September 11 - A Perspective

Ed Gadziemski

we tend to have short memories Osama Who? Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

John Carson

Doug Goulden wrote: I think you have to take into account the changes in the world politically and technology's impact. For example modern technology and easier access to information has made it simpler for people to communicate and disseminate information. Genetic engineering and the technology needed to produce virus or bacterial cultures are becoming more sophisticated. I don't think that you can write it off as paranoia, I see it as more of a realization the whole world has become a smaller more involved place. The idea that 9/11 changed the world isn't true, it changed peoples perception of the world. If I had told you Sept 10th that 19 people were going to destroy the WTC you would have thought I was a nut, it couldn't happen. Even after the bombing of the WTC in what '93? People can travel the world in 24 hours, weapons exist that can kill literally thousands or millions. Is someone going to use them ? I don't honestly know, but can the world standby and watch waiting to see if and when it will happen? Thanks for the thoughtful response. I would make the following observation in reply. So far, the focus of public attention has been on terrorists being supplied weapons of mass destruction by "rogue" governments. For the reasons I have already given, I don't think that is likely. If, however, at some point technological developments mean that terrorist organisations can produce their own WMD, then containment becomes a much more challenging task. In the presence of the current level of antagonism toward the US, I would say that it is a near-impossible task. A massive campaign to win the "hearts and minds" of the rest of the world (both governments and their citizens) will be required, of which the most important component is economic development assistance. With national governments on-side, intelligence efforts can be more effective. Attempts to subdue the world through military might will guarantee ongoing antagonism and hence ongoing terrorist attacks. That is not to say that military action is never justified (on balance, and with great reluctance, I was in favour of the US action in Afghanistan). Doug Goulden wrote: The collapse of the Soviet Union may have resulted in the loss of control of nuclear weapons, I heard a report on NPR this week that only about 40% of the nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union had what are described as adequate control, thats scary. This is certainly a concern, but we have been hearing about it for a

Stan Shannon

John Carson wrote: A massive campaign to win the "hearts and minds" of the rest of the world (both governments and their citizens) will be required, of which the most important component is economic development assistance. So we could have changed the hearts and minds of the poverty stricken street urchins who attacked us on 9/11 if we had just tried harder to ensure that their countries received more foreign assitance from us? Do you really believe that solving poverty will decrease the numbers of bin Ladins and Saddam Hussiens around the planet? I would suggest to you that they are two completely unique and unrelated problems. The sad thing is that you are using the events of 9/11 to promote your own, unrelated, political agenda. In that sense, you are no better than those who executed the attack. In fact, you're worse. At least they had the courage to sacrifice themselves for what they believed in, and not ride piggy back on someone elses fanaticsm. John Carson wrote: Under Bill Clinton, the US entered arrangements whereby the US funded a lot of the costs of maintaining security of ex-Soviet missiles. See Under Bill Clinton the US also bombed and invaded the Serbians. Don't seem to recall that upsetting people so much. Gee, I wonder why? "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

John Carson

Stan Shannon wrote: So we could have changed the hearts and minds of the poverty stricken street urchins who attacked us on 9/11 if we had just tried harder to ensure that their countries received more foreign assitance from us? Do you really believe that solving poverty will decrease the numbers of bin Ladins and Saddam Hussiens around the planet? I would suggest to you that they are two completely unique and unrelated problems. Yes I do believe it. I don't say that you readily change the opinions of adults. But long term, poverty and terrorism are closely related because poverty and religious fanaticism are closely related. Much of Christianity was once as fanatical as much of Islam is today. But affluence and education moderated Christianity. The same will eventually happen to Islam, given the chance. Stan Shannon wrote: The sad thing is that you are using the events of 9/11 to promote your own, unrelated, political agenda. In that sense, you are no better than those who executed the attack. In fact, you're worse. At least they had the courage to sacrifice themselves for what they believed in, and not ride piggy back on someone elses fanaticsm. I hope that on reflection you will realise what a stupid comment that is. You may not agree that relieving poverty is a way to reduce terrorism but you should at least know enough to realise that a lot of people --- including your last president --- sincerely believe otherwise. To suggest that merely expressing that opinion makes a person worse than a terrorist is just extremist nonsense on your part. Stan Shannon wrote: Under Bill Clinton the US also bombed and invaded the Serbians. Don't seem to recall that upsetting people so much. Gee, I wonder why? I don't know what point you are making here. (By the way, from what I recall, the US did bomb but never invaded Serbia; UN forces eventually occupied Kosovo.) John Carson

