face again, as hard as you can.
> 10. Repeat this until he finally gets it. \*\*

I don’t know who said it, but I love the quote.  
“For every complex problem, there’s a solution that’s neat, simple and WRONG.”

Now, I have way too many issues with your post to list them all. However…

1. The above situation is a straw man. Not everyone who is against force against Afghanistan do it because they have a simplified world view and think that “We shouldn’t contribute to harming other humans with senseless violence.”

2. It’s also a false dilemma. In any real-world situation you have more options than a) hitting back b) absolute total passivity. Do I REALLY have to point this out? We can just infiltrate Al-qaida(sp?), we have sanctions, we can do whatever… there are more than 2 options.

3. By doing this you’re on par with the KKK on a 60’s civil rights demonstration. But that obviously doesn’t matter to you, as long as dem peaceniks bleed. BLEED!

4. Being so sure that you’re right that you’ll inflict violence against people who disagree is exactly what brought on the WTC attacks in the first place.

5. In the above situation you do not only know exactly who did it (I’m not saying OBL is innocent did it - I think he did - but that he didn’t do it alone) but also EXACTLY where he is. Let’s say your opponent runs away to hide in a large mass of people, and the only way you can get to him is by punching everyone? That’s a completely separate argument - the version you decribed is so simplified and black-and-white it’s silly. To cut-n-paste from someone who summed it up better than me:

> [@](#):
>
> You’re out, walking around (as everyone does in this hypothetical Town X), when suddenly, a sniper opens fire. Fifteen, sixteen dead, everyone frightened out of their wits. It doesn’t take long to see that the shots came from the direction of a group of buildings where a few nutters with guns live. One of the nutters is particularly famous for making weekly threats about killing the townspeople… but he’s friends with the asshole landlords who run the building, and they won’t let anyone in to have a word with this guy (who denies any wrongdoing, but enjoys the bloodbath immensely). And this guy’s got some of the tenants on his side, too. So… what do you do? Destroy the buildings, and punish everyone living in them, regardless of what they’ve done? Swoop in and try and capture the guy, and have to contend with the asshole landlords and the tenants who like him? They ain’t gonna give him up, no matter what evidence you bring, you know. What if someone who likes this guy decides to grab a rifle and try their luck at popping pedestrians? Now, there’s a good amount of circumstantial evidence that this guy’s the one, but what if it’s all just… circumstantial? Townspeople are out for blood, and they might not agree with this ‘insufficient evidence’ ruling. You can clear off the streets, force people to stay in their homes and live like rats, but that doesn’t change the fact that there’s a guy out there with a gun. Maybe you could do nothing, claim that ‘non-violence is the best answer’. So the gunman gets bored and starts shooting again, and you’ve solved nothing except maybe your annoying neighbor got whacked this time around. So what do you do?

It’s not as clear cut what should be done anymore, eh?

You may think it’s clear that we should bomb the houses. Others think otherwise. Don’t go around insulting everyone with belief X 'cause you don’t agree. It makes you look like an \*\*\*\*\*\*\* (We’re in GD, not in the BBQ pit.) The only ones who want Americans beating each other up are the Taliban.

I DON’T side with most of the peace protestors. I definitely don’t side with you. One thing you can do instead of beating people up because they disagree with you is to BEWARE OF SIMPLE SOLUTIONS. There’s a reason they’re simple, and that’s because they’re often wrong.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\
**Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/70 "2001-10-18T23:07:44Z")

</div>

I think there is a simpler response to ElwoodCuse’s post. The argument he gives sounds great a first. Then think that the logic it supports is a good reason we were attacked in the first place, and the reason we probably will be attacked again. If you believe in the “hitting back an attacker is good” argument, you have to believe that our enemy hitting us back is also good. The argument goes both ways.

So if retaliation is a good thing(or even just violence to stop more violence) we’re right to attack Afghanistan. The same logic says they are equally right to attack us back. The same logic says that then we should hit them back, and then they should hit us back, etc, etc.

