September 11 - A Perspective

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

Chris Losinger

Stan Shannon wrote: bin Ladin has not spent one nanosecond of his mortal existence concerning himself with the plight of the poor that's proveably non-true: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134599925_webmurray20.html[^] it doesn't excuse him for 9/11, but it does add facts to this discussion. -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

John Carson

Stan Shannon wrote: 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. I will probably regret answering but... To describe as "Marxist" any suggestion that it might be a good thing to do something to reduce poverty is very dishonest labelling. I suppose you think that the Pope, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are all Marxists. Moroever, it is simply a logical error to claim that, because someone says X has some role in producing Y, therefore the person is claiming that Y is morally justified or that those who suffer it deserve what they get. Suppose I were to claim the following: "If anyone challenges Stan Shannon's views, then Stan is likely to respond with abuse." Does this assertion of a causal relationship mean that I think that anyone who challenges your views deserves any abuse that results? (The answer is no, in case you are unclear on the point.) Stan Shannon wrote: 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. You are confounding separate if somewhat related problems --- dictatorial governments and terrorists --- which require separate analysis. My comments are limited to terrorists. In that regard, you seem to only be able to conceive of the most simple and mechanical causal relationships. Poverty shapes a whole culture, creating resentment, despair and a susceptibility to fanaticism. Whether a particular terrorist leader has the reduction of poverty as an objective or is in fact poor is largely beside the point. Men who are unhappy with their jobs sometimes fight with their wives. Does the fact that fighting with their wives won't do anything to improve their jobs mean that job dissatisfaction played no role in initiating the quarelling with their wives? John Carson

Paul Watson

John Carson wrote: I would suggest that the theatricality of terrorism has led people to wildly exaggerate its practical significance in comparison with other problems and threats that the US faces. While yes road death kills 100 times more than terrorism the fact is that terrorism is a principal thing. Driving a car and being killed in it is a tragedy, but it is an accepted risk for one and also something you have chosen to do (drive a car.) With terrorism of this sort it is a direct attack on the freedom, the work etc. of the victims. Those victims were not doing something they felt had a risk of terrorist attack in it. Hard to put this down in words, but I am sure you know what I mean. It is dramatic, theatrical, because it is not "oh two speeding objects collided on the interstate" but rather "a band of fanatics just flew a plane into a building with thousands of unsuspecting people." People working, going about their daily lives, producing, creating, being good citizens (mainly.) Good post nonetheless.

Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa

Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

John Carson

Stan Shannon wrote: 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? As I say in more detail in reply to another of your posts, poverty shapes an entire culture, making it susceptible to fanaticism. Stan Shannon wrote: Nope, I still say your basic message is that 9/11 was our fault An error of logical inference on your part (see my reply to your other post for more detail). Stan Shannon wrote: 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. If you are saying that helping the poor is not straightforward or simple to accomplish, then I agree. Your conclusion that military force is the principal or only possible solution is a non sequitur. But I am not a pacifist; there are occasions when the use of military force is justified. Stan Shannon wrote: 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. The fact that you cannot draw a sensible moral distinction between expressing an opinion and committing mass murder makes me wonder why I am bothering to have this discussion. "I'm not the extremist in this scenario." What a joke. Let me be quite explicit on my beliefs, which I am proud to own and which I am quite sure do not make me worse than a mass murderer. 1. I believe that all rich countries (e.g., the US, France, Australia, Japan) should do more to help raise the living standards of people in poor nations. Tens of millions of people die unnecessary deaths each year as a consequence of poverty. Many more lead very stunted lives due to poverty. I think that this is a bad thing and that it would be a g

Stan Shannon

John Carson wrote: poverty shapes an entire culture, making it susceptible to fanaticism. And your thesis is rendered absurd by the altogether simple observation that we are being attacked by citizens of some of the wealthiest societies on the planet yet Mexico, one of the worlds poorest nations on our very border has never launched a terrorist assault against us (unless you consider Poncho Villa a terrorist). Poverty in Mexico certainly has not spawned a horde of terrorist fanatics. John Carson wrote: An error of logical inference on your part (see my reply to your other post for more detail). You've got to be joking. You start a thread entitled "September 11 - A Perspective" and immmediately launch into an indictment of US culture and present a thesis which clearly implies the US is culpable for world poverty. There is absolutely no error of logical inference on my part. You very clearly stated your posistion. John Carson wrote: The fact that you cannot draw a sensible moral distinction between expressing an opinion and committing mass murde Your opinion lays the blame for virtually every problem on the planet at the feet of the US. As long as there is even the slightest implication of American culbability for the events of 9/11, I will have to insist that you are in fact purposefully utilizing that terrorism for the promulgation of your own, completely independent, agenda. Your thesis is in fact predicated upon an inherently Marxist world view, and yes I would say Bill Clinton, as well as the Pope,(I have hope for Tony Blair) are certainly proponents of that same basic philosophy. It is a philosophy which in no uncertain terms lays the blame for poverty upon the most basic tenents of American culture - private property rights and free market capitalism. Those who feel threatened by those principles, whether they be Islamic radicals, or European Socialists, have rallied around a common flag, come together in a mutual embrace, and stand united in a common cause against the US. Those are the lines you have drawn. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

Doug Goulden

Really? Clinton was the one who lobbed a couple of cruise missles every once in a while, while Bin Laden and his folks were planning the attack of 9/11. Since 9/11 Bush and the US have achieved a several things: 1. No large scale terrosist attacks against the US. 2. Dismantled the Taliban and the Al Quada terrorist camps. 3. Large numbers of Al Quada members have been routed if not captured. 4. Bin Laden although he hasn't been captured is not sleeping soundly at night. You and I will probably never know the full details of what the US government has accomplished during this "War against Terrorism", but considering the large draw down of the US military during the 90's we seem to be doing pretty well. I think its not very realistic to expect that the Al Quada network and all terrorism was going to end immediately, this is going to take a lot of time and effort. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?