PDA

View Full Version : Actress Says USA is "Responsible" for 9-11 Attacks



Unassisted
04-26-2005, 04:14 PM
This has stirred up quite a reaction. The fan site maggie-gyllenhaal.net has reportedly been swamped by angry firefighters posting messages for her to read.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=705647


Maggie Gyllenhaal Tackles 9/11 Policies

Actress Maggie Gyllenhaal Says U.S. 'Responsible in Some Way' for Sept. 11 Attacks

The Associated Press

Apr. 26, 2005 - Maggie Gyllenhaal has waded into sensitive political waters by raising questions about Sept. 11 and American foreign policy.

The 27-year-old actress, who stars in a new film about the 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center, said in an interview last week that the United States "is responsible in some way" for the attacks.

A fan Web site devoted to Gyllenhaal was overwhelmed with criticism, forcing the site's editor to remove the ability to post messages "because it's gotten too outta hand."

In a statement issued Monday by her publicist, Gyllenhaal said Sept. 11 was "an occasion to be brave enough to ask some serious questions about America's role in the world. Because it is always useful as individuals or nations to ask how we may have knowingly or unknowingly contributed to this conflict.

"Not to have the courage to ask these questions of ourselves is to betray the victims of 9/11."

She also expressed her grief for "everyone who suffered and everyone who died in the catastrophe."

Gyllenhall stars in "The Great New Wonderful," which features stories about people living in New York in the aftermath of the terror attacks. The movie is being shown at the Tribeca Film Festival, which was founded by Robert De Niro to help revitalize downtown Manhattan after Sept. 11.

Her screen credits also include "Secretary," "Mona Lisa Smile" and "Donnie Darko." She is the older sister of actor Jake Gyllenhaal. She lives in Manhattan.

Redsfaithful
04-26-2005, 04:18 PM
God people are stupid. And no I don't mean Gyllenhaal.

Blimpie
04-26-2005, 04:20 PM
Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. Right about now, shouldn't you be bent over a desk as punishment for your excessive typos?
http://theothea.com.free.fr/screta2.jpg

RedFanAlways1966
04-26-2005, 04:33 PM
I am sure this person is a scholar and a renowned expert on world affairs. I am sure her library is full of informative books. I am sure that actors are required to study world affairs in college in order to graduate. If acting does not workout, she might become the 4th Dixie Chick.

I am sure of this...

Jaycint
04-26-2005, 04:34 PM
I don't see where she really said anything that inflammatory. To me what she was saying is we should maybe examine the reasons why people would be angry enough to want to do something like this to us. I didn't see her say anything ridiculous along the lines of "we deserved it" or something as stupid as that.

Redsfaithful
04-26-2005, 04:34 PM
I am sure that many experts and world renowned scholars agree with her.

But I'm also sure that they're all too biased for you. Just like everyone who holds a different opinion from you RFA.

I am sure of this ...

Johnny Footstool
04-26-2005, 04:36 PM
People are hyper-sensitive about certain topics and can't discuss them rationally without getting emotional. Hitler, race issues, and the World Trade Center attacks are among these.

I think Maggie Gyllenhaal just found this out.

It's unfortunate, because we should be able to look at ourselves and our policies and realize that we're not perfect. Even though the Bush Administration would have us believe the terrorists simply "hate us because we're free," there might actually be other reasons.

RedsBaron
04-26-2005, 04:41 PM
God people are stupid. And no I don't mean Gyllenhaal.
"God people"? :confused:

RedFanAlways1966
04-26-2005, 04:41 PM
But I'm also sure that they're all too biased for you. Just like everyone who holds a different opinion from you RFA.

I am sure of this ...

If the shoe fits, wear it!! :)

Danny Serafini
04-26-2005, 04:42 PM
Seems like a smart move to me. I've never heard of Maggie Gyllenhaal or her new movie before. Now I have, and so have a bunch of other people. Or maybe it's just the cynic in me thinking this way.

Redsfaithful
04-26-2005, 04:43 PM
"God people"? :confused:

Yes, I forgot a comma. Thanks for pointing it out, you're very helpful.

RedFanAlways1966
04-26-2005, 04:53 PM
Seems like a smart move to me. I've never heard of Maggie Gyllenhaal or her new movie before. Now I have, and so have a bunch of other people. Or maybe it's just the cynic in me thinking this way.

A good point. Hey, it worked for Michael Moore!

RedsBaron
04-26-2005, 04:54 PM
Yes, I forgot a comma. Thanks for pointing it out, you're very helpful.
I really didn't understand. I thought does he mean "Good people" and it's just a typo, or does he mean "God people"-but neither fit. I really didn't understand.

RedsBaron
04-26-2005, 04:57 PM
Her wording perhaps could have been better, in that I wouldn't have used the words "contributed" to the attacks on 9/11, but her comments don't really upset me. We should try to learn as much as possible as to why some peoples in the world hate America. This doesn't necessarily mean they are right and we are wrong, or that the attacks were in any way justified, but learning about the causes of others opposition is useful IMO.

Jaycint
04-26-2005, 04:59 PM
Her wording perhaps could have been better, in that I wouldn't have used the words "contributed" to the attacks on 9/11, but her comments don't really upset me. We should try to learn as much as possible as to why some peoples in the world hate America. This doesn't necessarily mean they are right and we are wrong, or that the attacks were in any way justified, but learning about the causes of others opposition is useful IMO.

Very well put, that's exactly what I was trying to say in my first post but fell woefully short of. :)

KittyDuran
04-26-2005, 05:00 PM
Seems like a smart move to me. I've never heard of Maggie Gyllenhaal or her new movie before. Now I have, and so have a bunch of other people. Or maybe it's just the cynic in me thinking this way. That's what I thought too... Who is she? Now I know [and SO WHAT...] :p:

RosieRed
04-26-2005, 05:05 PM
Donnie Darko and Secretary ... two good movies right there.

Count me in as one who doesn't see a problem with what she said.

Blimpie
04-26-2005, 05:06 PM
God people are stupid. And no I don't mean Gyllenhaal.I am just curious, but just exactly who are the "people" that you are referring to? Firefighters? 9-11 victims' families?

I suspect that you are referring to the "people" who bombarded her website with their opinions. If these people aren't supposed to voice their opinions on such a volatile matter, why the hell are you giving the a pass to the mensa actress who started it all?

Redsfaithful
04-26-2005, 05:13 PM
I suspect that you are referring to the "people" who bombarded her website with their opinions. If these people aren't supposed to voice their opinions on such a volatile matter, why the hell are you giving the a pass to the mensa actress who started it all?

They're free to post their opinions. I'm free to think their jingoistic opinions are stupid. We're talking about foreign policy on a fourth grade level here, people who aren't capable of thinking beyond "America - Good, everyone else - bad".

SunDeck
04-26-2005, 05:19 PM
Overheard in a bar:

"Yeah, I remember "the Secretary". I'll have a gin and tonic."

Jaycint
04-26-2005, 05:24 PM
They're free to post their opinions. I'm free to think their jingoistic opinions are stupid. We're talking about foreign policy on a fourth grade level here, people who aren't capable of thinking beyond "America - Good, everyone else - bad".

It's ironic to me that people that tend to post things like this never seem to realize that they are just as jingoistic from their side of the political fence. Replace "America - Good, everyone else - bad" with "America can do no right, everyone else can do no wrong." and you have the argument from the opposite camp.

westofyou
04-26-2005, 05:30 PM
America is seen as the James Steerforth of the world by many.

No surprise there.

Redsfaithful
04-26-2005, 05:30 PM
"America can do no right, everyone else can do no wrong." and you have the argument from the opposite camp.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have that kind of mentality at all. I love my country dearly and think it's a terrific place with amazing opportunities available. Just because I recognize that it screws up pretty often doesn't mean I don't see the good things.

The people descending on Gyllenhaal's message board only see the good. They're like the kid in school who gets into a fight because someone said something about their mother. It's pathetic.

ochre
04-26-2005, 05:35 PM
The problem I see is that anyone who questions what is going on is seen as "anti-American". Our National identity is such that those questioning ought to be praised for their willingness to step back and take a look from a different perspective in spite of the negative affect the expression of their point of view might create.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2005, 05:38 PM
To me it's about consistency. I look at the rest of the world and its actions with a cold, dubious eye. Why wouldn't I do the same with my own backyard? No one likes to hear it, but humans (notice I didn't say Iraqis or Americans) are pretty awful animals (they torture, deplete, molest, rape, need I go on?), no matter where they stem from. Everyone should be tested for ulterior motives, selfish motives. Always, and at all times. Call me a Hobbesian, but to me, humans are pretty dreadful beasts, with a scant few rising above the muck. Examine, pick apart.

ochre
04-26-2005, 05:43 PM
Call me a Hobbesian,
http://www.suncircle.org/images/hobbes.gif

Jaycint
04-26-2005, 06:09 PM
The people descending on Gyllenhaal's message board only see the good. They're like the kid in school who gets into a fight because someone said something about their mother. It's pathetic.


I obviously have no way of knowing this but I would say that probably a lot of the people that made posts to her site may have been personally affected by 9-11 whether it was losing a friend or family member, etc etc. I believe the original post made mention of firefighters being one of the key segments of people who were lashing out. Like Johnny Footstool said, some people are hyper-sensitive about certain topics and firefighters and relatives of victims I would think certainly fall into that category.

Myself, not having lost anyone in the tragedy of that day and not being a member of the brotherhood of firefighters, I can look at her comments and not really be offended at all. I see what she is saying and I agree. I believe we should look at ourselves as a nation and question our policies and decisions that affect the world beyond our borders.

RFS62
04-26-2005, 06:17 PM
Her wording perhaps could have been better, in that I wouldn't have used the words "contributed" to the attacks on 9/11, but her comments don't really upset me. We should try to learn as much as possible as to why some peoples in the world hate America. This doesn't necessarily mean they are right and we are wrong, or that the attacks were in any way justified, but learning about the causes of others opposition is useful IMO.


Well said.

And I know plenty of people who were there who wouldn't be upset with her comments, myself included.

redsrule2500
04-26-2005, 06:55 PM
My care factor is at 0.

Mutaman
04-26-2005, 07:58 PM
After 9/11 an apartment overlooking ground zero was rented at taxpayer expense , as a place for workers to rest and take a break from their cleanup efforts. It recently came out that former Chief of Police and partner of Rudy, Bernie Kerik, was using the apartment to screw his mistress. It was also divulged that the same mistress, Judith Regan, published a book about 9/11
for which Bernie accepted thousands of dollars in royalties for his 11 sentence foreword. The book was published to raise money for the families of heroes killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

I found it a bit surprising that the Rushcrowd did not rise up as one and condemn Bernie, but instead they were strangly silent over these outrages. But let an actor (who is also a New Yorker) make an innocuous staement regarding 9/11 and they all go nuts. Is this a great country or what?

Jaycint
04-26-2005, 08:24 PM
I found it a bit surprising that the Rushcrowd did not rise up as one and condemn Bernie, but instead they were strangly silent over these outrages. But let an actor (who is also a New Yorker) make an innocuous staement regarding 9/11 and they all go nuts. Is this a great country or what?

Why do you think that everybody who posted to her site is part of the "Rushcrowd"? Was that in the article? Did I miss it?

I hadn't heard the story about Kerik but if it's true then I find it reprehensible.

WVRed
04-26-2005, 08:55 PM
The lesson that partisans dont want you to learn is that your voice matters.

Yachtzee
04-26-2005, 09:43 PM
To be fair to the people who flooded her message board, it appears that her statement last week was that the US was "responsible in some way" for the 9/11 attacks, whereas the statement released by her publicist, with the much more measured "knowingly or unknowingly contributed to," was only released yesterday. While I would agree that the statements she released on Monday express a reasonable well-thought out point of discussion, I could see how some might view the assignment of responsibility she allegedly made last week as a bit inflammatory.

Of course, the article that was posted only gives us the "responsible in some way" statement outside of any real context. Without the context of her original statement, it's difficult to tell whether she was expressing a well thought-out opinion or just spouting off and her publicist is now trying to cover her behind. Does anyone have a link to the text of the original interview?

RedsBaron
04-26-2005, 09:50 PM
To be fair to the people who flooded her message board, it appears that her statement last week was that the US was "responsible in some way" for the 9/11 attacks, whereas the statement released by her publicist, with the much more measured "knowingly or unknowingly contributed to," was only released yesterday. While I would agree that the statements she released on Monday express a reasonable well-thought out point of discussion, I could see how some might view the assignment of responsibility she allegedly made last week as a bit inflammatory.

Of course, the article that was posted only gives us the "responsible in some way" statement outside of any real context. Without the context of her original statement, it's difficult to tell whether she was expressing a well thought-out opinion or just spouting off and her publicist is now trying to cover her behind. Does anyone have a link to the text of the original interview?
Good points.

Mutaman
04-26-2005, 09:58 PM
Why do you think that everybody who posted to her site is part of the "Rushcrowd"? Was that in the article? Did I miss it?

I hadn't heard the story about Kerik but if it's true then I find it reprehensible.

Google this story on the internet. Its all over the usual reactionary blogs, written by people who wouldn't know Ground Zero from Enid Oaklahoma.

Jaycint
04-26-2005, 10:20 PM
Google this story on the internet. Its all over the usual reactionary blogs, written by people who wouldn't know Ground Zero from Enid Oaklahoma.

Why wouldn't they know ground zero from enid oklahoma? Please explain. Is that your honest opinion or just a blast at the boogeyman known as the "Rushcrowd"? Is anybody that is slightly right of center in this secretive society? I certainly wouldn't classify everybody left of center as being in the "Moveon.org" crowd, seems a little drastic for you to so often refer to everybody with a conservative point of view as being some sort of Rush disciple.

By the way, Here (http://nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/302977p-259389c.html) is the article with her actual quote, a lot more inflammatory than the cleaned up version we got from her publicist.


"Because I think America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way and so I think the delicacy with which it's dealt allows that to sort of creep in," she added.