Hmm… Suddenly this doesn’t sound like such a great argument anymore. Actually, it sounds to me like a little fantasy of beating up peaceful people under the guise of teaching them a lesson. It’s actually is pretty sick, in my opinion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElwoodCuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/edb3f5/32.png) [@ElwoodCuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElwoodCuse)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/71 "2001-10-19T02:11:33Z")

</div>

Jeez, I thought it was pretty obvious that I wasn’t at all serious with that “how to deal with protesters” bit. Mellow out.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/72 "2001-10-19T04:58:30Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> 1. It’s also a false dilemma. In any real-world situation you have more options than a) hitting back b) absolute total passivity. Do I REALLY have to point this out? We can just infiltrate Al-qaida(sp?), we have sanctions, we can do whatever… there are more than 2 options.

Oh, please. First of all, sanctions don’t always work (look at Cuba and Iraq, for example), secondly, we’ve already _had_ sanctions in place against Afghanistan for a couple of years now, fat lot of good they’ve done. Bin Laden’s operatives all tend to come from very close-knit families and the individuals involved have known one another for years. Infiltrating a group like that is _exceedingly_ difficult and takes years upon years to do. In the meantime, Bin Laden’s free to go on another killing rampage.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Being so sure that you’re right that you’ll inflict violence against people who disagree is exactly what brought on the WTC attacks in the first place.

No, Bin Laden being a power hungry demigog is what brought on the WTC attacks. The US, for all its faults, has always been ran by rational people. Rational people can be dealt with, can be negotiated with. You may not get exactly what you want, when you want it, but you’ll be able to modify the situation more to your liking. Bin Laden doesn’t want to negotiate, Bin Laden wants to be the ruler of the Arab world, and he sees us as the stumbling block to that goal.

> [@](#):
>
> 1. In the above situation you do not only know exactly who did it (I’m not saying OBL is innocent did it - I think he did - but that he didn’t do it alone) but also EXACTLY where he is. Let’s say your opponent runs away to hide in a large mass of people, and the only way you can get to him is by punching everyone?

Your analogy is false. In general, if a large group of people know that there is someone dangerous in their midst, they’ll help you find that person. The Taliban are not going to simply allow FBI agents to walk around Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden. The Taliban are going to do everything in their power to aid Bin Laden, and that means killing anyone who sets foot in their country with the goal of bringing him to trial.

Non-violent solutions work when the people you’re dealing with a rational human beings. When they are power-mad fanatics, there’s no point in trying to reason with them. All you’re doing is wasting your breathing and giving them time to plot against you. Its that simple.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/73 "2001-10-19T14:03:06Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ElwoodCuse \*  
> \*\*Jeez, I thought it was pretty obvious that I wasn’t at all serious with that “how to deal with protesters” bit. Mellow out. \*\*

But, **Elwood** humor invariably involves the infliction of pain on another. Thus humour=violence, and we must stomp … oops, sorry, that word has violent implications. We must bring humor to a peaceful end.

Sua

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/74 "2001-10-19T18:01:25Z")

</div>

first… a retraction

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by me_
> 
> i don’t get you americans…

this is the kind of generalisation i intensely dislike and i try to avoid it whenever possible. i shouldn’t have said this; i have nothing against americans whatsoever. i meant that i dislike the policies, actions and seeming hypocrisy of the u.s. government, and the support it is getting from the american people.

> [@](#):
>
> _posted by mr miskatonic_
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by gex gex \*
> > 
> > i don’t get you americans. you speak all this shit about democracy when all you really seem to want to do is erect a big scoreboard in nyc displaying:
> > 
> > america: 7000  
> > afghanistan: only 6800 to go!  
> > (extras: 4 un workers, a couple of red cross workers… of little importance really)
> 
> I see you are using the Taliban’s figures for civilian casualties. Good source there, fromthe people who told you that Osama didn’t do it, then said Osama wasn’t here, then said Osama couldn’t be found…

i’m using the best figures i have available to me; those of the country where the deaths occured. i’m using u.s figures for u.s deaths and afghan figures for afghan deaths. while the taliban may not have given accurate figures, i had no better figures to go on. and given the extent of the u.s bombing, i would not be surprised if those figures were reasonable. regardless, the exact figures weren’t important. i was making a comment on my perception of america’s mentality, not on the numbers killed.

