The Events that led to 9/11! - Page 3

deedee · 10-06-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Nice try but wrong. If you actually READ what OBL and Al Queda said about the attack on 9/11, it was about the US presence in Saudi Arabia. Iraq and Palestine were merely thrown in to make it palatable to the rest of the Muslim world.

More to the point, your argument smacks of "blame America first." While the US operated in its own interests, that is neither unnatural for a nation-state nor is it unusual. The causes of 9/11 are complex and don't boil down to "America is evil."

Im not talking about America as a nation, I'm talking it's government. I don't think that almost 2 million dead people, which is a genocide, is thrown into it just to make it sound reasonable. Come on!

deedee · 10-06-2007, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnlocke

In fact OBL MUST be a terrorist. He is not a leader of a nation-state, has no organized (uniformed) military or militia, and his followers routinely attack non-military objectives with the specific intent of effecting political change using fear and intimidation.

Wrong, ever heard of 'Al-Qaeda'? Correct, but why don't you ask yourself why he's attacking? Certainly not out of peaceful reasons comitted against his people.

johnlocke · 10-06-2007, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deedee

Im not talking about America as a nation, I'm talking it's government. I don't think that almost 2 million dead people, which is a genocide, is thrown into it just to make it sound reasonable. Come on!

Sure you are. America is a Constitutional Republic and by implication the people are responsible for the actions of their duly elected officials.

Why don't you just admit that you're going with the "hate America first" argument and get it over with? That IS the sum and substance of your argument, whether you will admit it or not: "America is evil, therefore you deserved what you got on 9/11." There is much wrong with the US and how we engage in world events, but there is NOTHING which exculpates or ameliorates the actions of OBL and Al Queda on 9/11.

Your argument is one dimensional and ignores the fact that Saddam Hussein did have SOME responsiblity for the conditions in Iraq. It ignores the fact that OBL's message was about getting US troops out of SAUDI ARABIA. It ignores the fact that the WTC was an economic/civilian target and was not a symbol of the American government.

deedee · 10-06-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Neocons Attack "al-Qaeda" in Somalia

It is simply amazing how many times the transparently bogus �al-Qaeda� has been used as an excuse to unleash violence against largely innocent Muslims and yet so few people here in America catch on, preferring to believe the corporate media fed illusion, now hammered firmly into place and accepted as political reality.

Earlier today, we learned a �U.S. Air Force gunship has conducted a strike against suspected members of al Qaeda in Somalia,� CBS reports straight from a Pentagon script. �The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa,� apparently reason enough to kill around 200 people. �The gunship flew from its base in Dijibouti down to the southern tip of Somalia� where the al Qaeda operatives had fled after being chased out of the capital of Mogadishu by Ethiopian troops backed by the United States.�

In other words, it was a turkey shoot, and the targets were not necessarily �al-Qaeda� but rather members of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), Muslims who not long ago ruled Somalia under the Sharia, or Islamic law. CBS does not bother to mention the fact ICU was popular in Somalia, a Muslim nation.

Here in America, they are called the Somali Islamists�granted, a simplistic term, but then we here in America like our simplistic terms�and thus the Somali version of a Muslim is lumped in with all the other Islamists, including those we are told are fascist, never mind European fascist movements of the early 20th century have nothing to do with Islam, and the word �Islamofascists� is little more than a meaningless and rather crude political epithet.

Oh, coincidentally, the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips hold concession rights in Somalia. According to the Los Angeles Times, �corporate and scientific documents disclosed that the American companies are well positioned to pursue Somalia�s most promising potential oil reserves the moment the nation is pacified,� that is to say after a suitable number of Muslims are killed and a requisite dictatorship takes hold, as the rule of Mohammed Siad Barre didn�t exactly work out as planned back in the 90s.

�Somalia is of geostrategic interest to the Bush administration, and the focus of operations and policy since 2001,� writes Larry Chin. �This focus is a continuation of long-term policies of both the Clinton administration and the George H.W. Bush administrations. Somalia's resources have been eyed by Western powers since the days of the British Empire.�

�A new US cleansing of Somalian 'tyranny' would open the door for these US oil companies to map and develop the possibly huge oil potential in Somalia,� notes F. William Engdahl. "Yemen and Somalia are two flanks of the same geological configuration, which holds large potential petroleum deposits, as well as being the flanks of the oil chokepoint from the Red Sea."

source: informationliberation - Neocons Attack "al-Qaeda" in Somalia

johnlocke · 10-06-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deedee

Wrong, ever heard of 'Al-Qaeda'? Correct, but why don't you ask yourself why he's attacking? Certainly not out of peaceful reasons comitted against his people.

Really? I've never heard of a nation-state called Al Queda. So where exactly, is it?

OBL is NOT the leader of a nation-state. He is the head of a terrorist organization which is based around tenets of Islamic fundamentalism.

Terrorists attack to achieve a political end. That is the definition of terrorism:

The use of - or threatened use of - criminal violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation, rather than direct confrontation. ...
www.readycolorado.com/glossary.php

Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)).
www.asme-iti.org/RAMCAP/Terminology.cfm

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to ...
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm

Since, by international law, the declaration and prosecution of war in self defense is lawful, and terrorist acts are NOT included in that definition, they are thus criminal in nature and are neither mitigated nor exculpated by claims of "justification."

deedee · 10-06-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Sure you are. America is a Constitutional Republic and by implication the people are responsible for the actions of their duly elected officials.

Why don't you just admit that you're going with the "hate America first" argument and get it over with? That IS the sum and substance of your argument, whether you will admit it or not: "America is evil, therefore you deserved what you got on 9/11." There is much wrong with the US and how we engage in world events, but there is NOTHING which exculpates or ameliorates the actions of OBL and Al Queda on 9/11.

Your argument is one dimensional and ignores the fact that Saddam Hussein did have SOME responsiblity for the conditions in Iraq. It ignores the fact that OBL's message was about getting US troops out of SAUDI ARABIA. It ignores the fact that the WTC was an economic/civilian target and was not a symbol of the American government.

No I'm not. It's the U.S. government I hate, since they have always deceived it's people into believing them whatever they wanted, for example Bush/Cheney administration. One question for you:' Where are Saddam's WMD's?' That's only one example of manipulation done by the U.S. government. I have nothing against the American people since it's a fact that they have been lied to, and deceived into going into Iraq.

deedee · 10-06-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Really? I've never heard of a nation-state called Al Queda. So where exactly, is it?

OBL is NOT the leader of a nation-state. He is the head of a terrorist organization which is based around tenets of Islamic fundamentalism.

Terrorists attack to achieve a political end. That is the definition of terrorism:

The use of - or threatened use of - criminal violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation, rather than direct confrontation. ...
www.readycolorado.com/glossary.php

Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)).
www.asme-iti.org/RAMCAP/Terminology.cfm

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to ...
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm

Since, by international law, the declaration and prosecution of war in self defense is lawful, and terrorist acts are NOT included in that definition, they are thus criminal in nature and are neither mitigated nor exculpated by claims of "justification."

Yes a perfect description of the U.S. government. You just proved my point. Thanks!

johnlocke · 10-06-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deedee

No I'm not. It's the U.S. government I hate, since they have always deceived it's people into believing them whatever they wanted, for example Bush/Cheney administration. One question for you:' Where are Saddam's WMD's?' That's only one example of manipulation done by the U.S. government. I have nothing against the American people since it's a fact that they have been lied to, and deceived into going into Iraq.

Your argument is entirely about hating the US first. It is nothing more than a poorly disguised attempt to indirectly claim that America "got what it deserved on 9/11." That is EXACTLY what you are claiming when you attempt to justify the actions of OBL and Al Queda.

I don't support the administration. Ask anyone on this site... I have been a long time opponent to the Bush/Cheney administration, I oppose the war in Iraq, and I NEVER believed there were WMDs. Your "where are the WMDs" rhetoric is not an excuse for your "hate America first" approach. Just as there was no causal link between Iraq and 9/11, which justified the invasion, there can be be no basis for using Bush's boondoggle as a "justification" for the attack of 9/11. You are using an ex-post-facto defense for an action which has no defense, the terrorist attack of 9/11.

johnlocke · 10-06-2007, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deedee

Yes a perfect description of the U.S. government. You just proved my point. Thanks!

Nope, I did nothing of the kind. Since my response was a refutation of your claim that OBL and Al-Queda are NOT terrorists, contextually my comments prove my point and deny both your initial claim and your subsequent one (sic-that the US government is a terrorist organization).

OBL and Al-Queda ARE terrorists.
The US government is wrong, but their actions do not rise to the level of terrorism.

deedee · 10-06-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Your argument is entirely about hating the US first. It is nothing more than a poorly disguised attempt to indirectly claim that America "got what it deserved on 9/11." That is EXACTLY what you are claiming when you attempt to justify the actions of OBL and Al Queda.

I don't support the administration. Ask anyone on this site... I have been a long time opponent to the Bush/Cheney administration, I oppose the war in Iraq, and I NEVER believed there were WMDs. Your "where are the WMDs" rhetoric is not an excuse for your "hate America first" approach. Just as there was no causal link between Iraq and 9/11, which justified the invasion, there can be be no basis for using Bush's boondoggle as a "justification" for the attack of 9/11. You are using an ex-post-facto defense for an action which has no defense, the terrorist attack of 9/11.

No you are labeling me, I said 3 times that I dont blame America as a nation, but rather it's deceiving and lying government. And let me make myself clear, the American government was lying way before Bush/Cheney, that's the point I'm trying to make.