I can see where people that were directly affected by the 9-11 attack in the form of losing a loved one would be very upset by the comments she made, they are too close to the situation to be able to look at it objectively. As I've said before, I don't think the message of examining our foreign policy and why other countries dislike us so much is a bad one, the wording used could have certainly been better though.

Mutaman
04-26-2005, 10:32 PM
I can see where people that were directly affected by the 9-11 attack in the form of losing a loved one would be very upset by the comments she made, they are too close to the situation to be able to look at it objectively. As I've said before, I don't think the message of examining our foreign policy and why other countries dislike us so much is a bad one, the wording used could have certainly been better though.

I lost friends on 9/11 and was significantly effected both emotionally and economically. (My office was not far from WTC). I think its a disgrace that the guy responsible for 9/11 is still on the loose and capturing him has not been a priority. I can't stand the fact that many people have used 9/11 to profit both politically and economically. ( How many times was "9/11" mentioned during the republican convention? How many times was Osama's name mentioned?). On the other hand, while I may disagree that American policies were to some extent responsible for the acts of 9/11, the fact that somebody feels that way doesn't bother me in the slightest. And I bet most new Yorkers feel the same way I do.

Jaycint
04-26-2005, 10:54 PM
How many times was "9/11" mentioned during the republican convention? How many times was Osama's name mentioned?).

If I remember correctly Al Gore hit on Osama and Al-Qaeda in his DNC speech. Look both parties are guilty of playing the Osama card. The Republicans say they are trying with all their might to capture Osama. The Dems say the Republicans could care less about catching him. The Republicans say the Democrats can't protect us from terrorism. The Democrats say the Republicans are fighting the wrong war altogether by invading Iraq when they should have concentrated on Afghanistan. And on and on and on. I personally don't think either side's Party line is very credible. There is very definite greed and pure political motivation on both sides. Let's not act like it's a one sided affair in that respect.

Mutaman
04-26-2005, 11:26 PM
If I remember correctly Al Gore hit on Osama and Al-Qaeda in his DNC speech. Look both parties are guilty of playing the Osama card. The Republicans say they are trying with all their might to capture Osama. The Dems say the Republicans could care less about catching him. The Republicans say the Democrats can't protect us from terrorism. The Democrats say the Republicans are fighting the wrong war altogether by invading Iraq when they should have concentrated on Afghanistan. And on and on and on. I personally don't think either side's Party line is very credible. There is very definite greed and pure political motivation on both sides. Let's not act like it's a one sided affair in that respect.

You miss my point. Osama's name wasn't mentioned once at the republican convention even though 9/11 was brought up every other sentence. What Republican says they are "trying with all their might" to capture OBL? They have totally forgotten about the guy. The last time the president talked about
him , a long time ago, he said that he doesn't care about Osama and he doesn't think about him. Although Bush came to New York after 9/11 and said He would get those responsible, by invading Iraq, he totally renigged on that promise and caused a major distraction from the real war on terror.

redsrule2500
04-26-2005, 11:29 PM
Why does anyone care what she thinks? She is one person!

Just becuase she has been in a movie or TV show does NOT mean her opinion counts for ANYTHING. I'm sure there are many more people that believe this way, but I still just dont freaking care. It's stupid to take this opinion to heart simply because she has been in front of a camera - who cares?!! This stupid opinion probably did exactly what it intended to do - grab attention. So just please give the attention ***** what she doesn't want - nobody to care about what she says.

RedFanAlways1966
04-27-2005, 01:13 PM
Although Bush came to New York after 9/11 and said He would get those responsible, by invading Iraq, he totally renigged on that promise and caused a major distraction from the real war on terror.

Got proof of that, NYC resident? Do share. Think the U.S. (excuse me, I mean Bush) is making no effort to capture or kill Osama? Tell us about it and share factual proof of that. So I can understand... once Iraq was bombed, all efforts to capture Osama were shelved? That is what I read above. You made the statement, now prove it.

Or perhaps you are shooting from the hip? :eek:

registerthis
04-27-2005, 01:18 PM
The problem I see is that anyone who questions what is going on is seen as "anti-American". Our National identity is such that those questioning ought to be praised for their willingness to step back and take a look from a different perspective in spite of the negative affect the expression of their point of view might create.
:beerme:

Bravo...this is right on target.

registerthis
04-27-2005, 01:21 PM
Got proof of that, NYC resident? Do share. Think the U.S. (excuse me, I mean Bush) is making no effort to capture or kill Osama? Tell us about it and share factual proof of that. So I can understand... once Iraq was bombed, all efforts to capture Osama were shelved? That is what I read above. You made the statement, now prove it.

Or perhaps you are shooting from the hip? :eek:
The proof is in the pudding.

Had we gone after Osama with the same fervor we went after Saddam Hussein, there is no doubt in my mind he would have been captured or killed by now.

The man who orchestrated the attack that killed 3,000+ Americans remains at large, roaming around the Middle east somewhere. The man who posed little-to-no threat against America, but controlled a significant portion of the world's oil reserves and took a shot at Bush Sr., was apprehended after only a matter of months.

RedFanAlways1966
04-27-2005, 02:49 PM
The proof is in the pudding.

Had we gone after Osama with the same fervor we went after Saddam Hussein, there is no doubt in my mind he would have been captured or killed by now.

The man who orchestrated the attack that killed 3,000+ Americans remains at large, roaming around the Middle east somewhere. The man who posed little-to-no threat against America, but controlled a significant portion of the world's oil reserves and took a shot at Bush Sr., was apprehended after only a matter of months.

You are free of course to believe or think as you please. Ever studied the geography of the parts that Osama is believed to be? Not exactly like Kansas. I would love to see you tell paragraph #2 to the military leaders of our country. You make it seem so simplistic. But that is easy to say from the comforts of your computer chair.

Do you know anything about the capture of Saddam? Did we locate him or was he turned in by an Iraqi who wanted to cash in on the reward?

Ah... so simplistic to capture individuals in this small world and flat terrain of Pakistan. And if 100's of GIs die going after this one man? Then what do you say about our country's leaders? No need to answer.... I already know how the reaction would go.

I never realized how simplistic these matters tend to be.

Johnny Footstool
04-27-2005, 02:57 PM
Ah... so simplistic to capture individuals in this small world and flat terrain of Pakistan.

You're right, RFA66. It's extremely difficult. However, it might have been easier if we had, oh, I don't know...concentrated our military might in Pakistan instead of attacking Iraq.

But at least we stopped Hussein from using those stockpiles of WMDs he had aimed at America, right?


And if 100's of GIs die going after this one man?

How many died going after Hussein? What was our justification for going after him?

RedFanAlways1966
04-27-2005, 03:32 PM
To say that we invaded Iraq only to capture Saddam is much too simplistic. If only it was that simple. Perhaps to get the Baath Party out of control might a be a better way to state it. I believe that happened soon after the bombs started falling from U.S. planes. Had Saddam hid in caves in Pakistan, he probably would still be there. Not sure how much damage can be done from inside a cave. I wonder if the Kurds and those living south of Baghdad (the vast majority of Iraqis, I guess) think the Baath Party were terrorists? I wonder if the Baath Party blatantly violated UN sanctions? I wonder if 9-11 made these violations and those in cahrge in Iraq appear more terroristic in their actions? I do not mean to sound so simplistic. But I do not read my fav blogs for my information.

Johnny Footstool
04-27-2005, 04:43 PM
To say that we invaded Iraq only to capture Saddam is much too simplistic. If only it was that simple.

The issue is that Bush *made it out* to be simple by declaring that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs, and we had to invade to protect American interests. He misled us. I'm not surprised that you won't even acknowledge that.


I wonder if the Kurds and those living south of Baghdad (the vast majority of Iraqis, I guess) think the Baath Party were terrorists? I wonder if the Baath Party blatantly violated UN sanctions? I wonder if 9-11 made these violations and those in cahrge in Iraq appear more terroristic in their actions?

After-the-fact rationalizations the Bush administration and America's favorite right-wing talking heads came up with after it became clear there were no WMDs. Diversion is a great tactic when you know you're wrong.

And I'm still wondering about your take on diverting our military strength from the hunt for Bin Laden and focusing on Iraq. After all the talk of bringing Bin Laden to justice and protecting America, why did it suddenly become more important to inforce UN sanctions and protect Iraqi Kurds?

paintmered
04-27-2005, 04:49 PM
So in summary -

Right: Bush was right and should do it again if he has to.

Left: Bush is wrong and misled us. Shame on him.

westofyou
04-27-2005, 04:50 PM
wrong thread

RosieRed
04-27-2005, 07:22 PM
Why does anyone care what she thinks? She is one person!

Just becuase she has been in a movie or TV show does NOT mean her opinion counts for ANYTHING. I'm sure there are many more people that believe this way, but I still just dont freaking care. It's stupid to take this opinion to heart simply because she has been in front of a camera - who cares?!! This stupid opinion probably did exactly what it intended to do - grab attention. So just please give the attention ***** what she doesn't want - nobody to care about what she says.

"Attention *****"? Wow.

The movie she is in, by the way, is about life in New York after 9-11. I'm sure the media has asked her, and other cast members, many questions about 9-11. Is she not supposed to respond at all?

GAC
04-27-2005, 08:48 PM
She has every right to express her opinion. That's what this country is all about. I could care less what this young actress has to say on the issue. But she just needs to understand, and be prepared for, any retaliation from some segments of our society who are still trying to heal from this tragic event that we as a nation are not that far removed from. Especially firefighters who lost "brothers" on that fateful day.

That's like someone saying that America, or it's government, is responsible for Columbine or the Oklahoma City bombing.

And it probably bothers some, who may also be rolling their eyes at her comments, because it's also coming out of Hollywood whose views are far removed from a majority of Americans. But they have media access where they can get their views out and get exposure.

I'd like to know what formed her views on 9-11? It wouldn't have anything to do with those who produced this movie on 9-11 would it? We know how objective Hollywood is. ;)

Mutaman
04-27-2005, 11:05 PM
Got proof of that, NYC resident? Do share. Think the U.S. (excuse me, I mean Bush) is making no effort to capture or kill Osama? Tell us about it and share factual proof of that. So I can understand... once Iraq was bombed, all efforts to capture Osama were shelved? That is what I read above. You made the statement, now prove it.

Or perhaps you are shooting from the hip? :eek:


Proof of what? Theres only two options- if capturing OBL and destroying al-Quida was and still is a priority, then the oil men who run this country are pretty incompetent because we're no closer to doing that then we were on 9/11. The guy is a 6'5" arab with serious kidney problems. How hard is he to find? The only other option is that its not a priority. When we invaded Iraq, many in the State Department went on record as being opposed for the sole reason that they felt it was a distraction from the real war on terror. Time has proven them right.

Mutaman
04-27-2005, 11:08 PM
[QUOTE=RedFanAlways1966 But that is easy to say from the comforts of your computer chair.

.[/QUOTE]

How comfortable is your chair. If you love the oil so much why aren't you over there fighting for it.

paintmered
04-27-2005, 11:13 PM
How comfortable is your chair. If you love the oil so much why aren't you over there fighting for it.

Mutaman,

It is statements like these that got the rules changed before you arrived. Stop baiting the other side.

Take this as a warning (this includes everyone who has posted in this thread)

Redsfaithful
04-28-2005, 12:15 AM
That's like someone saying that America, or it's government, is responsible for Columbine or the Oklahoma City bombing.

I'd love to know what argument could be made that the American government was responsible for Columbine or Oklahoma City? Honestly, I'm curious.

DunnersGrl44
04-28-2005, 02:46 AM
I'd love to know what argument could be made that the American government was responsible for Columbine or Oklahoma City? Honestly, I'm curious.
No Joke... you can also add Eminem and Marilyn Manson along with the American Government for the problems in this country. People of the world need to stop passing the blame.

RFS62
04-28-2005, 06:14 AM
The guy is a 6'5" arab with serious kidney problems. How hard is he to find?


Mutaman, you seem like a pretty smart guy. But that is the most simplistic and naive statement I've seen in a long time on this issue.

registerthis
04-28-2005, 09:11 AM
You are free of course to believe or think as you please. Ever studied the geography of the parts that Osama is believed to be? Not exactly like Kansas. I would love to see you tell paragraph #2 to the military leaders of our country. You make it seem so simplistic. But that is easy to say from the comforts of your computer chair.
Of course it's easy to say, and when you're the world's foremost military power with nearly infinite resources available to you, finding such a high profile individual as Osama shouldn't be that difficult either. In case you didn't realize it, we had cornered Osama before--only we didn't want to go in and finish the job, and we left it up to the Afghan forces. Osama probably couldn't believe his luck.


Do you know anything about the capture of Saddam? Did we locate him or was he turned in by an Iraqi who wanted to cash in on the reward?
We HAD located Osama, we just didn't want to finish the job. Regarding Hussein, we pursued all leads vigorously, put a bounty on him and worked all possible sources of intelligence to locate him. I'm not suggesting U.S. forces go around knocking caves to locate Osama, but if the same fervor that went into locating Hussein went into locating Osama, as I said before, he wouldn't be roaming around righ tnow.


Ah... so simplistic to capture individuals in this small world and flat terrain of Pakistan. And if 100's of GIs die going after this one man? Then what do you say about our country's leaders? No need to answer.... I already know how the reaction would go.
And what of the 1,500+ Americans who have died "liberating" Iraq from Hussein? The Bush administration doesn't seem to have any qualms about having thousands of people die going after Hussein and non-existent WMDs.


I never realized how simplistic these matters tend to be.
It's not too difficult--put the necessary amount of troops and intelligence in place, work every possible lead or connection, and you'd be amazed at what you can find...

registerthis
04-28-2005, 09:16 AM
She has every right to express her opinion. That's what this country is all about. I could care less what this young actress has to say on the issue. But she just needs to understand, and be prepared for, any retaliation from some segments of our society who are still trying to heal from this tragic event that we as a nation are not that far removed from. Especially firefighters who lost "brothers" on that fateful day.

That's like someone saying that America, or it's government, is responsible for Columbine or the Oklahoma City bombing.

And it probably bothers some, who may also be rolling their eyes at her comments, because it's also coming out of Hollywood whose views are far removed from a majority of Americans. But they have media access where they can get their views out and get exposure.

I'd like to know what formed her views on 9-11? It wouldn't have anything to do with those who produced this movie on 9-11 would it? We know how objective Hollywood is. ;)
But, GAC, it's not unreasonable at all to ask what provoked the terrorists into committing their acts. regardless if many people are still "healing", we weren't attacked because, as Bush ridiculously put it, "they hate our freedoms."

there are very real and tangent reasons why 20 Muslim men flew hijacked airliners into buildings, killing thousands of people. Determingin these reasons doesn't condone the attacks, or lend them any validity, but it is a crucial question to ask. MIGHT there be some part of our foreign policy which drives people to act like this? MIGHT there be something about our behavior in the world that leads to these types of events? What are they and what can we do to change them?

You're right that we have every right to voice opinions on this matter, but it's dead wrong to attack her simply because her comments are misconstrued to mean that we "deserved it" or "had it coming", as it seems many of her critics are trying to do.

GAC
04-28-2005, 09:56 AM
But, GAC, it's not unreasonable at all to ask what provoked the terrorists into committing their acts. regardless if many people are still "healing", we weren't attacked because, as Bush ridiculously put it, "they hate our freedoms."

Provoked? I guess that is a good choice of words. It doesn't take much to provoke a terrorist who will kill their own people (woman and children) to achieve their warped objectives. I think they attacked us, just like they have been doing since the 1980's, for numerous reasons, and their hatred for our freedoms, and what that represents within our society as a whole, is just one of them. They see all western influence and it's culture as the "Great Satan" with it's corrupting and defiling influence over Islam. And they look at their own Arab leaders as cohorts with the west in that "prostitution" of their core ideology. They hate the fact that we, as a free nation, try to promote those freedoms and human civil rights throughout the world, and in various ways. And it's not just America that promotes this; but we are the "big dog" on the block and are seen as more of a threat to them.

And these radical fundamental terrorists, who in no way represent the Muslim/Arab peoples as a whole, see that as a threat on what they have been trying to teach/establish in the Middle East.

And it's not just the U.S. that they have been attacking. Ask the citizens of Spain, France, and various other parts of Europe and around the world. Is America responsibile for those cowardly and dastardly acts too?

Even Bin Laden, back in the early 1990's and in a series of speeches vehemntly promoted the above, and that in order to be able to overthrow the various Arab regimes/monarchies they oppose, they must first drive the "infidels" and their western influences out. And the way you do that is through terrorism and "body bags" until the Americans, whom Bin Laden characterizes as lacking true heart and spirit, get discouraged and retreat with their tails between their legs. And we basically did that for over the last decade. How many terrorists, since the 1st WTC bombing, and through the numerous attacks on us and our allies throughout the 1990's, culminating in 9-11, did we kill, capture or go after? Show me where we made any serious effort.

So I guess in that sense, which I have always agreed with, we "invited" 9-11. Not because we deserved it, but because we didn't take the threat as serious as we should have.



there are very real and tangent reasons why 20 Muslim men flew hijacked airliners into buildings, killing thousands of people. Determingin these reasons doesn't condone the attacks, or lend them any validity, but it is a crucial question to ask. MIGHT there be some part of our foreign policy which drives people to act like this? MIGHT there be something about our behavior in the world that leads to these types of events? What are they and what can we do to change them?

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone asking these questions. It's sad that a 9-11 even had to occur before the people of this country open their eyes and determine to take actions to defend themselves against such a threat. But what I don't like, and what I have seen a majority of the time, is partisan finger pointing trying to lay all the blame on one individual (i.e Bush) or his administration, and strickly for political/ideological gain. It's not about conservative or liberal- Democrat or Repub. The circumstances that lead to 9-11 had been building up like a powder keg for quite some time.

Our governmemt as a whole has failed us, and been failing us, while the politicians in D.C. for years kept selling us this concept of how we are safe and secure, and that it couldn't happen here. Well it did, and 9-11, if anything positive can come out of it, showed us our weaknesses in many areas.


You're right that we have every right to voice opinions on this matter, but it's dead wrong to attack her simply because her comments are misconstrued to mean that we "deserved it" or "had it coming", as it seems many of her critics are trying to do.

I never attacked her did I? ;) But in an interview last week she did say that the United States "is responsible in some way" for the attacks. And if she is gonna make that statement, which is not asking a question by the way, then she needs to back it up with some sort of tangible proof, or else it is seen as a wreckless comment.

registerthis
04-28-2005, 10:46 AM
Provoked? I guess that is a good choice of words. It doesn't take much to provoke a terrorist who will kill their own people (woman and children) to achieve their warped objectives. I think they attacked us, just like they have been doing since the 1980's, for numerous reasons, and their hatred for our freedoms, and what that represents within our society as a whole, is just one of them. They see all western influence and it's culture as the "Great Satan" with it's corrupting and defiling influence over Islam. And they look at their own Arab leaders as cohorts with the west in that "prostitution" of their core ideology. They hate the fact that we, as a free nation, try to promote those freedoms and human civil rights throughout the world, and in various ways. And it's not just America that promotes this; but we are the "big dog" on the block and are seen as more of a threat to them.
I disagree with most of this paragraph, but I highlighted that one line for a reason. I think the biggest reason for anti-u.S. sentiment in the region is our dealings with the corrupt Arab regimes currently in place--regimes that suppress human rights, torture and kill, and rule their nations with corruption and fear. The "Arab Street" sees most of these leaders as ones whom the United States put into place and continues to support, mainly in the name of retaining our oil interests in the region. They see U.S. fighter planes and weapons used against Palestinians by the Israelis. They see U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. They see our troops swarming through two countrie sin that region, and threatening two others. They see a blantantly one-sided policy of supporting Israel against the Palestinians.

They see all of these things, and it continually provokes anger. It's not our 'freedoms" they hate--they aren't attacking Sweden, or Canada--but the way we conduct ourselves in the world. Does this mean there aren't crazy religious idealogues who want to turn the world into a repressive Muslim state? Of course not, and they should absolutely be stopped. No one is arguing otherwise. But it's dangerous and naive to look at anti-American resentment and dismiss it all as mere jealousy or general hatred of western ideaologies.


And these radical fundamental terrorists, who in no way represent the Muslim/Arab peoples as a whole, see that as a threat on what they have been trying to teach/establish in the Middle East.
If only that were true. the truth is the U.S. has done anything BUT help establish freedom and democracy in the region. In nations throughout the Middle East--from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, to even Hussein in iraq--we worked to install and maintain leaders in these nations that dealt favorably with us on issues of oil and other strategic policies. Our motivations in that region are anything BUT humanitarian. Continuing to think of the U.S. as this kind, benevolent nation that was just trying to provide liberty and freedom to the people of the Middle East when suddenly we were attacked without provocation, will never help solve the dilemna of what caused 9/11, and will do nothing to prevent it in the future.

A majority of the fanatical terrorists don't hate us because of the freedoms WE enjoy, it's our continued support of corrupt and repressive regimes in that region.


And it's not just the U.S. that they have been attacking. Ask the citizens of Spain, France, and various other parts of Europe and around the world. Is America responsibile for those cowardly and dastardly acts too?
I'm not saying there aren't legitimate whackos out there with perverted, corrupted views on religion and culture, who would like to bring everyone back to the stone age. But i think a good number of the terrorists adhereing to those beliefs could be stopped if our efforts were focused on legitimate humanitarian, rather than military, causes. People (with rare exception) from prosperoius nations don't go around wearing suicide belts and hijacking airliners. Those are actions of desperate people. As far as attacks in Spain, France and elsewhere--I do think those nation's assistance with the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere led them to be higher targets, yes. Al Qaeda isn't targeting Switzerland.


Even Bin Laden, back in the early 1990's and in a series of speeches vehemntly promoted the above, and that in order to be able to overthrow the various Arab regimes/monarchies they oppose, they must first drive the "infidels" and their western influences out. And the way you do that is through terrorism and "body bags" until the Americans, whom Bin Laden characterizes as lacking true heart and spirit, get discouraged and retreat with their tails between their legs. And we basically did that for over the last decade. How many terrorists, since the 1st WTC bombing, and through the numerous attacks on us and our allies throughout the 1990's, culminating in 9-11, did we kill, capture or go after? Show me where we made any serious effort.
And this is exactly why I FULLY supported going after Bin Laden. Despite the fact that for a majority of the 1980s we funded his militia and provided him arms--he's clearly a fanatical individual. But, the important thing to remember is, EVERY culture has fanatical individuals. The U.S. churns them out--Kaczinsky, McVeigh, Nathan Hale, etc. The difference is, the social climate in the U.S. is not one which lends itself to fanaticism, and thus the movements of the aformentioned individuals do not enjoy widespread support. In the Middle east, which is rife with poverty and lacking education, people such as Bin laden and Zarqawi have a much easier time recruiting individuals into their respective camps.

people like Bin laden need to be caught and stopped, I certainly don't argue about that. But Bin Laden is a symptom, not the cause, of the problem.


So I guess in that sense, which I have always agreed with, we "invited" 9-11. Not because we deserved it, but because we didn't take the threat as serious as we should have.
So, in your opinion, U.S. foreign policy and behaviors had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks or subsequent rise in anti-Americanism? Do you honestly believe that?


I have no problem whatsoever with anyone asking these questions. It's sad that a 9-11 even had to occur before the people of this country open their eyes and determine to take actions to defend themselves against such a threat. But what I don't like, and what I have seen a majority of the time, is partisan finger pointing trying to lay all the blame on one individual (i.e Bush) or his administration, and strickly for political/ideological gain. It's not about conservative or liberal- Democrat or Repub. The circumstances that lead to 9-11 had been building up like a powder keg for quite some time.
Indeed they have, and like I mentioned previously, it is a long history of u.S. involvement in that region which led to it. I agree that the "prevention" of another 9/11 is key, but that prevention should involve a complete re-evaluation of our foreign policy and diplomatic efforts in that region, and world wide. Tens of thousands of Arab protesters don't storm the street sof Ramallah burning U.S. flags because they hate the fact that we're free. It's that type of htinking that led to 9/11 in the first place. Without a serious discussion of what is driving rising anti-Americanism throughout that region, and once we can get past the idiotic buzzwords and simplistic statements put forth by the government about this, then we stand a chance at making some inroads in that region.

We say that we want a free and democratic iraq, but I doubt if that is really true. A truly free Iraq that votes in its own government and policies may be quite hostile to the U.S., as would be the case across many Arab nations.


Our governmemt as a whole has failed us, and been failing us, while the politicians in D.C. for years kept selling us this concept of how we are safe and secure, and that it couldn't happen here. Well it did, and 9-11, if anything positive can come out of it, showed us our weaknesses in many areas.
But in 3 1/2 years since the attack, (an attack which, I might add, SHOULD have engendered widespread support and encouragement for the U.S.) anti-Americanism is at an all-time high in that region. We say that we're learning from our mistakes, but all we have learned is how to more discreetly probe into people's personal lives and to construct jersey barriers in front of government buildings. The true lessons of 9/11, I am afraid, have escaped us.


I never attacked her did I? ;) But in an interview last week she did say that the United States "is responsible in some way" for the attacks. And if she is gonna make that statement, which is not asking a question by the way, then she needs to back it up with some sort of tangible proof, or else it is seen as a wreckless comment.
First, my comment wasn't directed AT you specifically, but mainly the people calling her "anti-American" and unpatriotic for her comments.

As far as proof, one need only study the political and social dynamics of the Middle East to understand the undercurrent of anger and resentment currently there. There have been numerous books and papers put forth on this subject, which provides Ms. Gylenhall with all of the evidence she needs to make her statements.

Mutaman
04-28-2005, 11:36 AM
Mutaman, you seem like a pretty smart guy. But that is the most simplistic and naive statement I've seen in a long time on this issue.

And I don't have enough respect for oil either. Black gold.

Redsfaithful
04-28-2005, 12:26 PM
How many terrorists, since the 1st WTC bombing, and through the numerous attacks on us and our allies throughout the 1990's, culminating in 9-11, did we kill, capture or go after?

I've shown you this on multiple occassions and it's a worthless endeavor. You just shrug off any evidence that the Clinton administration was tough on terrorism because it doesn't fit into your world view.

ochre
04-28-2005, 12:44 PM
The animosity toward the west expressed by many Moslims stems from a few key issues. Most of these issues revolve around the zionist movement and the efforts of the British to use the Bedouins as a counter to the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Lawrence of Arabia essentially promised the Arabs of the region that they would have their own sovereign state should they support the allies in defeating the Ottoman Empire and Germany.

This was all fine and good, except that back home in England Lord Balfour was concurrently promising (in writing) parts of the same region to other people. Notably zionists looking to re-establish a Jewish state centered around what is now Isreal.

An interesting back-story that contributes some mindset to this is that the Middle East had been a center for learning and enlightment, providing Europe and the west with innovations that were either entirely new, or had been lost to the dark ages. The inhabitants of the Middle East had seen this enlightenment as their divine mandate, as they had taken that role (mathematics, science, and medicine especially) essentially since the time of Mohammed. Their place in the world was drastically altered by the industrial revolution in Europe and North America. Their region was no longer an academic and cultural center. They had effectively lost their divine mandate.

The situation is fairly complex. Their are fringe personalities in all societies. The fringe personalities in the Moslim world are more extreme largely because of they have lost their position of influence within the world. A considerable portion of their essence revolved around them having God's blessing, with that blessing being evident by their advanced role in the world which they maintained until 100-200 years ago.

The fact that Americas culture seems to overwhelm everything it comes in contact with is just salt in the wound. It pushs the fringe personalities over the edge.

Blimpie
04-28-2005, 04:05 PM
Proof of what? Theres only two options- if capturing OBL and destroying al-Quida was and still is a priority, then the oil men who run this country are pretty incompetent because we're no closer to doing that then we were on 9/11. The guy is a 6'5" arab with serious kidney problems. How hard is he to find? The only other option is that its not a priority. When we invaded Iraq, many in the State Department went on record as being opposed for the sole reason that they felt it was a distraction from the real war on terror. Time has proven them right.You may want to ask Pat Tillman's family that question.

