The Twin Towers

Victor

Originally posted by ReefBreak
The US is by far he biggest contributor of foreign aid to Developing Countries in the world.

But quite some distance down the league when it comes to percentage of GNP and per capita. However, foreign aid isn't the only part of foreign policy, there is diplomacy, coercion and force. All too often the USA goes for the latter two.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by ReefBreak
The US is by far he biggest contributor of foreign aid to Developing Countries in the world.

This U.S. is also by far the biggest contributor of Military equipment and training to Developing Countries in the world.

Capt'n Midnight

US AID - anyone see that channel 4 docu about the US jobs tied into AID ?
They have a whole industry geared to allow farmers to overproduce GMO grain etc and ship it to the third world.
Some of the recipients have refused aid because thier farmers might be tempted to grow it. Ignoring the legal problems over patented seeds, the EU will stop trading with countries if over 1% of the grain contains GMO. The US has critised the EU for not importing GMO because of the effect it has on third world farmers (who wern't given the choice)

How much of the relief AID goes back to the US - look at the fuss over the reconstruction of Iraq.

sovtek

Originally posted by gandalf


Getting back on topic I think they should put something back in its place and I think the winning design would be an excellent choice.

Gandalf.

So did most NY's but Silverstein (the arrogant pr1ck that owns the lease) is just making him (Liebeskind) water down the significance of it as a memorial so he can make some more cash.
So much for it being a "unifying" event for the country as a whole.
"Go to Disneyland" says Bush!

super_furry

I can't believe that they could even consider building anything other than a memorial or a park of remembrance. Building a new business centre there just stinks of crass commercialism.

Cork

Originally posted by Victor
By comparison, the USA almost exclusively uses foreign policy for self interest

$15 billion plan to fight Aids in Africia? What does the EU give?

Building a new business centre there just stinks of crass commercialism.

Space in New York is pretty scarce. Commericialisim is not confined to the US. It is pretty extensive site but I think a section for both business and rememberance could be built.

sovtek

Originally posted by Man

Your angle on this seems very like that of Gerry Adams here, in that you float around acts of violence in your discussion but only selectively dive in to condemn them.

A little OT maybe......

I'm curious as to your opinion of Nelson Mandela's similiar condemnations.

ringzer

Originally posted by super_furry
I can't believe that they could even consider building anything other than a memorial or a park of remembrance. Building a new business centre there just stinks of crass commercialism.

I agree. Theres no way it could possibly be just turned into a memorial. A large part of it will be a memorial, but you must remember hundreds of thousands of people used the subways and trains that ran into the WTC. Its a pain getting around downtown without that transport hub. I should know, my commute to NY is a bit annoying because of the lack of the PATH (New Jersey to New York subway), but thankfully that will be working in November.

And office space is at a premium in New York. They're just not going to let that go. Life must go on, and working in offices is one such way.

Ciaran

sovtek

Originally posted by ReefBreak
The US is by far he biggest contributor of foreign aid to Developing Countries in the world.

Actually %40 goes to that impoverished, third world country known as Israel....and most of that is in the form of military aid for "defense" (which then gets used against innocent civilians and occupational resistance, and then some gets sold to China).
Furthermore IIRC it's not in the top ten (with regards to GNP) and well behind a few European countries.

sovtek

Originally posted by Cork
$15 billion plan to fight Aids in Africia? What does the EU give?

A proposed plan that probably won't get by Congress (yet there isn't any talk about veto on this one, that's saved for more popular things like reversing monopolistic FCC rules).
Then the same regime threatens countries like India with trade sanctions if it doesn't quit making cheap drugs available (without violating patent restrictions) to poor nations. The latter nullifying any gains made by the former.

Space in New York is pretty scarce. Commericialisim is not confined to the US. It is pretty extensive site but I think a section for both business and rememberance could be built.

Liebeskind made allocation for commercial space but Silverstein wanted even MORE space than was allowed...as well as changing important memorially (is that a word) significant aspects to further commercial gain.
In the end his attitude (Silverstein) and Bush has been all about "screw your dead family member, GET BACK TO WORK!".

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
$15 billion plan to fight Aids in Africia?

A multi-annual budget, to be spent with American drug companies.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from ReefBreak
...so you are taking sides.