ColinDavies

Doug Goulden wrote: Nicely said, terrorism in't a risk for most people in their daily lives. At least not in the US, I don't know that someone living in Tel Aviv would agree. But I will agree that the idea that anyone person being killed by terrorism is low is essentially true. I thought I'd find some stats on Israel Car deaths versus Terrorist in 2001 terrorist death 1 in 9700 chance car crash death 1 in 4399 chance So cars are still twice as deadly as terrorists there. ! http://www.journalism.fcj.hvu.nl/mediahype/risk3/risksite/page3.htm Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

Chris Losinger

shhh! GWB will have to attack Japan next for supplying the world with deadly automobiles. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Doug Goulden

Colin Davies wrote: So cars are still twice as deadly as terrorists there. Doesn't really matter if you are are taking the bus when the bomb goes off huh? Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Chris Richardson

I accidentally voted this post a 5. I meant to vote it a 1, based on your comment that John Carson was worse than the terrorists for simply voicing his opinion (even if you think it does "piggy back ride on someone elses fanaticsm"). If you really think people voicing their opinion on the matter is worse than the terrorists themselves (no matter what the foundation for that opinion may be), I'm sure you'd be welcomed with open arms in Iraq. However, that's not how things are done in America. Why a lot of the hard core conservative guys are so quick to be assholes really confuses me. :suss: Chris Richardson You can stash and you can seize In dreams begin, responsibilities
U2 - Acrobat[^]
Stop being PC and accounting for everyone and his momma's timeframe. Just enjoy your :beer: - Rohit Sinha in the content-challenged thread

Doug Goulden

John Carson wrote: A massive campaign to win the "hearts and minds" of the rest of the world (both governments and their citizens) will be required, of which the most important component is economic development assistance I don't completely agree with you, I think that the US foreign policy needs to be arranged to acomplish a few things. And buying there is more to it than just buying people off. 1. US foreign policy needs to be consistent in how we deal with the world applying the same standards and expectations to Isreal for example as we do the Palestinians. 2. The US should help their friends, whether it is by supplying financial aid or defense. We should be consistent in how we help to defend the weak and oppresed. I don't think we need to stick our nose into every corner of the world, but sometimes a little friendly arm twisting could be a good thing. 3. The US needs to continue to carry a BIG stick. Regardless of your feelings about military action, it is effective, Case in point when was the last time Maumar Quadaffi was heard from. Reagan made the point to him in the 80's when the US bombed his compound. Different people react to different things. If a country or potential adversary sees the advantage in acting in a civil manner, then they are treated with dignity and respect. If someone would threaten the US they should know that they will pay a high cost. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

John Carson

Doug Goulden wrote: I don't completely agree with you, I think that the US foreign policy needs to be arranged to acomplish a few things. And buying there is more to it than just buying people off. 1. US foreign policy needs to be consistent in how we deal with the world applying the same standards and expectations to Isreal for example as we do the Palestinians. 2. The US should help their friends, whether it is by supplying financial aid or defense. We should be consistent in how we help to defend the weak and oppresed. I don't think we need to stick our nose into every corner of the world, but sometimes a little friendly arm twisting could be a good thing. 3. The US needs to continue to carry a BIG stick. Regardless of your feelings about military action, it is effective, Case in point when was the last time Maumar Quadaffi was heard from. Reagan made the point to him in the 80's when the US bombed his compound. Different people react to different things. If a country or potential adversary sees the advantage in acting in a civil manner, then they are treated with dignity and respect. If someone would threaten the US they should know that they will pay a high cost. Totally agree on the importance of consistency. I also agree that military action is sometimes necessary (and said so in my post) and can be effective. John Carson