Johnny Footstool
04-28-2005, 04:10 PM
You may want to ask Pat Tillman's family that question.

You could also ask them (and the families of all the other soldiers out there) if they would have preferred 200,000 more US troops hunting for Bin Laden.

Blimpie
04-28-2005, 04:30 PM
You could also ask them (and the families of all the other soldiers out there) if they would have preferred 200,000 more US troops hunting for Bin Laden.My response was based on Mutaman's claim that it should be a piece of cake to find UBL because he is tall and occasionally on dialysis. Things are not that cut and dry.

While you are using that same silly logic, why not just say that locals should be lining up to claim the +/- $25 million bounty on his head because "That's a lot of money." Finding UBL is not a smash and grab job. I agree they need more personnel, but not the numbers you are referring to in your post (200,000?). What the U.S. forces need is more cooperation from their Pakistani sources, more manpower devoted to intel/translations and more special forces who can assimilate into the Arabic culture of the region.

ochre
04-28-2005, 04:33 PM
that region is not arabic.

Tillman was killed by friendly fire by the way.

registerthis
04-28-2005, 04:33 PM
My response was based on Mutaman's claim that it should be a piece of cake to find UBL because he is tall and occasionally on dialysis. Things are not that cut and dry.

While you are using that same silly logic, why not just say that locals should be lining up to claim the +/- $25 million bounty on his head because "That's a lot of money." Finding UBL is not a smash and grab job. I agree they need more personnel, but not the numbers you are referring to in your post (200,000?). What the U.S. forces need is more cooperation from their Pakistani sources, more manpower devoted to intel/translations and more special forces who can assimilate into the Arabic culture of the region.
Agreed--more effort is needed on a lot of fronts.

Blimpie
04-28-2005, 04:47 PM
that region is not arabic.Sorry--during my little diatribe, I meant to say Muslim.


Tillman was killed by friendly fire by the wayI am sure most people are aware of this; however, it doesn't change my point(s):

1) Finding UBL should not be easy because "He's tall"

2) Adding 200,000 U.S. troops to an unfamiliar region isn't going to do anything to expedite his capture

Johnny Footstool
04-28-2005, 05:24 PM
2) Adding 200,000 U.S. troops to an unfamiliar region isn't going to do anything to expedite his capture

Why wouldn't a massive show of force expedite his capture? You agreed that they need "more manpower devoted to intel/translations and more special forces who can assimilate into the Arabic culture of the region." Did you think I meant 200,000 footsoldiers straight out of boot camp?

I think a larger army would undeniably lead to a quicker capture. It would certainly beat the...what is it?...2000 or however many troops who are over there now.

Mutaman
04-28-2005, 05:35 PM
My response was based on Mutaman's claim that it should be a piece of cake to find UBL because he is tall and occasionally on dialysis. Things are not that cut and dry.

While you are using that same silly logic, why not just say that locals should be lining up to claim the +/- $25 million bounty on his head because "That's a lot of money." Finding UBL is not a smash and grab job. I agree they need more personnel, but not the numbers you are referring to in your post (200,000?). What the U.S. forces need is more cooperation from their Pakistani sources, more manpower devoted to intel/translations and more special forces who can assimilate into the Arabic culture of the region.

You're setting up straw men. Thats not what I meant. Obviously destroying those responsible for 9/11 would never be easy. The complaint here is that it isn't and never was a priority. 9/11 was used as an excuse for what was at the top of the oilmen's agenda from the time they gained power- invading Irag. This invasion had nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with the war on terror. In fact it took valuable resourses away from fighting the war on terror.
No matter how difficult it may have been to seek out and punish OBL and al Queda, do you honestly believe that if it had been a priority that after 31/2 years, the most powerful country in the world would not have been able to accomplish this task? So I repeat, there are only two possibilities- either the US government is incompetant for failing to bring these people to justice , or its not a priority. I suspect, based on the president's own words, that its the latter.

registerthis
04-28-2005, 05:49 PM
So I repeat, there are only two possibilities- either the US government is incompetant for failing to bring these people to justice , or its not a priority. I suspect, based on the president's own words, that its the latter.
Ding-ding-ding

We have a winner.

ochre
04-28-2005, 06:05 PM
You're setting up straw men. Thats not what I meant. Obviously destroying those responsible for 9/11 would never be easy. The complaint here is that it isn't and never was a priority. 9/11 was used as an excuse for what was at the top of the oilmen's agenda from the time they gained power- invading Irag. This invasion had nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with the war on terror. In fact it took valuable resourses away from fighting the war on terror.
No matter how difficult it may have been to seek out and punish OBL and al Queda, do you honestly believe that if it had been a priority that after 31/2 years, the most powerful country in the world would not have been able to accomplish this task? So I repeat, there are only two possibilities- either the US government is incompetant for failing to bring these people to justice , or its not a priority. I suspect, based on the president's own words, that its the latter.
While I generally agree with where you are coming from, you are countering a straw man with bifurcation. There are almost always more than 2 possibilities/alternatives. Bifurcation is a fallacy too.

Mutaman
04-28-2005, 06:15 PM
While I generally agree with where you are coming from, you are countering a straw man with bifurcation. There are almost always more than 2 possibilities/alternatives. Bifurcation is a fallacy too.


How dare you accuse me of bifurcating. I've never bifurcated in my life, at least
not in public.

GAC
04-28-2005, 09:15 PM
I think the biggest reason for anti-u.S. sentiment in the region is our dealings with the corrupt Arab regimes currently in place--regimes that suppress human rights, torture and kill, and rule their nations with corruption and fear.

Who are you referring to? The current regimes, such as in Saudia Arabia or Egypt, or regimes such as Saddam's or the Taliban? ;)

I fully agree that the regimes/monarchs in the Middle East have terrible human rights records. Especially when it comes to their treatment of women. They are not democracies. The only democracy in the entire region is a little speck of a nation called Israel. But I don't see the extremes where they are torturing and killing their citizens. The terrorists are not opposing the U.S. because we are suppressing democratic reforms on those nations. It's those very reforms that they themsleves vehemntly oppose and want to keep out.


The "Arab Street" sees most of these leaders as ones whom the United States put into place and continues to support, mainly in the name of retaining our oil interests in the region.

It wasn't the U.S. that sub-divided the Middle East into the current nations we now see. After the WW1, the League of Nations, under the administration of Great Britain and France and the mandate system, divided much of the Ottoman Empire into the mandated territories/boundaries we see today. And that created alot of the conflicts we still are seeing, including Palestine. They compounded the problems. Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. So it's not as simple as to say it's America's foreign policy that is the cause, and therefore, an American problem. And alot of the ruling families, such as in Saudia Arabia, gained power, and have held onto that power, since the turn of the century, and without American influence.

I'm not absolving the U.S. from some of it's historical involvement and "mistakes" in the Middle East region (i.e. the Shah of Iran, or our involvement with Saddam/Iraq in the 70's/80's); but overall, we have not been as intrusive as some other nations have (Russia - Afghanistan).

Sure we are there for the oil. So is every other nation in the world. People rail on the U.S., and some of it's dealings in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing (such as the selling of armament and other economic aid); but they don't seem to scrutinize many of the other nations who are doing the very same thing, and have been for decades. Take a good hard look at nations such as Russia, China, Germany, and France. With terrorism taking root like it has in the region, have any of these nations halted sales of weapons to these nations for oil? Not one. Look at the Oil For Food program.

The entire world economy requires a stable Middle East because we are all dependent on it's oil. But as usual, it's usually left up to the U.S. to provide the BLUNT of that protection and security within the region. So it is obvious that we are then gonna catch the majority of the hell, while alot of these other nations sit on the sidelines. Where are, and have been, those other nations? I'm almost an isolationist at heart. I'd love to see us carrying lesser of that burden, and more of it carried by our so-called allies. But you're not gonna get it from the Russians, Chinese and most Europeans.

They complain about our influence and presence; but would scream even louder if we tried to leave (closing bases, etc).


They see U.S. fighter planes and weapons used against Palestinians by the Israelis. They see U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. They see our troops swarming through two countrie sin that region, and threatening two others. They see a blantantly one-sided policy of supporting Israel against the Palestinians.

Do a little historical research on the "palestinian" people. They are Arabs who were tortured and rejected by their own people. Look at how Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt treated their own people. They didn't even want or welcome them into their own countries. They too saw them as a problem that they didn't want to deal with.

And Israel has made more concessions and signed more agreements in order to try and bring peace to the region. For example-take a good hard look at the concessions they were going to make in the Oslo aggreement. Arafat walked away from those meetings with no intention of ever keeping any of the promises he made.

The fact is - as long as Israel exits, then Arabs will not be happy. Take a look at a map of the Middle East and northern Africa. How much of those lands are Muslim? You got a tiny speck of a nation called Israel in the midst of an area that is 99% Arab, and these Arab nations feel threatened?

I've never said that America's conduct in the Middle East has been perfect, and that we have always done the right things. I don't think any nation who has had involvement in that region, historically speaking, ever has.

But to say that the problems in the Middle East, and the actions taken by radical religious fundamentalists (i.e. terrorists) who would like to return the Middle East to a 7th century Islam, is somehow justified, and due solely to American foreign policy, is being somewhat naive when one examines the historical influences that ocurred in the region since the turn of the century.

GAC
04-28-2005, 09:29 PM
the truth is the U.S. has done anything BUT help establish freedom and democracy in the region. In nations throughout the Middle East--from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, to even Hussein in iraq--we worked to install and maintain leaders in these nations that dealt favorably with us on issues of oil and other strategic policies. Our motivations in that region are anything BUT humanitarian. Continuing to think of the U.S. as this kind, benevolent nation that was just trying to provide liberty and freedom to the people of the Middle East when suddenly we were attacked without provocation, will never help solve the dilemna of what caused 9/11, and will do nothing to prevent it in the future.

How are we to go about promoting freedom and democracy in that region? At what lengths are we to go to? We deal from an economic standpoint with various nations that don't have the greatest records on human rights/democratic reforms (China, Russia, S.America). Are we to tell these nations that unless they make concessions inline with what we feel they should be, then we won't deal with them?

Sure we deal with leaders that will deal favorably with us from a strategic perspective. And so do all the other nations who are in competition with us, from a commerce perspective. Again, look at some of the dealings of France, Russia, Germany, and China. Do you think they are more concerned about thiere own interests< or those of other nations?


A majority of the fanatical terrorists don't hate us because of the freedoms WE enjoy, it's our continued support of corrupt and repressive regimes in that region.

We all agree that those current regimes are not great on human rights. But the terrorists would supplant those corrupt regimes with freedom and democracy? We have already seen examples of their types of leadership, and what actions characterizes it (murder, oppression, terror, on even a larger scale - Taliban in Afghanistan, Syria, etc). Agree? Disagree? Show me an example where they have gained pwer and done this?

Falls City Beer
04-28-2005, 11:41 PM
While I generally agree with where you are coming from, you are countering a straw man with bifurcation. There are almost always more than 2 possibilities/alternatives. Bifurcation is a fallacy too.

Not really, those are the choices. Either they can't catch him (through incompetence/ Osama's wiliness) OR the Bush administration is playing prevent defense. There is little conceptual grey space there, in this particular instance.

RosieRed
04-29-2005, 12:38 AM
Sure we are there for the oil. So is every other nation in the world. People rail on the U.S., and some of it's dealings in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing (such as the selling of armament and other economic aid); but they don't seem to scrutinize many of the other nations who are doing the very same thing, and have been for decades. Take a good hard look at nations such as Russia, China, Germany, and France. With terrorism taking root like it has in the region, have any of these nations halted sales of weapons to these nations for oil? Not one. Look at the Oil For Food program.

The entire world economy requires a stable Middle East because we are all dependent on it's oil.

I wonder what the world would be like if no one were dependent on that oil. What would our own country be like if we didn't need oil from the Middle East? It's hard to even imagine.

Hopefully it will be the case sooner rather than later. I'm doubtful, but hopeful.

ochre
04-29-2005, 09:26 AM
Not really, those are the choices. Either they can't catch him (through incompetence/ Osama's wiliness) OR the Bush administration is playing prevent defense. There is little conceptual grey space there, in this particular instance.
incompetence and the targets williness are two different reasons. Another reason is an amalgamation of those two; It isn't easy to find a person in that part of the world that doesn't want to be found. The prevent defense portion also could be broken out to several individual, stand alone reasons.

I personally believe that Bush has little to no interest in finding him. Call it the family and friends plan if you want. Most arguments gain little by artificial simplification. It is a complex situation.

registerthis
04-29-2005, 10:16 AM
Who are you referring to? The current regimes, such as in Saudia Arabia or Egypt, or regimes such as Saddam's or the Taliban? ;)
Regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait et al. The ones WE helped put into power. Of course, we helped Saddam, and were indirectly responsible for the Taliban as well...but when they stopped playing our game by our rules, we decided to remove them.


I fully agree that the regimes/monarchs in the Middle East have terrible human rights records. Especially when it comes to their treatment of women. They are not democracies. The only democracy in the entire region is a little speck of a nation called Israel. But I don't see the extremes where they are torturing and killing their citizens. The terrorists are not opposing the U.S. because we are suppressing democratic reforms on those nations. It's those very reforms that they themsleves vehemntly oppose and want to keep out.
You're confusing terrorists with terrorist leaders--different things. Terrorist leaders are generally radical idealogues who use violent fundamentalism as a way to recruit members to their fold. I have no doubts at all that people such as Bin Laden, Zarqawi, and certain Saudi Arabian radicals would love nothing more than to transform the entire Middle East into a theocratic fundamentalist Islamic state. I do not, however, believe that the majority of their followers, or the general population in the Middle East, want that. Their's is a situation of desperation--anyone coming forth and telling them that they have an opportunity to improve their situation--by overthrowing the despotic regimes currently in place, and retaliating against the hyper-power that put them there. It's no great wonder why that would be appealing to many young people in that region.