> [@](#):
>
> _posted by mr miskatonic_
> 
> I love this “if you had been better before 9/11, none of this would have happened.” I understand that people tell battered wives the same thing.

i don’t even see how i could begin to rebuke this. america is not a battered wife, there is incredibly little similarity. america’s foreign policy, and i’m not talking about ‘it’s support for israel’ (as muslim extremists seem fond of saying), but it’s foreign policy in general; everything from refusing to sign the kyoto treaty, to it’s abandoning of the nuclear arms non-proliferation treaty to the finer points of middle eastern policy. the entire attitude of ‘we’re king of the world, we’re going to do whatever we want and we don’t care how it affects anyone else’. i don’t support or condone the september 11 attacks; nor did america’s ‘misdemeanours’ deserve this consequence. but to claim america an innocent, to claim that there was no reason for the attacks is wrong.

in addition, i think it’s a bit rich for the american government to speak so strongly against terrorism after nicaragua, el salvador, chile etc. (hey… who were those guys that helped install general pinochet as leader of chile? displacing a demcoratically elected government in doing so?)

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by rickjay_
> 
> Americans don’t want to “Even the score.” They want bin Laden stopped before he does it again. Which he unquestionably will.

george w bush says: “there is a desire by the American people to not seek only revenge, but to win a war…”

([http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010915-4.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010915-4.html))

while not straight out saying ‘we want to take other lives to compensate for the american ones lost’, on this board i’ve seen overwhelming numbers of people speaking in favour of ‘revenge’, ‘nuking the arabs’, ‘filling them with pork and sending them to hell’. i’ll look up threads if i have to, but i’m sure i’m not the only one who’s seen these threads.

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by rickjay_
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > oh, and apparently, i’m not allowed to be against something unless i apply for the job of u.s president and actually change something. well, sorry, i don’t know what to do, but i know the u.s certainly shouldn’t be stomping around pretending it’s the saviour of the free world.
> 
> I didn’t notice the USA claiming they were doing this to be “Saviour” of the free world.

i did…

george w bush: "Recently, a four-year-old son of a cargo specialist said good-bye to his Dad here at Travis. And according to his Mom, the boy has been telling the neighbors that “Daddy is saving the world.”

```
 The boy is right. The boy is right. The future of the world is at stake. Freedom is at stake. But I want to tell that boy his Daddy has got plenty of help. There are a lot of people like his Daddy fighting this war. We fight it overseas and we fight it at home, as well."

```

([http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011017-20.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011017-20.html))

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by rickjay_
> 
> bin Laden is accused of murder in the United States; it makes no sense to try him elsewhere

doesn’t bin laden have the right to a trial by an impartial jury? i doubt you’ll find one of them in the u.s. hence, it would be fairer and probably more effective to try him in an international court.

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by rickjay_
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > bush saw an oppurtunity and he took it. he didn’t have to engineer the whole thing for it to be a factor in his politics.
> 
> What politics? The country was attacked. Its government has a duty to defend its citizenry from attack.

what politics? read my post: the politics i was talking about. it being useful for america to have a stable government in afghanistan.

> [@](#):
>
> Bush is doing his job at a most basic and fundamental level. If the government of the United States DOESN’T act to stop bin Laden, then just why the hell does it even exist?

the govt of the u.s should act to stop bin laden. it doesn’t need to murder innocent afghan civillians to do it.

the u.s didn’t seem to feel this strongly about the taliban’s human rights injustices until the taliban started stepping on the u.s toes (you can treat your people however you want until we start feeling the effects?)