If I posted some despicable, extremist fascist/right-wing opinions on this board, which supported the murder of innocent civilians based on (say) race or nationality or political ideology, I'm sure I'd get banned pretty sharpish. Now, you also support the murder of innocent civilians - who are either American or have a neo-liberal/capitalist viewpoint - but you hide behind the veneer of so-called left-wing theology. Slightly more respectable, but in many ways just as despicable.

Oh, and I would consider myself a slightly right of centre (PD voter) pro-business, moderate capitalist. Do you want to kill me?

I do not support the murder of civilians but I accept that in the real world, pacifism is often not an option and in a world which is not run on socialist principles, the ideal of no war but class war does not work between two reactionary opponents.

I agreed with the attacks as a sharp reminder to the USA that her interference in the politics of other nations will not be without consequence in the future; if America had accepted the lesson that was being shown her, then this attack may have saved the thousands more that will inevitably be lost when AQ unleash the new waves of attacks that OBL and his deputy spoke of in their video recently. She has not and her imperialistic, crass and arrogant interference in foreign nations continues. The WTO was, however one looks at it, an instrument of many of these interferences (the most important to human life being the one that the last few posts have touched on with regard to American Transnational Corporations - TRIPS and the legislation that allows these companies to sue nations like India for doing the humane thing and reproducing vastly cheaper versions of the life-saving medicines that the US TNC's want to sell at an extortionate price). The Pentagon was another, more obviously. And the White House, home of the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, the National Command Authority and the lord of the US Executive branch, is the MOST viable target.

A civilian is defined as a person not in the armed forces - but to these civilians who exploit nations to a greater degree than the armed interventions of the past, there is no recourse since they have the world's most powerful militaries to protect them - European AND American and that is a direct result of the neo-liberal capitalism of which they are prime movers. Civilians they may have been, untouchable within the 'law' they certainly were and innocent they were not.

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
Actually %40 goes to that impoverished, third world country known as Israel....and most of that is in the form of military aid for "defense" (which then gets used against innocent civilians and occupational resistance, and then some gets sold to China).
Furthermore IIRC it's not in the top ten (with regards to GNP) and well behind a few European countries.

Whatever Israel gets, so does Egypt, by the agreement in 1979 and 1992. Israel is in a very precarious position. It must, as a nation, defend its borders. With Hamas and other fundamentalist groups in Palestine using suicide bombers in military and civilian targets, it is not any stretch of the imagination Israel will react. For nearly five decades, its surrounding neighbors did not recognize Israel the right to exist, thus creating the wars in 1948, 1954, 1967, and 1972. We are also now seeing the lack of political clout of Arafat. His use to allow terrorist groups to atttack Israel has proven fruitless. It has only deepen the divide between Israel and Palestine. Not to mention Arafat had his hand in the Helsinki murders and the Achille Laurel incident. Both Sharon and Arafat are the same side of the same coin. Neither can be trusted. Israel needs to select someone like Perez and the Palestinians need to select a reasonable leader other than Arafat. This will be the first important step of peace in that part of the world.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Geromino
For nearly five decades, its surrounding neighbors did not recognize Israel the right to exist

Israel does not have a right to exist outside of it's de facto rights. It was a state created because, for Western governments, it killed two birds with one stone; it got rid of many of the jews in their own lands - let's not forget the anti-semitism of, for example, the British government, one of the prime movers of the Balfour Declaration and the second bird was that it gave them what the Greeks used to call cleruchies - a small, well armed colonial ally against the powers which were continually hostile to them due to British and French not to mention Ottoman exploitation and Imperialism - PLUS when they came to implement this policy, they could justify it to the liberal sentimentals as making up for the inaction of the Western powers during the Nazi rise to power and the holocaust.

By the time Israel was actually being created, following the second world war, America was the new leading Imperial hegemon and of course the most vital resource of the middle east was no longer the Suez Canal (one of the reasons for the set up of Israel) but oil. So, America, seeing the same advantages as her predecessors supported Israel and as the foremost military power in the world, provided military aid and so on - increasingly helped by the growth of the Jewish lobby in Washington and the realization that Israel would keep the region unstable in both long and short terms, whereas without Israel, as historian Paul Kennedy puts it "there would have been internecine war in the Middle East followed by the emergence of a single power, possibly capable of uniting the Islamic crescent and possessed of 70% of the most accessible, most valuable supply of crude oil."

As for Egypt getting what Israel gets, IF that is true (which I would dispute since that would mean 80% of US foreign aid goes on a military budget and the resources I have read indicate that 40% is sent to Israel and that is the most to any single nation), then it is all the worse since Egypt is itself an Imperial power which pacifies the upper regions of the Nile and is just another American puppet now that the Egyptian nationalism of Nasser has subsided at the political level and given way to the need to boost the economy.

But all this is well Off Topic me thinks.

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
Getting back somewhat on-topic, I would say that fundamentally I believe the US brought 9/11 upon themselves.

So both the firefighters and the ordinary working people they died trying to save basically got what was coming to them? They weren't fascist scum like Italians or Germans (people who got off far too lightly in ww2 imo), just ordinary decent people. This attitude reeks of 'blame the victim' syndrome.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Turnip
So both the firefighters and the ordinary working people they died trying to save basically got what was coming to them? They weren't fascist scum like Italians or Germans (people who got off far too lightly in ww2 imo), just ordinary decent people. This attitude reeks of 'blame the victim' syndrome

So, and note, I am not basing any of this on my opinions, if the Germans, who were bullied into electing Hitler and mis-educated into nationalism by the Kaiser's previous governments, deserved much more than the firestorming of Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne, the seige of Berlin and the Russian assault on East Germany plus 12 years of Nazification and lived in a much less free society than the US (cf Eisenhowers speech on 5th July 1944), then the US citizens, who are allowed 'free' elections, have a supposedly non-political education system and are allowed to be any political colour they want BUT still allow their government to inflict war and death and famine on other nations, deserve much more than what the Germans got, by your logic, no?

Cork

Originally posted by Turnip
So both the firefighters and the ordinary working people they died trying to save basically got what was coming to them? They weren't fascist scum like Italians or Germans (people who got off far too lightly in ww2 imo), just ordinary decent people. This attitude reeks of 'blame the victim' syndrome.

9/11 was an act of sheer terrorisim. The policemen and fire fighters were there to save lives.

Targetting civialians is not an act of war. It it an act of brutality. We saw it ourselves with Omagh.

Geromino

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Israel does not have a right to exist outside of it's de facto rights. It was a state created because, for Western governments, it killed two birds with one stone; it got rid of many of the jews in their own lands - let's not forget the anti-semitism of, for example, the British government, one of the prime movers of the Balfour Declaration and the second bird was that it gave them what the Greeks used to call cleruchies - a small, well armed colonial ally against the powers which were continually hostile to them due to British and French not to mention Ottoman exploitation and Imperialism - PLUS when they came to implement this policy, they could justify it to the liberal sentimentals as making up for the inaction of the Western powers during the Nazi rise to power and the holocaust.

By the time Israel was actually being created, following the second world war, America was the new leading Imperial hegemon and of course the most vital resource of the middle east was no longer the Suez Canal (one of the reasons for the set up of Israel) but oil. So, America, seeing the same advantages as her predecessors supported Israel and as the foremost military power in the world, provided military aid and so on - increasingly helped by the growth of the Jewish lobby in Washington and the realization that Israel would keep the region unstable in both long and short terms, whereas without Israel, as historian Paul Kennedy puts it "there would have been internecine war in the Middle East followed by the emergence of a single power, possibly capable of uniting the Islamic crescent and possessed of 70% of the most accessible, most valuable supply of crude oil."

As for Egypt getting what Israel gets, IF that is true (which I would dispute since that would mean 80% of US foreign aid goes on a military budget and the resources I have read indicate that 40% is sent to Israel and that is the most to any single nation), then it is all the worse since Egypt is itself an Imperial power which pacifies the upper regions of the Nile and is just another American puppet now that the Egyptian nationalism of Nasser has subsided at the political level and given way to the need to boost the economy.

But all this is well Off Topic me thinks.

First, merely responding to Sovtek is not off topic unless you are willing to agree that sovtek comments were off topic to begin with.

What you are arguing is against the official recognition by the UN as de facto. That statement, in full support of groups like Hamas would not make peace in the ME. The fact is Israel is here to stay as a nation. Palestine as a nation still needs to be created under better circumstances. Arafat has done more harm to his own people than the Israel military has done in a lifetime. As for Egypt and Israel, I think you are going to need to do some more research before making a statement like "80% goes to both Israel and Egypt." However, aid to Egypt and Israel is about equal on a per annum. Those reports you probably have read (and you think as accurate) are cumluative and hence do not tell the full story. The current budget for foreign assistance is about $25 billion. Israel and Egypt are getting about an equal share along with those nations who are helping to fight the war on terror.