It wasn't the U.S. that sub-divided the Middle East into the current nations we now see. After the WW1, the League of Nations, under the administration of Great Britain and France and the mandate system, divided much of the Ottoman Empire into the mandated territories/boundaries we see today. And that created alot of the conflicts we still are seeing, including Palestine. They compounded the problems. Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. So it's not as simple as to say it's America's foreign policy that is the cause, and therefore, an American problem. And alot of the ruling families, such as in Saudia Arabia, gained power, and have held onto that power, since the turn of the century, and without American influence.
Nice history lesson, but it's largely irrelevant to today's situation since, for the past 30 years, the United States has been the preeminent force in the region. When tens of thousands of protesters take to the Arab street, they aren't protesting against the Sykes-Picot agreement, or French intervention in Syria--they are protesting the current regimes in power, which they view largely as a result of U.S. power an dinfluence int he region. Do you think for one moment that the House of Saud would have the power it does without the backing of America and the Bush Administration (both 1 and 2)? Do you think people in Lebanon and Egypt are chomping at the bit to elect a pro-u.S. government?

Like I said, the U.S. doesn't necessarily WANT a democratic Middle East, because it's highly likely that the governments the people would elect into power would be indifferent, if not outwardly hostile, to the U.S.


I'm not absolving the U.S. from some of it's historical involvement and "mistakes" in the Middle East region (i.e. the Shah of Iran, or our involvement with Saddam/Iraq in the 70's/80's); but overall, we have not been as intrusive as some other nations have (Russia - Afghanistan).
I honestly don't see how you can possibly hold that position. Since the 1970s, there is no nation on this Earth that has done more to shape politics and policies in the Middle East more than the U.S. We offer practically unilateral support to Israel over the Palestinians, the root cause of much Arab discord. We help prop up dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and other Middle Eastern nations. We have invaded, occupied and now control both Afghanistan and Iraq, and have threatened Syria and Iran. We have provided chemical weapons to Saddam and missles to the Taliban. We invaded Iraq in 1991 over control of oil. We encouraged a Kurdish rebellion against Saddam, then declined to offer them support as they were decimated. We have military bases and presence sprinkled throughout the region, and as the world's largest consumer of oil our business interests in that region are unparalleled by any other nation. Those are more than simply "mistakes", it is a continuing pattern of attempts to control that entire region of the world.


Sure we are there for the oil. So is every other nation in the world. People rail on the U.S., and some of it's dealings in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing (such as the selling of armament and other economic aid); but they don't seem to scrutinize many of the other nations who are doing the very same thing, and have been for decades. Take a good hard look at nations such as Russia, China, Germany, and France. With terrorism taking root like it has in the region, have any of these nations halted sales of weapons to these nations for oil? Not one. Look at the Oil For Food program.
The oil-for-food program was a corrupt U.N. program from the beginning. The problem with the sanctions against Saddam's regime in the 1990s are the same as the sanctions still enforced against Castro and Cuba--they do nothing to affect the government in power, but inflict tremendous suffering on the populace of that nation.

I have never said the U.S. is the only nation who influences that region--but we are the largest. We are the "face" of western and global influence in the Middle East. The Soviets, and other nations as well, have a poor track record in the Middle east, I have never argued otherwise. But this discussion relates to anti-Americanism in that region, and it's causes.


The entire world economy requires a stable Middle East because we are all dependent on it's oil. But as usual, it's usually left up to the U.S. to provide the BLUNT of that protection and security within the region. So it is obvious that we are then gonna catch the majority of the hell, while alot of these other nations sit on the sidelines. Where are, and have been, those other nations? I'm almost an isolationist at heart. I'd love to see us carrying lesser of that burden, and more of it carried by our so-called allies. But you're not gonna get it from the Russians, Chinese and most Europeans.
I assume by "burden" you mean military force, because the british, French, Russians et al. have been very active in Middle East diplomacy over the years. It's the U.S., however, that stands the most to lose by far if oil production in that region is disrupted, and thus all of our policies in the Middle East are geared towards that goal--to keep the oil flowing. Our track record is to give preference to military force, and not diplomatic attempts. It's why we fought two wars in Iraq, why we defended Kuwait, why we support the House of Saud and maintain bases throughout the Persian Gulf.


They complain about our influence and presence; but would scream even louder if we tried to leave (closing bases, etc).
I doubt very highly that anyone in the Middle east, short of perhaps Crown Prince Abdullah, would be upset if the U.S. packed up their bags and went home.


Do a little historical research on the "palestinian" people. They are Arabs who were tortured and rejected by their own people. Look at how Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt treated their own people. They didn't even want or welcome them into their own countries. They too saw them as a problem that they didn't want to deal with.
I'm well aware of the history of the Palestinian people--it's a common argument put up by people who support the unilateral U.S. actions in support of Israel. It's true the Palestinians were the scourge of the Arab world in 1940, but the fact of the matter is they were there. Whether they were well-lied by other Arabs is a straw man in this argument. It was the U.N. that made the decision to grant the Jews a homeland in that particular part of the world, for no other reason than the fact that they were there 1500-2000 years before. The homes and lives of the Palestinians who lived there be damned.


And Israel has made more concessions and signed more agreements in order to try and bring peace to the region. For example-take a good hard look at the concessions they were going to make in the Oslo aggreement. Arafat walked away from those meetings with no intention of ever keeping any of the promises he made.
I have looked at the Oslo Accord, and the reason it was rejected was because it proposed a non-continuous Palestinian State, which the Palestinians have said repeatedly is an unacceptable solution. Not only does it present tremendous logistical problems having a fragmented country, but it clearly presented Israel with a chance to disrupt Palestinian life by imposing roadblocks, curfews and checkpoints at roads leading from Israel into palestine--in other words, the very things they are doing now.


The fact is - as long as Israel exits, then Arabs will not be happy. Take a look at a map of the Middle East and northern Africa. How much of those lands are Muslim? You got a tiny speck of a nation called Israel in the midst of an area that is 99% Arab, and these Arab nations feel threatened?
I'll tell you what--let's move the Israelis out of Israel and give them Ohio. Sure, it would cause everyone in that State to pack up and move elsewhere, and perhaps Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania don't want to take in the influx of Ohioans, so some people end up living in refugee camps. Not a big deal, though, since Ohio is only a very small percentage of the total land area of the U.S. Look at all the American land sorrounding it, why would we care about a small pocket of Jewish settlers there?

Do you think people in Ohio would be upset by that? What if the move had been propagated by a collection of Muslim nations--would Americans feel insulted that such an action had been made without their consent?


I've never said that America's conduct in the Middle East has been perfect, and that we have always done the right things. I don't think any nation who has had involvement in that region, historically speaking, ever has.

But to say that the problems in the Middle East, and the actions taken by radical religious fundamentalists (i.e. terrorists) who would like to return the Middle East to a 7th century Islam, is somehow justified, and due solely to American foreign policy, is being somewhat naive when one examines the historical influences that ocurred in the region since the turn of the century.
Whoah, where have I ever said that the actions of terrorists were justified? I believe my exact quote was:

people like Bin laden need to be caught and stopped, I certainly don't argue about that. But Bin Laden is a symptom, not the cause, of the problem.
I would argue, though, that it is much more naive to view the actions of terrorists as the baseless actions of a few deranged individuals whose ideaology needn't be taken seriously. The truth is, (and read very carefully how I phrase this): The U.S. has done, and is doing, things in that region which lead to the type of anger, resentment and desparation which fuels terrorism. That doesn't JUSTIFY the 9/11 attacks, or argue that the terrorist leaders should be bargained with. But it DOES argue that the U.S. should reevaluate our actions and interests in that region, so people don't have and urge to kill themselves trying to attack America. I think it can be done, but I have significant doubt's about this administration's ability to do it.

ochre
04-29-2005, 10:30 AM
...but it's largely irrelevant to today's situation since..
I couldn't disagree more. The intervention of western powers is the primary reason that any meddling by the US, whatsoever, is seen with such contempt. The current regimes were not the only people (tribes) that were aiming at power. They are the ones that did whatever the British, or French asked (securing their ambitions). The resentment is fairly deep seated and we have opened ourselves up as the target for that resentment by the actions and activities we have pursued within the region for the past 30-40 years (oil).

Invading Iraq, unfortunately, appears to just have added another hot bed for terrorist recruitment and added another X years to the healing process that will eventually have to occur if relations within the region are ever normalized.

registerthis
04-29-2005, 10:53 AM
I couldn't disagree more. The intervention of western powers is the primary reason that any meddling by the US, whatsoever, is seen with such contempt. The current regimes were not the only people (tribes) that were aiming at power. They are the ones that did whatever the British, or French asked (securing their ambitions). The resentment is fairly deep seated and we have opened ourselves up as the target for that resentment by the actions and activities we have pursued within the region for the past 30-40 years (oil).

Invading Iraq, unfortunately, appears to just have added another hot bed for terrorist recruitment and added another X years to the healing process that will eventually have to occur if relations within the region are ever normalized.
Well, theoretically yes you could trace back the seeds of Arab discord for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. I'm not arguing that the U.S. is SOLELY responsible for the current state of affairs.

However, the Middle East has a very young population, and it is those people that are fueling the Anti-American resentment right now, because American involvement in their region is all that they have known. They aren't old enough to experience firsthand European colonialization, or the creation of the State of Israel. What they do remember is U.S. fighterplanes over Baghdad, U.S. miltary bases in Saudi Arabia, U.S. troops in Afghanistan, U.S. weapons used against palestinians, etc. Thus, I view the discussion of the roots of western influences in the region as largely irrelevant to the understanding of the current violent strain of anti-Americanism.

Falls City Beer
04-29-2005, 10:56 AM
incompetence and the targets williness are two different reasons. Another reason is an amalgamation of those two; It isn't easy to find a person in that part of the world that doesn't want to be found. The prevent defense portion also could be broken out to several individual, stand alone reasons.

I personally believe that Bush has little to no interest in finding him. Call it the family and friends plan if you want. Most arguments gain little by artificial simplification. It is a complex situation.

Sure you could parse as far down as you wish, and yes it is simplistic to use such a broad brush, sure, but on a global level "can't catch" or "don't want to catch" covers it. There is no other choice. The sub-reasons (wiliness, incompetence, no financial gain in hunting for him, America needs a bogeyman) for both for these are the points of contention, but in the end, the two overriding choices (can't/don't want to) are what is at stake.

ochre
04-29-2005, 10:58 AM
but all these young people's perspectives are framed by the adults that do remember the creation of Isreal, etc. Its very difficult to seperate the impact that history in a local cultural context has on that culture.

ochre
04-29-2005, 11:01 AM
Sure you could parse as far down as you wish, and yes it is simplistic to use such a broad brush, sure, but on a global level "can't catch" or "don't want to catch" covers it. There is no other choice. The sub-reasons (wiliness, incompetence, no financial gain in hunting for him, America needs a bogeyman) for both for these are the points of contention, but in the end, the two overriding choices (can't/don't want to) are what is at stake.
I think we are debating which fallacy paints a "grayer" picture :).

registerthis
04-29-2005, 11:11 AM
but all these young people's perspectives are framed by the adults that do remember the creation of Isreal, etc. Its very difficult to seperate the impact that history in a local cultural context has on that culture.
I understand your point, and I'm not dismissing other nation's involvement as well--obviously colonialism by European powers caused significant harm to that region, I don't dispute that.

But, Europe has been largely distanced from direct intervention in Middle eastern affairs for some time, at least in comparison to the U.S.'s involvement. While the context may be western culture's continued domineering of Middle Eastern life, for years America has been the public face of that struggle. Arab children aren't raised to hate Great britain because they assisted in the creation of Israel from Palestine, they are raised to hate America because America is largely responsible for providing unfettered support to Israel. So while I understand, and don't necessarily, dispute your point, I do think that the history of other nation's influence in that region is not nearly as critical as understanding our own for the past 30 years.

Jaycint
04-29-2005, 11:15 AM
What they do remember is U.S. fighterplanes over Baghdad, U.S. miltary bases in Saudi Arabia, U.S. troops in Afghanistan, U.S. weapons used against palestinians, etc.

We should be in Afghanistan. Until OBL is caught and we are fairly certain that Al-Qaeda and the remnants of the Taliban pose no type of serious threat to the U.S. or the stability of the new government in Afghanistan. You'll get no argument from me over Saudi Arabia or Iraq but in the case of Afghanistan I think our cause was just and we should see it through to the end. Which I believe could have been by now had we focused on it in the first place instead of spreading ourselves out to fight other more suspect battles in the Middle East.

ochre
04-29-2005, 11:23 AM
I understand your point, and I'm not dismissing other nation's involvement as well--obviously colonialism by European powers caused significant harm to that region, I don't dispute that.

But, Europe has been largely distanced from direct intervention in Middle eastern affairs for some time, at least in comparison to the U.S.'s involvement. While the context may be western culture's continued domineering of Middle Eastern life, for years America has been the public face of that struggle. Arab children aren't raised to hate Great britain because they assisted in the creation of Israel from Palestine, they are raised to hate America because America is largely responsible for providing unfettered support to Israel. So while I understand, and don't necessarily, dispute your point, I do think that the history of other nation's influence in that region is not nearly as critical as understanding our own for the past 30 years.
Generally they aren't raised to "hate" at all. Most Moslims are very tolerant people. The fanatical fringe recruits from the disenfranchised youth. They tend to manipulate the Koran to reflect their own agenda, convincing impressionable young people that they must stand up to the enemies of Islam.

The arab/moslim friends that I have had have generally been very insightful. I have had some very interesting conversations with them.

registerthis
04-29-2005, 11:39 AM
Generally they aren't raised to "hate" at all. Most Moslims are very tolerant people. The fanatical fringe recruits from the disenfranchised youth. They tend to manipulate the Koran to reflect their own agenda, convincing impressionable young people that they must stand up to the enemies of Islam.

The arab/moslim friends that I have had have generally been very insightful. I have had some very interesting conversations with them.
Didn't mean "raised to hate" in the sense that Arab parents sit their children down and explain to them why they should hate America. I meant in more general terms, as in when disaffected youth search for an outlet for their frustrations, America is frequently presented as the most convenient target.

I worked closely with two Palestinian Arabs for three years, and we had some interesting conversations as well.

registerthis
04-29-2005, 11:40 AM
We should be in Afghanistan. Until OBL is caught and we are fairly certain that Al-Qaeda and the remnants of the Taliban pose no type of serious threat to the U.S. or the stability of the new government in Afghanistan. You'll get no argument from me over Saudi Arabia or Iraq but in the case of Afghanistan I think our cause was just and we should see it through to the end. Which I believe could have been by now had we focused on it in the first place instead of spreading ourselves out to fight other more suspect battles in the Middle East.
i don't disagree with you. I think Afghanistan could have been handled much better--we've done nothing to bring peace and stability to any areas outside Kabul, and as you mentioned OBL is still roaming around.

but as far as the context for the invasion, I don't have a real problem with it. The Taliban needed to go.

ochre
04-29-2005, 11:58 AM
I worked closely with two Palestinian Arabs for three years, and we had some interesting conversations as well.
My friends were mostly foreign officer candidates doing the pre-Sandhurst course at Beaconsfield, England (Qadafi went through the same course(s) in his career development as a Libyan Officer). It was quite the experience. I was in a 6 month arabic accelarator course (during Desert Storm) at the time. Learned quite a bit from my native Arab instructors as well. One of them was a former officer in the Egyptian Special Forces during the '73 war.

registerthis
04-29-2005, 01:13 PM
My friends were mostly foreign officer candidates doing the pre-Sandhurst course at Beaconsfield, England (Qadafi went through the same course(s) in his career development as a Libyan Officer). It was quite the experience. I was in a 6 month arabic accelarator course (during Desert Storm) at the time. Learned quite a bit from my native Arab instructors as well. One of them was a former officer in the Egyptian Special Forces during the '73 war.
That's really interesting, have you stayed in touch with any of them?

ochre
04-29-2005, 01:27 PM
That's really interesting, have you stayed in touch with any of them?
Unfortunately, no.

I am terrible about correspondence, etc.

One of the coolest people I hung out with there was a prince from Umm al'Qawayn, UAE. There were also a lot of Gurkhas there (soldiers from Nepal that serve in the British Army). I learned a lot about volleyball playing against and with those guys.

One of my really good friends was http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/375000/images/_377088_rai150.jpg
who died in Kosovo in an unexploded ordinance clearing operation (more here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/378020.stm) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/378020.stm%29). His name was Bala Ram Rai. I tried learning a bit of Nepalese from him and others. A response to "how are you" in nepalese is "Ram Ram". So he would always say, "you know, Ram like my name".

registerthis
04-29-2005, 01:39 PM
His name was Bala Ram Rai. I tried learning a bit of Nepalese from him and others. A response to "how are you" in nepalese is "Ram Ram". So he would always say, "you know, Ram like my name".
I am really sorry to hear about your friend.

I hate war. I really do. :(

Blimpie
04-29-2005, 04:48 PM
Why wouldn't a massive show of force expedite his capture? You agreed that they need "more manpower devoted to intel/translations and more special forces who can assimilate into the Arabic culture of the region." Did you think I meant 200,000 footsoldiers straight out of boot camp?

I think a larger army would undeniably lead to a quicker capture. It would certainly beat the...what is it?...2000 or however many troops who are over there now.Because sheer numbers are not the problem. We just witnessed that in the hunt for Hussein. We need quality--not quantity.

In most of these regions, a "massive show of force" will do nothing but alienate the locals (how many times have we heard the phrase "occupying force" when discussing the war in Iraq?). We are working so hard to win the trust of the local population in both Afghanistan and in Pakistan, it would be counterproductive IMO.

Blimpie
04-29-2005, 04:54 PM
You're setting up straw men. Thats not what I meant. Obviously destroying those responsible for 9/11 would never be easy. The complaint here is that it isn't and never was a priority. 9/11 was used as an excuse for what was at the top of the oilmen's agenda from the time they gained power- invading Irag. This invasion had nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with the war on terror. In fact it took valuable resourses away from fighting the war on terror.
No matter how difficult it may have been to seek out and punish OBL and al Queda, do you honestly believe that if it had been a priority that after 31/2 years, the most powerful country in the world would not have been able to accomplish this task? So I repeat, there are only two possibilities- either the US government is incompetant for failing to bring these people to justice , or its not a priority. I suspect, based on the president's own words, that its the latter.It may not be what you meant, but it just so happens to be what you said...

Proof of what? Theres only two options- if capturing OBL and destroying al-Quida was and still is a priority, then the oil men who run this country are pretty incompetent because we're no closer to doing that then we were on 9/11. The guy is a 6'5" arab with serious kidney problems. How hard is he to find? The only other option is that its not a priority. When we invaded Iraq, many in the State Department went on record as being opposed for the sole reason that they felt it was a distraction from the real war on terror. Time has proven them right.
By the way, I prefer the Tin-Man ;)

Phoenix
04-30-2005, 01:17 PM
The US is not responsible in any way for the attacks of 9-11. Maggie will never see a dime of my money. The good news is that boycotting her movies should be quite easy.

GAC
04-30-2005, 01:42 PM
The US is not responsible in any way for the attacks of 9-11. Maggie will never see a dime of my money. The good news is that boycotting her movies should be quite easy.

agreed. I've never heard of her.

Mutaman
04-30-2005, 01:48 PM
agreed. I've never heard of her.


Well, thats a convincing argument. The movie is called "Secretary". It's a great movie, won lots of awards, got wonderful reviews. Shes a terrific young actress.

Mutaman
04-30-2005, 01:53 PM
Steve Gilliard- 4/28/05

"Let's talk about Al Qaeda for a minute.

The American people have a bad habit of seeing all enemies as the next Hitler, the one man to stop, and with Al Qaeda, that is the wrong way to approach them.

Of course, the only discussion of terrorism in America is on JAG and 24, discussion as in thinking about the subject, as opposed to mouthing platitudes about the subject. Now people are pissed that Maggie Gyllenhaal actually had the nerve to suggest that the US might have actually enraged people with their policies.

The never blame America crowd, the people who endorse torture and murder, don't make the connection. They get up on their high horse and say "I love "Merika, we ain't do nothin'", while the rest of the world is indifferent to our very real struggle with people who want to,if not destroy this country, kill a bunch of Americans to make their point.

You cannot piss on your neighbor's lawn without people noticing. How many dictatorships have we propped up, how many AQ recruits did that create? More than one.

And when someone says anything which suggests this, they get shat on. Why? Because American exceptionalism is the thing that must be protected above all else. We can't be guilty of anything, so the people against us are just crazy terrorists.

And the understanding of these people is well, retarded by politics. Serious adults use the words "islamofascist" like the word means anything. It makes people like the always drunk Chris Hitchens feel like a man, like his naval officer daddy did on the bridge of a ship. But he didn't risk being sunk or seasickness or anything else remotely dangerous. He uses this word which not only sounds stupid, but makes no sense. Makes the user sounds as brave as jack lighting deer poachers but means nothing.

Osama Bin Laden is not a fascist. He is not seeking to dominate the world. Attaching islam to it makes no sense. WHy? Because that isn't what they're about.

Osama and friends are Islamic revivalists. Which means that they want to return to the 13th Century and the days of the Caliphate. This is not a new movement, but a repeated challenge to state power for at least 200 years, but it is utopian in nature. It has a history predating fascism and little in common with it. It is just a cheap way for chickenhawks to feel they are engaged in some new struggle.

And then, out of fear and political expediency, we conflated the threat of Al Qaeda and refused to deal with it's taliban allies seriously.

Afghanistan was used as the testbed of Donald Rumsfeld's theories of war. Which worked against the hillbillies who then went back into the hills and stayed there. Then they declared victory. Afghanistan was going to show how powerful the US was, and then every few months, we get a video from Osama and friends. Because Rumsfeld found out, at the cost of hundreds of Americans and the security of this country, his ideas on transformational warfare were seriously wrong. As much as I respect Special Forces, they are men, not supermen and there are limits as to what they can do. To think a few A teams can run around a country and win a war is insane.

Instead of investing the two to three divisions of paratroops and light infantry we needed there, they're now patrolling Iraq and losing. No matter what happens in Iraq, we will be in Afghanistan for years to come.

The fact that Bush and the GOP has shamelessly used Al Qaeda to get reelected has obscured the real threat from Al Qaeda.

First, AQ is not some vast network of millions of angry Arabs. Osama is the religious Che. People use his image as a way to stick it to the man. His image basically says **** the state. While there are hard core supporters of Osama, the reality is that AQ is the new Bader-Meinhoff gang or the Japanese Red Army, disaffected graduate students who are pissed that they do not rule the world.

The 19 men who attacked the twin towers were middle class Saudis and Egyptians, people who could have had good lives in their countries or the west, but they were so pissed, that they decided to use violence to create their utopia. Why? Becuase it was a lot more fun to play terrorist than work for a living. There are thousands in their ranks, but the few people who are dangerous are able to hide in the masses of the disaffected. And since we have mangled our relations with the Arab world so seriously, AQ membership is a status symbol, like being a Black Panther.

Second, they are showboats.

If they had decided to set up 20 car and suicide bombs in Manhattan, instead of the WTC attacks, they could have shut the city down. But car bombs aren't flashy, and they want the world to notice them. Attacking the WTC was serious, but they had no capacity for follow on, and like graduate students, they hunt for the best theoretical solution and not the simple one. They can do one big attack every year or so, but a campaign of terror is beyond their grasp so far. Which is why the concentration on chemical and bioweapons is so rendolent of people who are still wedded to school solutions.

The resistance in Iraq is much more direct, they load up cars with RDX and blow people up.

But that isn't what Al Qaeda is interested in.

Osama Bin Laden has one goal and it isn't the destruction of the United States. It is to replace the Saud family with the Bin Laden family in running Saudi Arabia. No matter how much he cloaks his intentions in religion, his real goal is power. Osama is like so many rich dillitants who tire of a life of rent girls and casinos, and gets attached to a cauise. The life he should have lead would have made him a rich sybarite, with European mistresses and fat bank accounts. But with that life, he would have to obey the Sauds, and coming from the second family of Saudi Arabia, he wondered why it wasn't the first.

His plan to overthrow the Sauds comes through the US. If he can weaken the US, then the Sauds have no place to turn. And given the complete corruption of that family, AQ gains in Saudi Arabia have been profound.

And of course, Bush has inflated then ignored Osama as it served his purposes. He wanted to overthrow Saddam for any number of reasons, none of which had anything even remotely related to the security of the United States, but when time for the switch came, he told the American people and the Congress that Saddam was the real mastermind behind 9/11. A story only wingnut crackpots believed, but a lie which served their purposes all too well. The only problem was that Iraq was the best thing that ever happened to Saddam Osama. Not only is it a live fire training ground for the motivated, it has trapped a large proportion of the US Army in Iraq. Every soldier patrolling Tikrit is one not patrolling the Hindu Kush. Osama couldn't be happier with this turn of events. Not only are US troops occuiped in a soul-killing, machine-destroying war, one which is shrinking the pool of potential recruits, he has 150,000 targets.

While the warmongers like to talk about the flypaper theory as if there are a finite number of terrorists, the reality is that it's more compost heap than flypaper. Iraq is training a new generation of hard core terrorists, nuturing and educating them. While the US has tried to pretend that there have been thousands of foriegn nationals flocking there, the reality is that the group is much smaller, but that much more dedicated.

And of course, while we are dying in Iraq, AQ grows stronger in Saudi Arabia. How many attacks have there been since 2003? 10, 20? All suicidal, but scary all the same. Before Iraq, this was rare, now, with the battleground of Iraq a handy training ground, Saudi Arabia can have any number of terrorists ready to kill Saudis after a few months of killing Americans.

The only way to protect the American people is to have Muslims realize that Revivalists will harm them more than help them. The racism of American policy shines through. We want freedom in Lebanon, but don't care if Egypt ever has free elections. We talk about elections in Iraq, but never say a word about the disnefranchisement of Saudi women. Arabs are not stupid, they are not blind. They see the hypocrisy and the lies and the abuse of the Palestinians and they treat our words as lies. American policy under Bush has hindered our war on terror not enhanced it.

The one greatest thing we could do to enhance our standing within the Arab world would be to ensure justice and stability for the Palestinians. This is the signature issue in the Arab world. They don't care about the farce of the Iraqi parliment or Lebanon. They care about Palestine and as long as Israel tries to deal with the Palestinians as subjects and not equals, AQ will always have a cause to rally around."

Phoenix
04-30-2005, 07:54 PM
Steve Gilliard- 4/28/05

"Let's talk about Al Qaeda for a minute.

The American people have a bad habit of seeing all enemies as the next Hitler, the one man to stop, and with Al Qaeda, that is the wrong way to approach them.

Of course, the only discussion of terrorism in America is on JAG and 24, discussion as in thinking about the subject, as opposed to mouthing platitudes about the subject. Now people are pissed that Maggie Gyllenhaal actually had the nerve to suggest that the US might have actually enraged people with their policies.

The never blame America crowd, the people who endorse torture and murder, don't make the connection. They get up on their high horse and say "I love "Merika, we ain't do nothin'", while the rest of the world is indifferent to our very real struggle with people who want to,if not destroy this country, kill a bunch of Americans to make their point.

You cannot piss on your neighbor's lawn without people noticing. How many dictatorships have we propped up, how many AQ recruits did that create? More than one.

And when someone says anything which suggests this, they get shat on. Why? Because American exceptionalism is the thing that must be protected above all else. We can't be guilty of anything, so the people against us are just crazy terrorists.

And the understanding of these people is well, retarded by politics. Serious adults use the words "islamofascist" like the word means anything. It makes people like the always drunk Chris Hitchens feel like a man, like his naval officer daddy did on the bridge of a ship. But he didn't risk being sunk or seasickness or anything else remotely dangerous. He uses this word which not only sounds stupid, but makes no sense. Makes the user sounds as brave as jack lighting deer poachers but means nothing.

Osama Bin Laden is not a fascist. He is not seeking to dominate the world. Attaching islam to it makes no sense. WHy? Because that isn't what they're about.

Osama and friends are Islamic revivalists. Which means that they want to return to the 13th Century and the days of the Caliphate. This is not a new movement, but a repeated challenge to state power for at least 200 years, but it is utopian in nature. It has a history predating fascism and little in common with it. It is just a cheap way for chickenhawks to feel they are engaged in some new struggle.

And then, out of fear and political expediency, we conflated the threat of Al Qaeda and refused to deal with it's taliban allies seriously.

Afghanistan was used as the testbed of Donald Rumsfeld's theories of war. Which worked against the hillbillies who then went back into the hills and stayed there. Then they declared victory. Afghanistan was going to show how powerful the US was, and then every few months, we get a video from Osama and friends. Because Rumsfeld found out, at the cost of hundreds of Americans and the security of this country, his ideas on transformational warfare were seriously wrong. As much as I respect Special Forces, they are men, not supermen and there are limits as to what they can do. To think a few A teams can run around a country and win a war is insane.

Instead of investing the two to three divisions of paratroops and light infantry we needed there, they're now patrolling Iraq and losing. No matter what happens in Iraq, we will be in Afghanistan for years to come.

The fact that Bush and the GOP has shamelessly used Al Qaeda to get reelected has obscured the real threat from Al Qaeda.

First, AQ is not some vast network of millions of angry Arabs. Osama is the religious Che. People use his image as a way to stick it to the man. His image basically says **** the state. While there are hard core supporters of Osama, the reality is that AQ is the new Bader-Meinhoff gang or the Japanese Red Army, disaffected graduate students who are pissed that they do not rule the world.

The 19 men who attacked the twin towers were middle class Saudis and Egyptians, people who could have had good lives in their countries or the west, but they were so pissed, that they decided to use violence to create their utopia. Why? Becuase it was a lot more fun to play terrorist than work for a living. There are thousands in their ranks, but the few people who are dangerous are able to hide in the masses of the disaffected. And since we have mangled our relations with the Arab world so seriously, AQ membership is a status symbol, like being a Black Panther.

Second, they are showboats.

If they had decided to set up 20 car and suicide bombs in Manhattan, instead of the WTC attacks, they could have shut the city down. But car bombs aren't flashy, and they want the world to notice them. Attacking the WTC was serious, but they had no capacity for follow on, and like graduate students, they hunt for the best theoretical solution and not the simple one. They can do one big attack every year or so, but a campaign of terror is beyond their grasp so far. Which is why the concentration on chemical and bioweapons is so rendolent of people who are still wedded to school solutions.

The resistance in Iraq is much more direct, they load up cars with RDX and blow people up.

But that isn't what Al Qaeda is interested in.

Osama Bin Laden has one goal and it isn't the destruction of the United States. It is to replace the Saud family with the Bin Laden family in running Saudi Arabia. No matter how much he cloaks his intentions in religion, his real goal is power. Osama is like so many rich dillitants who tire of a life of rent girls and casinos, and gets attached to a cauise. The life he should have lead would have made him a rich sybarite, with European mistresses and fat bank accounts. But with that life, he would have to obey the Sauds, and coming from the second family of Saudi Arabia, he wondered why it wasn't the first.

His plan to overthrow the Sauds comes through the US. If he can weaken the US, then the Sauds have no place to turn. And given the complete corruption of that family, AQ gains in Saudi Arabia have been profound.

And of course, Bush has inflated then ignored Osama as it served his purposes. He wanted to overthrow Saddam for any number of reasons, none of which had anything even remotely related to the security of the United States, but when time for the switch came, he told the American people and the Congress that Saddam was the real mastermind behind 9/11. A story only wingnut crackpots believed, but a lie which served their purposes all too well. The only problem was that Iraq was the best thing that ever happened to Saddam Osama. Not only is it a live fire training ground for the motivated, it has trapped a large proportion of the US Army in Iraq. Every soldier patrolling Tikrit is one not patrolling the Hindu Kush. Osama couldn't be happier with this turn of events. Not only are US troops occuiped in a soul-killing, machine-destroying war, one which is shrinking the pool of potential recruits, he has 150,000 targets.

While the warmongers like to talk about the flypaper theory as if there are a finite number of terrorists, the reality is that it's more compost heap than flypaper. Iraq is training a new generation of hard core terrorists, nuturing and educating them. While the US has tried to pretend that there have been thousands of foriegn nationals flocking there, the reality is that the group is much smaller, but that much more dedicated.

And of course, while we are dying in Iraq, AQ grows stronger in Saudi Arabia. How many attacks have there been since 2003? 10, 20? All suicidal, but scary all the same. Before Iraq, this was rare, now, with the battleground of Iraq a handy training ground, Saudi Arabia can have any number of terrorists ready to kill Saudis after a few months of killing Americans.

The only way to protect the American people is to have Muslims realize that Revivalists will harm them more than help them. The racism of American policy shines through. We want freedom in Lebanon, but don't care if Egypt ever has free elections. We talk about elections in Iraq, but never say a word about the disnefranchisement of Saudi women. Arabs are not stupid, they are not blind. They see the hypocrisy and the lies and the abuse of the Palestinians and they treat our words as lies. American policy under Bush has hindered our war on terror not enhanced it.

The one greatest thing we could do to enhance our standing within the Arab world would be to ensure justice and stability for the Palestinians. This is the signature issue in the Arab world. They don't care about the farce of the Iraqi parliment or Lebanon. They care about Palestine and as long as Israel tries to deal with the Palestinians as subjects and not equals, AQ will always have a cause to rally around."

Crap. Do you endorse these views Mutaman? Do you believe, like the actress, that America is partially to blame for the murder of those 3000 people on 9/11? I wouldn't want to start arguing with Steve the author since he's not here to defend himself.

Mutaman
04-30-2005, 10:54 PM
Crap. Do you endorse these views Mutaman? Do you believe, like the actress, that America is partially to blame for the murder of those 3000 people on 9/11? I wouldn't want to start arguing with Steve the author since he's not here to defend himself.


Would I have posted it if I didn't agree with it?

RedsBaron
05-01-2005, 07:58 AM
"Steve the author" refers with disapproval to the "never blame America crowd." There is also an "always blame America crowd."

GAC
05-01-2005, 10:20 AM
Steve Gilliard- 4/28/05

"Let's talk about Al Qaeda for a minute.

The American people have a bad habit of seeing all enemies as the next Hitler, the one man to stop,

We don't see all enemies as the "next" Hitler. Besides, what Saddam was doing to his own people in Iraq was more comparable to Stalin.


and with Al Qaeda, that is the wrong way to approach them.

How do you approach terrorists? Maybe they should have made the effort to approach our government first, in a more sensible, diplomatic, and peaceful way, rather then killing innocent people for more then a decade, culminating in 3,000 guiltless dying on 9-11?

They chose the avenue/tool of terrorism first as the only means to get their message across. Now, no one will want to listen/negotiate with them (and shouldn't).


The never blame America crowd, the people who endorse torture and murder, don't make the connection.

Huh? A vast majority of Americans who disagree with either this actress's statement (or those by a Ward Churchill) concerning the circumstances around 9-11, do not stand behind this "NEVER (i.e. not ever; on no occasion; at no time) blame America". But in this particular instance, yes, we do not feel America, or it's citizenry, are to blame, nor responsibile, nor deserved to be murdered, by a bunch of supposedly "misunderstood" terrorist groups such as Al Qeada or whoever.

You do understand what the ideology is around terrorism, right?... "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Sorry, but us so-called "never blame America" people see no justification in those actions PERIOD! And I don't need some "nickle and dime" actress trying to explain to me why it might be so.

A vast majority believe that diplomacy should always be given every chance to succeed. But sadly enough, when you're dealing with either defarious world leaders, or a terrorist group such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, their intent in using diplomacy is not to reach compromise; but to use it for their own evil purposes and exploit any weakness on other's good intentions. Examples?...

the non-aggression pacts of 1939- more like appeasement.

Japanese-American "peace" talks just prior to Pearl Harbor.

the brokered 1994 deal in which the Clinton administration, via Jimmy Carter, agreed to provided food and oil to North Korea, in exchange for its promise not to develop nuclear weapons-a promise the North Koreans promptly broke, allowing them to threaten us with a nuclear bomb today.

Saddam's decade of defiance of 17 United Nations Resolutions and thwarting UN inspectors after he lost the war.


You cannot piss on your neighbor's lawn without people noticing. How many dictatorships have we propped up, how many AQ recruits did that create? More than one.

OH PUL-LEASE. How was the economic development progressing in those Middle Eastern countries, and the humane treatment of their own people by those respective "tribal" leaders/ruling families, prior to western investment and aid (and not just America)? Alot of that is also entrenched culturally, and has been for centuries, among the Arab people who were largely tribal.

Most of the Islamic movements and groups, primarily those that emerged during the 1970s and after, portray the Arab and Muslim regimes, and in some cases rightfully, as symbols of arbitrary oppression and distortion of the social justice that is rooted in orthodox Islam. Thus, they instill in and bring their followers to sympathize with and support those who present themselves as the protectors of the weaker elements of society. In many cases they manage to recruit the social, political, cultural and economic elements that are protesting against various Arab and Muslim regimes. These elements also see themselves as opposing the alleged global enemies and conspirators: The United States, Israel, the Jews, Western "Crusader" heretic culture, etc.

I can agree that America, and alot of it's allies, could do a better job at bringing about reforms in the Middle East. But it's not just an American problem. But it's those very democratic and humane reforms that are also strongly opposed by terrorists like Bin Laden and others, and have incited them to terrorism.

They, by definition of their own brand of radical Islam and the Koran (which an overwhelming majority of Muslims do not agree with), see those type of reforms as a threat to their oppressive ideology. Take a good hard look at the type of government that the Taliban had in Afghanistan, and the way they terrorized their own people, including their treatment of women and children.

Mullah Mohammed Omar was a ruthless and oppressive leader. Do you agree/disagree? Here is what Bin Laden said about him...

"We ask Allah to make him (Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar) victorious over the forces of infidels and tyranny, and to crush the new Christian-Jewish crusade on the land of Pakistan and Afghanistan. "

And that is what Bin Laden wants to see installed all over the Middle East.


Osama Bin Laden is not a fascist.

No. He is a ruthless (and cowardly) terrorist who will murder anyone who gets in his way/ideology from taking over a very vital region of the world.

This sounds alot like the appeasement policies of such guys as Chamberlain and other European leaders who, in trying to prevent the outbreak of war, gave Germany permission to expand and overrun other European countries. Because after all, Hitler told them he only had plans on certain traditional lands/territories. ;)


Osama and friends are Islamic revivalists. Which means that they want to return to the 13th Century and the days of the Caliphate. This is not a new movement, but a repeated challenge to state power for at least 200 years, but it is utopian in nature. It has a history predating fascism and little in common with it.

And this somehow makes what he does alright and justified? An overwhelming majority of Arabs/Muslims don't want to go back to the 7th century or 13th century brand of Islam. So guys like Osama will convince them via terrorism. His motto - join me or die.

As he stated..."Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God"

They will. ;)


Osama Bin Laden has one goal and it isn't the destruction of the United States.

No one has ever advocated that that is his sole intention. But he'll kill as many of the innocent in order to get what you describe below...


It is to replace the Saud family with the Bin Laden family in running Saudi Arabia. No matter how much he cloaks his intentions in religion, his real goal is power. Osama is like so many rich dillitants who tire of a life of rent girls and casinos, and gets attached to a cauise. The life he should have lead would have made him a rich sybarite, with European mistresses and fat bank accounts. But with that life, he would have to obey the Sauds, and coming from the second family of Saudi Arabia, he wondered why it wasn't the first.

His plan to overthrow the Sauds comes through the US. If he can weaken the US, then the Sauds have no place to turn. And given the complete corruption of that family, AQ gains in Saudi Arabia have been profound.

Bin Laden has already stated in a series of speeches that the way to bring the U.S. down is not via miltary might (which he acknowldeges they cannot match); but to do so economically (by destroying ours). And that makes him, and the organization he fronts very, very dangerous.

We ignored him and groups like Al Qaeda for over a decade in the 90's. We acted and conducted ourselves like they weren't that big of a problem. While many of the innocent died.

It's about time someone took the fight to them, and we start seeing their followers in body bags. We promoted the growth of terrorism by basically ignoring it, and refusing to address it. And not just the U.S., but the entire world community.


And of course, Bush has inflated then ignored Osama as it served his purposes. He wanted to overthrow Saddam for any number of reasons, none of which had anything even remotely related to the security of the United States, but when time for the switch came, he told the American people and the Congress that Saddam was the real mastermind behind 9/11. A story only wingnut crackpots believed, but a lie which served their purposes all too well. The only problem was that Iraq was the best thing that ever happened to Saddam Osama. Not only is it a live fire training ground for the motivated, it has trapped a large proportion of the US Army in Iraq. Every soldier patrolling Tikrit is one not patrolling the Hindu Kush. Osama couldn't be happier with this turn of events. Not only are US troops occuiped in a soul-killing, machine-destroying war, one which is shrinking the pool of potential recruits, he has 150,000 targets.

He's giving Osama more credit then he deserves. The "insurgency" is comprised mainly of Sunni's who had it made and were favored under Saddam's regime of murder and oppression, and now are afraid that the tables will be turned by those (Shi ites and Kurds) who are now in majority power, and are bringing about democratic reforms.



The only way to protect the American people is to have Muslims realize that Revivalists will harm them more than help them.

I actually agree with this. So how do we go about achieving this? Aren't the Muslim people smart enough, and have enough knowldege of their own religion, which has been basically hijacked by these radical Islamic fundamentalists, to stand up for themselves against these terrorists? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


The one greatest thing we could do to enhance our standing within the Arab world would be to ensure justice and stability for the Palestinians. This is the signature issue in the Arab world.