ColinDavies

Doug Goulden wrote: Doesn't really matter if you are are taking the bus when the bomb goes off huh? :suss: It might matter to the statisticians, as they wouldn't want to record the fatality twice.:suss: Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

Jorgen Sigvardsson

I fixed the voting issue. :) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

Jorgen Sigvardsson

I think I see the full depth of your sarcasm. :) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

Michael A Barnhart

Just to balance things. I think this would be more accurate. Chris Richardson wrote: Why a lot of the hard core conservative guys are so quick to be assholes really confuses me. ""

Stan Shannon

Chris Richardson wrote: for simply voicing his opinion But he happens to be voicing an opinion which fundamentally states that 9/11 occured, and will occur again, because we do not/have not abided by the overt Marxist agenda of the UN. Those who believe and promote that are, in fact, using 9/11 to advance their own political agenda. Their message is "change or expect more of the same". That is, in no uncertain terms, saying that the US deserved the attack, and will deserve it the next time unless we fall in line and obey our intellectual masters. There is no connection between poverty and the attacks of 9/11. bin Ladin has not spent one nanosecond of his mortal existence concerning himself with the plight of the poor. He is not fighting to help the poor. If every human being on this planet had a Lexus and a five bedroom house, bin Ladin and Saddam Husseing would still exist, they would still have to be dealt with. And that's my opinion... BTW, I would be unhappy if I did get any vote but a 1 from you. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

Ed Gadziemski

"My job is to protect America" - George W. Bush. He's doing a shitty job of it thus far. Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

Ed Gadziemski

when was the last time Maumar Quadaffi was heard from Qadaffi has joined the nuclear club. He's not going to let that happen again. Neither are Iran or North Korea. Every country in the world now knows two facts about the U.S.: 1. No nukes, you get stomped. 2. Nukes, you get left alone. Those willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

Stan Shannon

John Carson wrote: Yes I do believe it. I don't say that you readily change the opinions of adults. But long term, poverty and terrorism are closely related because poverty and religious fanaticism are closely related. Much of Christianity was once as fanatical as much of Islam is today. But affluence and education moderated Christianity. The same will eventually happen to Islam, given the chance. Well, you're wrong. Islamic fundametalism can in no way be linked to poverty. Most of those who attack us, and those who fund them, are fabulously weatlhy. They could easily use their resources to help the poor, but instead use them to attack us. Why? Obviously they do not give a damn about the poor and are far more concerned about the spectre of living in a society where women are free and all people are considered equal under the law. John Carson wrote: I hope that on reflection you will realise what a stupid comment that is. You may not agree that relieving poverty is a way to reduce terrorism but you should at least know enough to realise that a lot of people --- including your last president --- sincerely believe otherwise. OK, let me reflect here for a moment..... Nope, I still say your basic message is that 9/11 was our fault and that the only way to avoid another is to forget all this silly capitalism stuff (the true source of evil on the planet, after all) and become more "responsible members of the international community", to take from those who have, and give to those who don't have, yadda yadda yadda.... Besides, the only way to do as you say and get money to the poor around the world, is to control the situations in those countries by the overt use of military force. Something the UN will never do. That means the very real possibility of killing many of those you wish to help. Which is exactly what we are being prohibited from doing in Iraq. John Carson wrote: To suggest that merely expressing that opinion makes a person worse than a terrorist is just extremist nonsense on your part. Not when that opinion clearly implies that the US is responsible for world poverty and hence terrorism. You are using 9/11 as a means of promoting your own beliefs. I'm not saying you don't have the right to that opinion, but I likewise have the right to call you on it. I'm not the extremist in this scenario. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

Stan Shannon

Ed Gadziemski wrote: He's doing a shitty job of it thus far. I would largely agree. My point is that the statement sums up the issue very nicely. Bush's primary constitutional responsibility is to defend me and my family. I expect him to do that first, and concern himself with the UN later. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

Chris Losinger

unfortunately, we haven't even scratched the surface of my sarcasm. :( -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler