September 11 - A Perspective

[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?

[Doug Goulden]

He also hasn't been hijacking any cruise ships or bombing any airplanes..... another important point. BTW I didn't think it was confirmed he had nukes... not to say he doesn't, I thought it was just a suspicion. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

[Michael A Barnhart]

Doug Goulden wrote: 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. Just want to say I agree. ""

[Michael A Barnhart]

To keep my answer short I will just say mixing an accident that kills people even if that accident was due to negligence on some ones part is far different than from an act whose sole intent was to kill innocent people. But you are also correct that we should not throw away those truths and standards we build our country on. ""

[John Carson]

Paul Watson wrote: 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.) I agree. The fact that terrorism stirs the response that it does is quite understandable. I just think that people need to maintain some perspective, difficult though that is. John Carson

[John Carson]

I can see that, once challenged, all sorts of defensive responses kick in and prevent you from seeing an issue clearly. Any logical or moral nuances are impossible for you. A few points. 1. I said that poverty makes a culture susceptible to fanaticism. Had I said "there is a perfect 1 to 1 correlation between individual poverty and fanaticism" then your refutation would be worth something, but I didn't so it isn't. Moreover, the actions of terrorists must be seen in the context of Middle Eastern politics and culture as a whole, not in terms of the income of the individuals concerned. 2. You apparently have no idea what Marxism is. 3. My criticism of the US was far less sweeping than you claim and you still seem unable to grasp the fundamental logical point that an argument that US action/inaction can affect the incidence of terrorism does not in any way imply a belief that terrorists are morally justified in their actions. To take your position to its logical extreme, suppose I said that the US could have prevented the September 11 attack by bombing more countries more often beforehand. The logic of your argument then says that, with this assertion, I am blaming the US for the attack. 4. I don't run away from the view that the US is less than perfect (as is my own country of Australia and as is every other country in the world). You seem to regard such a suggestion as blasphemy. This will be my last reply to you in this thread. John Carson

[John Carson]

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: To keep my answer short I will just say mixing an accident that kills people even if that accident was due to negligence on some ones part is far different than from an act whose sole intent was to kill innocent people. Murder and accidental death are indeed radically different. No argument. My purpose was simply to provide a perspective on the level of threat. John Carson

[Stan Shannon]

John Carson wrote: does not in any way imply a belief that terrorists are morally justified in their actions. I never once suggested that you did. Yet, anyone who relates 9/11, or any other act of terror, to anything the victim has done, is totally out of order. Relating American culture to 9/11 is as morally repulsive as blaming the victim of a rape for the actions of the rapist. Being grossly offended by that is not the act of a mindless super-patroit. You are the one who presented an unflattering critic of US Culture as your perspective on 9/11. You can criticize the US all you like, just don't relate it to 9/11. My suggestion is that you, and so many others, are willing to use the fact of the terror, whether you agree with it morally or not, as a rational, a justification, for arguments and opinions unrelated to the reality of the situation at hand. BTW, I know exactly what Marxism is. I've studied the concpet thoroughly. I used to be one. Granted, Marxism as defined in precisely correct political science terminology is long dead. Still, the heart and soul of Marxism lives on in a thousand different forms worming around through human society in a effort to eventually reunite into a full blown expression of the concept. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote: 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. Note: I am not building upon the theory that poverty is the problem. Also all I know about Mexico is Chihuaha's (the little dog's), taco's and that they get to play shitty character's in movies. So I have no perspective and am asking a question. Has the CIA stuck it's hand up the arse of the man in charge of Mexico and used him like a puppet? Has the US pissed in their pool so often that they feel the need to retaliate by what ever means possible? I watched a movie the other day called the Patriot. I don't know how much was based on truth and how much was Hollywood hype. It was based on the man Benjamin Martin. He was so incensed by what the British did to him and his people he fought back. He fought back in a new and horrific way completely contrary to the rules of war of the time. Women and children were hacked to death the same as the men. How is this different to what the terrorists of today are doing, except this time it against one of you and not by one of you? Leave you Duelling Bonjo theme at home when you answer this. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002

[Stan Shannon]

Michael Martin wrote: Has the CIA stuck it's hand up the arse of the man in charge of Mexico and used him like a puppet? Has the US pissed in their pool so often that they feel the need to retaliate by what ever means possible? That is a reasonable argument to make. I was simply argueing that the original thesis was obviously flawed. If they want to be free of American influence, I can understand that perfectly. Michael Martin wrote: Leave you Duelling Bonjo theme at home when you answer this. Sorry, but I have every right to be offended by someone relating the violence of 9/11 to their personal critical views of US culture. That is entirely beyond the pale. If your wife had just been raped and some minister came to the hospital to use her to promote some religious views he had on proper female conduct I dare say reason and logic would not be your first response. He might not share the morals of the rapist but he would be using the fact of the rape for his own purposes none the less - and that is, in fact, equally immoral. Michael Martin wrote: I watched a movie the other day called the Patriot. I don't know how much was based on truth and how much was Hollywood hype. It was based on the man Benjamin Martin. He was so incensed by what the British did to him and his people he fought back. He fought back in a new and horrific way completely contrary to the rules of war of the time. Women and children were hacked to death the same as the men. Actually, by 1776, there was nothing new or unique about the style of warfare depicted in The Patriot (even if somewhat romanticized), it was considered standard operating procedures during the Indian wars. When the Indians decided to fight a war, it was generally considered a war of extermination and wanton cruelty. We obliged. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote: Sorry, but I have every right to be offended by someone relating the violence of 9/11 to their personal critical views of US culture. That is entirely beyond the pale. If your wife had just been raped and some minister came to the hospital to use her to promote some religious views he had on proper female conduct I dare say reason and logic would not be your first response. He might not share the morals of the rapist but he would be using the fact of the rape for his own purposes none the less - and that is, in fact, equally immoral. Not what I said. I meant I didn't want you getting all patriotic and hysterical in your response. As I wanted my questions answered. Something you did very well. All my questions answered and extra information thrown in for free. I'm not saying you can't be patriotic. Just in this case I really wanted answers. Stan Shannon wrote: Actually, by 1776, there was nothing new or unique about the style of warfare depicted in The Patriot (even if somewhat romanticized), it was considered standard operating procedures during the Indian wars. When the Indians decided to fight a war, it was generally considered a war of extermination and wanton cruelty. We obliged. Didn't know that about theIndians. But the references in the movies was about attacks like this against the French. Against the English we saw the officers targetted which was against the rules, though made perfect sense to me. So I still say the current day Arabs aren't the first or only ones to fight contrary to the rules of engagement. Doing whatever they have to no matter how horrific. Not nice, I'm not condoning it, but I can see why they fell the need to do it. Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002