If the nation of Israel was removed from the face of the earth (which is what Arabs would like to see happen), the Middle East would still be facing the same problems they have now. That little speck of a nation called Israel is not the problem for Arabs. Yes, they have ben taught that; but they are being mislead. That same argument was used by Hitler to insite Germans, and alot of Europe, against the Jews in the 1930's.


They care about Palestine and as long as Israel tries to deal with the Palestinians as subjects and not equals, AQ will always have a cause to rally around."

Yes. These same Arab people that they themselves refused to reach out and help decades ago; but treated them as second-class and outcasts. They drove them from their own countries because they didn't want to deal with them. Whenever an Arab nation has attacked Israel, after it's inception, what has happened? They got their butts beat and lost more territory. Now they use the "palestinian" people (or cause) as a further excuse to promote their hatred of Israel and the Jewish people. Very convenient. Arab leader/nations talking of the oppression of poor fellow Arabs by nasty Israel, while within their own respective countries they do even greater damage, and are being attacked by Arab terrorists/revivalists over it.

So I have a hard time buying this excuse that these other Arab countries concern is over Israel's treatment of those Arabs that live in Israel.

You want Israel to treat the Palestinians as equals, but the Arabs don't feel the same way about Israelites, and it's expected that they don't have to feel that way. If Hezbollah and Islam had their way, then they'd easliy turn the tables on the Jews, and would treat them as second-class peoples. That's a fact.

Israel has not been the aggressor in this situation/crisis; but simply has the right to defend themselves.

I would love to see a peaceful co-existence between Jews and Muslims. And I think the Jews want it more then the Arabs.

Lets hypothetically say that America withdrew it's support of Israel, and dimished it's role in the Middle East. What do you think would happen?

GAC
05-01-2005, 10:25 AM
"Steve the author" refers with disapproval to the "never blame America crowd." There is also an "always blame America crowd."

:thumbup: :laugh: :laugh:

Blimpie
05-02-2005, 12:23 PM
Well, thats a convincing argument. The movie is called "Secretary". It's a great movie, won lots of awards, got wonderful reviews. Shes a terrific young actress.I have seen "The Secretary." It was an okay--not a "great" movie. To my knowledge, it won zero awards...unless you count Razzies. As far as the reviews go, you may want to send us a few links on those.

Donnie Darko, OTOH, was a pretty cool flick. However, Young Ms. Maggie had a far less visible role than what she had in "The Secretary." Probably a good thing at this point.

registerthis
05-02-2005, 01:13 PM
We don't see all enemies as the "next" Hitler. Besides, what Saddam was doing to his own people in Iraq was more comparable to Stalin.



How do you approach terrorists? Maybe they should have made the effort to approach our government first, in a more sensible, diplomatic, and peaceful way, rather then killing innocent people for more then a decade, culminating in 3,000 guiltless dying on 9-11?

They chose the avenue/tool of terrorism first as the only means to get their message across. Now, no one will want to listen/negotiate with them (and shouldn't).
once again, you're confusing "understanding" with 'condonement". No one is suggesting the terrorists were right to attack America, or that now that they have, they should be bargained with. Not at all.

But it's safe to argue that we were attacked for a greater reason than that the terrorists simply woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning. So, what might those reasons be? (No "They hate freedom" please.)


Huh? A vast majority of Americans who disagree with either this actress's statement (or those by a Ward Churchill) concerning the circumstances around 9-11, do not stand behind this "NEVER (i.e. not ever; on no occasion; at no time) blame America". But in this particular instance, yes, we do not feel America, or it's citizenry, are to blame, nor responsibile, nor deserved to be murdered, by a bunch of supposedly "misunderstood" terrorist groups such as Al Qeada or whoever.
<sigh>

No, they did not *deserve* to be murdered...let's look at this another way.

Suppose your neighbor has a dog, and everyday on their way home from school one of your children walks up to the dog and kicks it. Finally, one day, as your child is walking by the dog darts up and attacks the child, killing him/her. Now, no one would argue that a child *deserves* to die for kicking a dog--that's ridiculous. But, neither would you say the dog attack was unprovoked--the dog had a REASON for doing what it did.

The worst thing America can do is dismiss the muslim extremists as simply nutjobs who got lucky. they are far smarter than that, and if we don't figure out what is motivating them to attack us like this, 9/11 won't be the last attack America has to suffer.


Sorry, but us so-called "never blame America" people see no justification in those actions PERIOD! And I don't need some "nickle and dime" actress trying to explain to me why it might be so.
Then you are completely missing the point. The people, arguing (as you say) that the 9/11 attacks were justified are not doing that at all--(well, except for the COlorado professor who is himself an extremist nut, so disregard him). They are saying: what have we (America) done that could have provoked an attack of this caliber? WHY were we attacked? I am so sick of the "They hate our freedoms" answer. It's total BS. There are PLENTY of free nations around the globe whom Muslim extremists aren't attacking, there must be more to it than that.


A vast majority believe that diplomacy should always be given every chance to succeed. But sadly enough, when you're dealing with either defarious world leaders, or a terrorist group such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, their intent in using diplomacy is not to reach compromise; but to use it for their own evil purposes and exploit any weakness on other's good intentions. Examples?...
No one is suggesting diplomacy with Al Queda. I stated here myself that I supported the invasion of Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban. I disagree strongly with how the war was handled since then, but I did agree with its principle. The same coul dbe said for many people--the people who supported and helped carry out 9/11 must be brought to justice, there is no justification for it.

But look at israel...they don't negotiate directly with the terrorist groups, but they HAVE been negotiating with the PA, whom they feel is a legitimate organization they can deal with (at least now with Arafat gone.) No one argues that an Israeli boy deserves to be blown up on a bus, but neither do the Israelis pretend that the suicide bombings are unprovoked or without reason.

the non-aggression pacts of 1939- more like appeasement.


OH PUL-LEASE. How was the economic development progressing in those Middle Eastern countries, and the humane treatment of their own people by those respective "tribal" leaders/ruling families, prior to western investment and aid (and not just America)? Alot of that is also entrenched culturally, and has been for centuries, among the Arab people who were largely tribal.
But the argument is that western influence has not been used to reverse the tide of suppression and intolerance in that region--quite the opposite, actually. Simply because something existed *before* western goverments an dbusinesses entered doesn't mean that it's acceptable to turn a blind eye to it once we are there. Many of the regimes currently in power were either put there or are currently supported by western governments, and it is these regimes which continue to suppress their citizens, leading to the despair, anger and resentment felt by many Arabs.


Most of the Islamic movements and groups, primarily those that emerged during the 1970s and after, portray the Arab and Muslim regimes, and in some cases rightfully, as symbols of arbitrary oppression and distortion of the social justice that is rooted in orthodox Islam. Thus, they instill in and bring their followers to sympathize with and support those who present themselves as the protectors of the weaker elements of society. In many cases they manage to recruit the social, political, cultural and economic elements that are protesting against various Arab and Muslim regimes. These elements also see themselves as opposing the alleged global enemies and conspirators: The United States, Israel, the Jews, Western "Crusader" heretic culture, etc.
But ask yourself this question: what makes their followers turn to them in the first place? I don't deny that many fanatical terrorist leaders use religion as a way to draw recruits into their ranks, but what makes their recruits susceptible to being recruited in the first place? Where people have hope-- jobs, political stability, freedom of thought and expression--there is no need to resort to fanaticism. No need to turn to suicide bombings or martyrdom. By addressing only the terrorist leaders (as you seem to be doing) you are addressing only a sympton, not the root, of the problem. You can capture and/or kill Bin laden, but unless the U.S. and other western nations alter the way that they deal, diplomatically and otherwise, with Arab nations, the root cause of terrorism will remain.


I can agree that America, and alot of it's allies, could do a better job at bringing about reforms in the Middle East. But it's not just an American problem. But it's those very democratic and humane reforms that are also strongly opposed by terrorists like Bin Laden and others, and have incited them to terrorism.
But by implementing these reforms, and encouraging their growth, and to not have a hypocritical policy that seeks first and foremost to stabilize oil production in the region (above all human and civil rights), you will deprive the terrorist leaders of their ability to recruit new members. That is how you win the war on terror--not by bombing them into submission, but by fostering the growth of individual freedom. Not the "freedom-lite" which Bush proposes (you are free to do as you wish, so long as you do not go against the U.S. or our allies, whomever they may be) but true freedom--to put in the governments they want, with the policies they want, within the framework of their choosing. The U.S., as I have said before, probably doesn't want a truly democratic Middle East, because many nations would most likely elect leaders that would be indifferent and/or hostile to U.S. demands. But that is part of the growing process. Bombings, occupations and similar ilk solve nothing.


Mullah Mohammed Omar was a ruthless and oppressive leader. Do you agree/disagree? Here is what Bin Laden said about him...

"We ask Allah to make him (Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar) victorious over the forces of infidels and tyranny, and to crush the new Christian-Jewish crusade on the land of Pakistan and Afghanistan. "

And that is what Bin Laden wants to see installed all over the Middle East.
Bin Laden needs to be stopped--no one here, or no one who has been quoted here, has argued otherwise. Capture him, kill him, bring him to justice--whatever. he's an evil man who murdered thousands of innocent people, I absolutely support his capture.

But capturing him will not put one dent in the terrorist infrastructure if the root causes aren't sorted out and eradicated. And the U.S. must play as much a part in that as they have in bombing the bejeezus out of baghdad and Kabul.


This sounds alot like the appeasement policies of such guys as Chamberlain and other European leaders who, in trying to prevent the outbreak of war, gave Germany permission to expand and overrun other European countries. Because after all, Hitler told them he only had plans on certain traditional lands/territories. ;)
The differences between now and WWII are onvious-then, a fanatical dictator who controlled an entire nation stood a very real chance at achieving global domination were he not stopped. True, the method of containment worked very poorly, but not simply because they European leaders wanted to avoid war. War should always be a last resort--an option when simply no other options have failed. I have no problems avoiding war, but when such egregious atrocities as Hitler's blatantly anti-semitic policies, and the allies refuse to do nothing, that is what lead to the Holocaust.

Now, the terrorist leaders are a completely different animal. They control no land, no armies, very few resources. Their power is in their ability to 9as their name suggests0 "terrorize" a population. As such, they can't be approached in the same way one would approach a dictatorial madman such as Kim Jong-Il. You don't go to war with a country to combat a terrorist leader (unless, lik ethe Taliban, they were providing full surpport and refusing to turn him over.) You must attack via other methods...but there are many who have yet to realize that.


And this somehow makes what he does alright and justified?
*sigh, No....


An overwhelming majority of Arabs/Muslims don't want to go back to the 7th century or 13th century brand of Islam. So guys like Osama will convince them via terrorism. His motto - join me or die.
Hardly...in a region with hundreds of millions of people, only a fraction of a percent have joined Bin Laden's (or similar) groups. Terrorist leaders like Bin Laden don't recruit from fear, they recruit from despair. Two very, very different things.


We ignored him and groups like Al Qaeda for over a decade in the 90's. We acted and conducted ourselves like they weren't that big of a problem. While many of the innocent died.
This is an absolute fallacy, but is far too in depth to get into here...I just get tired of seeing it.

registerthis
05-02-2005, 05:23 PM
On the subject of what motivates people to join terrorist organizations in the Middle East, here's an interestign article from the Christian Science Monitor:

Article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0216/p06s01-wosc.html)

GAC
05-02-2005, 08:47 PM
Well, thats a convincing argument. The movie is called "Secretary". It's a great movie, won lots of awards, got wonderful reviews. Shes a terrific young actress.

Wasn't trying to put forth a convincing argument. Just stated that I have never heard of this actress, so as far as I'm concerned, her comments mean very little to me. I don't get my guidance/life lessons or foreign policy advice from Hollywood types. Stick to making movies. ;)

Jaycint
07-12-2005, 09:42 AM
Gyllenhaal comments on her comments (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162196,00.html)


NEW YORK Actress Maggie Gyllenhaal (search) says she has learned the hard way not to talk about politics on the red carpet.

The 27-year-old actress, who stars in a film about the 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center, said in an interview last April that the United States was "responsible in some way" for the Sept. 11, 2001 (search), attacks.

She later issued a statement through her publicist saying that Sept. 11 was "an occasion to be brave enough to ask some serious questions about America's role in the world."

"I was so surprised by the way it was misunderstood, and the disdain that came back at me was a real shock," Gyllenhaal told the Daily News for an interview published Sunday. "I regret what I said, but I think my intentions were good."

Gyllenhaal told the newspaper that the backlash taught her "that neither the red carpet nor an interview about a movie is the right place to talk about my politics. I realize I have to be careful, because it's very easy to misunderstand a complicated thought in a complicated world."

Gyllenhaal stars in "The Great New Wonderful," which features stories about people living in New York in the aftermath of the terror attacks.

Her screen credits also include "Secretary," "Mona Lisa Smile" and "Donnie Darko." She is the older sister of actor Jake Gyllenhaal (search).

traderumor
07-12-2005, 10:03 AM
To me it's about consistency. I look at the rest of the world and its actions with a cold, dubious eye. Why wouldn't I do the same with my own backyard? No one likes to hear it, but humans (notice I didn't say Iraqis or Americans) are pretty awful animals (they torture, deplete, molest, rape, need I go on?), no matter where they stem from. Everyone should be tested for ulterior motives, selfish motives. Always, and at all times. Call me a Hobbesian, but to me, humans are pretty dreadful beasts, with a scant few rising above the muck. Examine, pick apart.FCB, I am suprised that you hold this view of man, considering that it is the Biblical view of man after the Fall. Its theological name is "total depravity," whereby man is wholly overcome by sin. It does not mean that he is always as awful as he could be, but that the potential for heinous sin is in everyone and that man is continually sinful. How that relates to the topic at hand, I don't know, but I thought, through discussions we have shared on this side of the board, that your view of man was noteworthy. Sorry for the diversion.

With respect to the topic, didn't the 911 commission say, in a nutshell, essentially the same thing this actress did?

RBA
07-12-2005, 10:13 AM
Who? What actress? Never heard of her. Is she Patricia Heaton's understudy for "Everybody Loves Raymond"? I know that doesn't make sense; but I find it amusing. And that's all that matters is that "me" is happy.