> [@](#):
>
> This is the standard “Sept. 11 was the Americans’ fault” line, and it’s stupid.

no it’s not. it’s the ‘the americans aren’t entirely blameless’ line. no, it isn’t their fault, but the us govt’s actions have helped to create anti-u.s feeling amongst other nations. i’ve already spoken about this.

> [@](#):
>
> Bush’s foreign policy obviously had nothing to do with the attack, since the attack and other like it were likely planned well in advance of Bush becoming President.

cite?

> [@](#):
>
> Do you really, honestly think this would not have happened if Al Gore were President?

yes.

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by blackclaw_
> 
> The Afghanis know all about war and death. They don’t need our explanations for it.

so, because the afghanis are familiar with death, it means that when they are killed it matters less than when americans are killed?

> [@](#):
>
> It’s easy to be critical of something. It’s just frustrating when someone is critical of the only option available.

it isn’t the only option available. with almost the entire world on the side of the u.s., diplomatic pressures would eventually force the taliban to cave in. instead, there’s now an unwinnable ‘war on terrorism’ going on in a hostile country causing (undoubtedly) the death of more americans, british troops, australian troops, plus any other countries that have sent military support. i don’t want to see another vietnam. this isn’t just the most morally corrupt solution to the problem, it could well turn out to be the most inefficient and devestating.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > bush saw an oppurtunity and he took it. he didn’t have to engineer the whole thing for it to be a factor in his politics.
> 
> And this “opportunity” helps us Americans how?

i was talking about oil! a stable government in afghanistan allows oil to be pumped through there. u.s gets oil without having to deal with iraq and saddam and the middle east! that’s how it helps americans!

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > i shall just go exhume joseph mccarthy and his un-american activities committee for you. i didn’t know that freedom of speech was so un-american these days. actually, i should have guessed.
> 
> Strange, despite your protestations that free speech isn’t allowed, I can see and read your post.

i honestly do not know what you are talking about. my post was about lemur866’s assertion that a ‘rant’ of a ‘leftist’ political view (the OP), speaking against war in afghanistan was somehow ‘anti-american’. all i could assume was that lemur866 felt that these liberal-minded people expressing their view was somehow anti-american. it had tones of mccarthyism about it. if he meant something else, feel free to correct me.

> [@](#):
>
> Or are you just upset because others are free to point out your arguements are biased and unthought out?

not at all. i enjoy the exchange of views. as to your assertion that my arguments are ‘biased’: i doubt there are many arguments in this forum that are not ‘biased’. since bias is allowing a point of view to influence your writing, then by definition, taking a stance on an issue is bias. yes, my argument is biased; i am arguing in favour of peace in afghanistan. your argument is also biased. your arguing against peace in afghanistan. of course my argument is biased, but then again, every single argument in this thread, and probably this board, is biased.

and no, my argument is not ‘unthought out’. i have rebutted every single one of your points. it is seemingly very well thought out.

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by blacksheepsmith_
> 
> So. Before September 11, Evil Man #1 Bush spent all his time just sitting around, praying someone would do something–anything–so he could fulfill his lifeling dream of bombing the hell out of innocent children?
> 
> Nonsense.

of course he didn’t. he probably was hoping for a government in afghanistan that would enable oil pipelines to be put throught there. when evil man #1 bin laden comes along and blows up his buildings, dub-ya thinks ‘i’m going to get this bastard… and while i’m at it, i could really do with some oil as well. why not kill two birds with one stone, then’\*

\*paraphrased version of george dub-ya’s thought process.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/75 "2001-10-19T18:39:28Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by gex gex \*  
> Bush’s foreign policy obviously had nothing to do with the attack, since the attack and other like it were likely planned well in advance of Bush becoming President.

cite?  
[/QUOTE]

Oh for god’s sake, **gex gex**. In your obsessive reading of articles and websites to find evidence of Bush’s evil intent, you didn’t run across anything about the pilot training programs in which some of the hijackers enrolled?

Either you are the most selective reader ever, or you are trolling. I’m leaning towards #2.

Sua

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/76 "2001-10-19T20:39:06Z")

</div>

I will start with the two most cited arguments by leftists from China to Brazil, thanks for raising them again **gex gex**. Not relevant, but I like to rehash them over and over.

Was it good that the U.S. opposed Soviet expansionism, particularly Joeseph Stalin and the Warsaw Pact, or was all anti-commusist action McCarthyism? If you disagree with someone, how is them trying to convince you to agree McCarthyism? I seem to remember hearing about subpoenas and hearings.

Did _your_ country ratify the Kyoto Treaty?

> [@](#):
>
> the govt of the u.s should act to stop bin laden. it doesn’t need to murder innocent afghan civillians to do it.

Since “murder” requires criminal intent, please show one example of murder in the present campaign (not counting those perpetrated by OBL or the Taliban).

> [@](#):
>
> the us govt’s actions have helped to create anti-u.s feeling amongst other nations. i’ve already spoken about this.

Perhaps you could explain why OBL justifies everything he does through religion and refers to us as Infidel and Kafir? How will changing our foreign policy remove us from Kafir status in his mind?

> [@](#):
>
> . with almost the entire world on the side of the u.s., diplomatic pressures would eventually force the taliban to cave in.

How? What can the international community do it already has not, save military action? I guess we could stop humanitarian food aid. (I am not talking about the recent drops, I speak of the tens of millions we give Afghanistan through the UN) Why do I just know you would oppose that also?

> [@](#):
>
> i am arguing in favour of peace in afghanistan.

Is the brutally repressive Taliban regime, which bans women’s ankles, CDs, and executes people for the free exercise of religion, peaceful?

> [@](#):
>
> there’s now an unwinnable ‘war on terrorism’ going on in a hostile country causing (undoubtedly) the death of more americans,

Since practically the entire world except Winston Churchill thought WWII was unwinnable for the English, and WWII led to millions of casualties, the English should have put Hitler on trial and sanctioned him, correct?

> [@](#):
>
> doesn’t bin laden have the right to a trial by an impartial jury?

Without quoting Taliban sources, how do you propose this?

Are you related to Susan Sontag?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/77 "2001-10-19T20:52:14Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by gex gex \*  
> **i don’t support or condone the september 11 attacks; nor did america’s ‘misdemeanours’ deserve this consequence. but to claim america an innocent, to claim that there was no reason for the attacks is wrong.**

So you’re saying on one hand that you don’t condone the attacks, but you’re saying on the other hand that there was a REASON for the attacks.

Well, of course there was a reason. There’s a reason for everything. There’s a reason Jeffrey Dahmer carved young boys up and ate them; so what? Everything has a reason, but not everything has an excuse, and the 9/11 attacks have no excuse, no matter what U.S. foreign policy is. Either the attacks were justified or they were not. If you think they were justified, say so. But don’t say they weren’t and then imply they were.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*\*Americans don’t want to “Even the score.” They want bin Laden stopped before he does it again. Which he unquestionably will.
> 
> george w bush says: “there is a desire by the American people to not seek only revenge, but to win a war…”\*\*

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the terms “Revenge” and “Evening the score,” but they are not synonymous in the way you implied. To suggest that Americans want to seek revenge by killing 7,000 Afghan civilians - and that is what you said, so don’t start denying it now - is ludicrous. Every American I know wants revenge on Osama bin Laden, not Joe Q. Afghanpublic.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*while not straight out saying ‘we want to take other lives to compensate for the american ones lost’, on this board i’ve seen overwhelming numbers of people speaking in favour of ‘revenge’, ‘nuking the arabs’, ‘filling them with pork and sending them to hell’. \*\*

Sorry, but I don’t believe it. I’ve seen some hyperbole, and there’s always a nut here and there, but the overwhelming attitude of the American people is that they want action that will ensure security, not the wholesale slaughter of innocents. You know that’s true, so why are you being dishonest about it?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*bin Laden is accused of murder in the United States; it makes no sense to try him elsewhere

doesn’t bin laden have the right to a trial by an impartial jury? i doubt you’ll find one of them in the u.s. hence, it would be fairer and probably more effective to try him in an international court.\*\*  
[/QUOTE]

What the heck are you talking about? I mean seriously, what planet are you referring to? NO country, ever, anywhere, willingly allows criminals to be tried for domestic crimes in other countries. The U.S. is perfectly within its rights to try bin Laden in the United States, and I’m sure you could find twelve people who would be willing to give an honest look at the evidence. If it was an obvious setup job and he really didn’t seem to be behind it, I think you’d be surprised at how quick a jury would heave it out. Americans are not all drooling Neanderthals.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > What politics? The country was attacked. Its government has a duty to defend its citizenry from attack.
> 
> what politics? read my post: the politics i was talking about. it being useful for america to have a stable government in afghanistan.\*\*

It was useful last year, too, but they did not attack then. It was useful in 1999, 1998, 1997; no attacks. Hell, it’s useful for the U.S. to have a stable government everywhere in the world, and yet they don’t attack every tinpot backwater with civil strife. There’s been ample justification before and yet they did not attack. And then, NOW, they attack. Do you think it’s just a coincidence that the U.S. happened to do this after a catastrophic assault on American civilians?

Your argument fails the test of Occam’s Razor; it defies the obvious and simple explanation in favour of the convoluted and the twisted. The really, really simple and logical explanation here is that the U.S. is responding to an unprovoked attack. Your explanation is comparatively hard to explain and defies logic in more than one way. So which should I believe?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Bush is doing his job at a most basic and fundamental level. If the government of the United States DOESN’T act to stop bin Laden, then just why the hell does it even exist?
> 
> the govt of the u.s should act to stop bin laden. it doesn’t need to murder innocent afghan civillians to do it.\*\*

IF you can devise a practical and realistic way to get bin Laden and his henchmen without using military force, I challenge you to present it. If you have devised a way to use force without risk to civilians, you should patent it and let us know what it is.

> [@](#):
>
> **the u.s didn’t seem to feel this strongly about the taliban’s human rights injustices until the taliban started stepping on the u.s toes (you can treat your people however you want until we start feeling the effects?)**

Well… of course not. The U.S. government should be more concerned about U.S. citizens than about other citizens, shouldn’t it? Isn’t that their job? Doesn’t the French government concern itself with the welfare of French citizens? Doesn’t the Australian government place the well-being of Australian citizens over the citizens of other countries? Of course they do.

You’re demonstrating the validity of Jones’s Eleventh Law: No matter what, no matter where, the United States will be blamed for everything. When asked why the U.S. should not do something about the attacks you blithely comment that they didn’t seem to care about the problems of the common Afghani - a non sequitur, but let’s run with it. If the U.S. HAD previously taken action against Afghanistan - sanctions, diplomacy, whatever - how do you think you’d react? My guess is you’d blame them for it, because earlier in this very post you accused them of trying to be the world’s saviour. If they do nothing, you blame them for that, but when they do something, you blame them for that. What reasonable course of action could they take you wouldn’t dislike? I don’t believe there is one.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> This is the standard “Sept. 11 was the Americans’ fault” line, and it’s stupid.

\*\*

no it’s not. it’s the ‘the americans aren’t entirely blameless’ line. no, it isn’t their fault, but the us govt’s actions have helped to create anti-u.s feeling amongst other nations. i’ve already spoken about this.  
[/QUOTE]

cf. Jones’s Eleventh Law. And you’re contradicting yourself; you’re saying it’s not their fault, and then saying they aren’t ENTIRELY blameless. Well, in English, “Not entirely blameless” means “blame,” and “Blame” and “Fault” go hand in hand, my friend.

Let me be quite clear; they’re blameless. They aren’t blameless for a variety of other foreign policy misdeeds, but they’re blameless for Sept. 11. There’s no conceivable rationaliation for what happened; it was not a rational, justifiable or proportional response of any kind. It was EXACTLY equivalent to me hitting you with an axe because I learned that you had been mean to your mother; I had no right to do what I did, you had no right to be injured that way, and there wasn’t even a logical connection. Well, Osama bin Laden and his minions had no right to do what they did, the people they murdered had no right to be murdered, and there’s not a shred of logical connection between U.S. foreign policy and what happened. What the holy hell do Osama bin Laden and the poor people who died on Sept. 11 have to do with Chile in 1973? **Nothing.**

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Do you really, honestly think this would not have happened if Al Gore were President?
> 
> yes.\*\*

I am stunned by the awesome sweep of such ignorance. What, might I ask, would Gore have done differently that would have magically turned Osama bin Laden into a friend of the United States? Curious that bin Laden because so enraged at the USA while Gore’s mentor was President, isn’t it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/78 "2001-10-19T20:56:09Z")

</div>

Is OBL really angry about the 1973 coup in Chile, the assasination of Allende, El Salvador, etc, or are you just trying to be a non-capitalizing Noam Chomsky?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 2001, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/79 "2001-10-19T21:35:00Z")

</div>

Dryga\_Yes:  
I think that the suggetions are aimed at people who oppose all violence, not those that disagree with the exact manner in which violence is being applied. The point is that to stop violence, sometimes one must respond with violence. To categorically oppose violence is silly.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Avumede \*  
> If you believe in the “hitting back an attacker is good” argument, you have to believe that our enemy hitting us back is also good. The argument goes both ways.

No, I don’t “have to” believe that or any other of the illogical ideas put forth. Hitting back the terrorists is good because their actions were not justified, and therefore deserve retaliation. Them hitting us back is not good because our actions are justified. The “anything we do everyone should be able to do” argument is ridiculous. According to that logic, the Nazis were justified in bombing Britain because Britain was bombing them.

gex gex

> [@](#):
>
> america is not a battered wife, there is incredibly little similarity. america’s foreign policy, and i’m not talking about ‘it’s support for israel’ (as muslim extremists seem fond of saying), but it’s foreign policy in general; everything from refusing to sign the kyoto treaty, to it’s abandoning of the nuclear arms non-proliferation treaty to the finer points of middle eastern policy. the entire attitude of ‘we’re king of the world, we’re going to do whatever we want and we don’t care how it affects anyone else’. i don’t support or condone the september 11 attacks; nor did america’s ‘misdemeanours’ deserve this consequence. but to claim america an innocent, to claim that there was no reason for the attacks is wrong.

America is attacked.  
People try to make America feel guilty for being attacked.

You don’t see any similarity to a battered wife?

And BTW, it’s “its”, not “it’s”.

> [@](#):
>
> doesn’t bin laden have the right to a trial by an impartial jury?

No. Why would he?

> [@](#):
>
> i doubt you’ll find one of them in the u.s. hence, it would be fairer and probably more effective to try him in an international court.

Why does ObL get special treatment? No one else charged in a crime in the US gets shipped off to another country.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\
**Post date:** [October 20, 2001, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790/80 "2001-10-20T04:58:24Z")

</div>

**SuaSponte**

> [@](#):
>
> We don’t need proof about WTC to have justification and need to go after him.

I certainly hope that there is concrete proof, and that this isn’t being publicly aired because of danger to informants. Otherwise, the US is bombing Afghanistan over the bombing of two embassies which occurred in 1993, and over which it has already deployed cruise missile attacks. Retribution for those incidents have already taken place.

“Going after him” is a different concept to bombing Afghan cities for somthing which happened 9 years ago.

The US _does_ need proof of complicity in the WTC attacks to attack Afghanistan for the purpose of killing or capturing bin Laden.

To an extent its a moot point. I for one believe such proof exists. Pakistan would not be helping out otherwise. And setting aside the issue of bin Laden entirely, the Taleban government is so vile that attacking it because of its existence is justifiable, IMHO. But you confuse, dangerously, the concept of seeking a terrorist criminal with the concept of bombing another country. You need some evidence to justify the first: you need conclusive evidence to justify the second.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-top-five-lies-about-this-war/87790.md?page=5)