America's dependence on ME oil did not come about until the 1960's, not 1940's. Not to mention you are using the ole JOG (Jewish Occupational Government) argument, a form of Nazi propaganda, and other histronic books I would find rather questionable. By the way, anti-semitism is still alive and well, judging from you post, in Europe. The strategic alliance between the US and Israel from the 1940's up to the 1990's had more to do with Cold War politics than anything you have previously mentioned.

Geromino

Originally posted by Victor
A multi-annual budget, to be spent with American drug companies.

CorrectionL by American Drug companies. But then again, Europe never wants to take charge of anything.

Geromino

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
So, and note, I am not basing any of this on my opinions, if the Germans, who were bullied into electing Hitler and mis-educated into nationalism by the Kaiser's previous governments, deserved much more than the firestorming of Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne, the seige of Berlin and the Russian assault on East Germany plus 12 years of Nazification and lived in a much less free society than the US (cf Eisenhowers speech on 5th July 1944), then the US citizens, who are allowed 'free' elections, have a supposedly non-political education system and are allowed to be any political colour they want BUT still allow their government to inflict war and death and famine on other nations, deserve much more than what the Germans got, by your logic, no?

I have never seen a more inaccurate statement about the American political system than what I just read.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Getting back somewhat on-topic, I would say that fundamentally I believe the US brought 9/11 upon themselves. p/B]

If you argue that, then I would argue UK was far too reasonable of ROI stance with the IRA and their terrorist actions. It should have taken that republic down as well. In the realm of politics though, this is caused plausible deniablitity.

If it was about religion, then why not the Vatican?
If it was about "western freedoms" then why concentrate almost purely and solely on the US (beit on its home soil, or its foreign-placed resoures) as has been the case in any situation where it wasn't a "national" terrorist organisation striking against foreigners in general.

This does not mean in any way that I condone what was done. It was reprehensible in every way, but thats not the point.

Look at it this way....lets say you're back in school, and there's a bully in your class. You, benig brighter than the bully deliberately belittle him inside the classroom. As a result, the bully decides to beat the crap out of you.

Did you bring it on yourself? Yes.
Does that make the bully right? No.

jc

When the bullets start flying, do the reasons really matter? When the bullets stop flying, do the reasons really matter? The answer to both of these questions is NO!

Agreed, but half is still a far cry from "fairly full".

Not only that, but the article you posted implied that the initial estimates were up to 50,000 people indicating that at 17,000 was more like 1/3 of the potential count.

Taking the "99% below the crash-line survived" quote as well, and assuming an even distribution of people, we can tehrefore conclude that had the planes arrived at a busier time the death toll would have been up to triple what it was - and thats without even considering the question as to whether or not the evacuation precedures could have coped with triple the volume, etc

Similarly, targetting the planes lower in the building, while increasing the chance of a fluffed job would have caused vastly higher death-tolls as well.

In short, while it was a tragedy, the argument that teh attack was not intended to carry out the maximum damage holds true.

Having said that, I don' think it would be fair to say that they were trying to minimise it either...I don't think the deaths were a significatn factor at all - it was the building which was the target.

This point of view would also be supported by the attack on the Pentagon managing to hit the one side which had its restrengthening work completed.

These guys weren't out to inflict the most human casualties - they couldn't have been unless you want to somehow imply they were massively inept. They were out to strike at symbolic targets - and (IMHO) the falling of the Towers was not even an expected result.

jc

The terrorists had some luck and some logiical planning. They used knives less than four inches, box cutters, and razor blades as weapons, not bombs, guns, or explosives. They also used a time where it could easily control the aircraft without the flight being full, in most cases. And they also struck a symbol of America, but failed to strike America itself.

The Beer Baron

I haven't read through all this because I want to post before the mods inevitably lock this. (Just about every clichéd topic has been bandied about in here, the USSR, Nazi's, Hiroshima...)
Honestly I'm surprised that this thread hasn't been locked by the mods and encased in lead and thrown off the edge of the Earth. Although I'm here now so it might. :cool:

Éomer- I respect a man who sticks to his guns no matter what, you seem to be parrying a thousand posts there and carrying it off well. Allow me to jump in the ring with you for a second.

First of all- I loathed the sychophantic pagentry in the wake of 911. It literally made me want to puke. Ok, it was a national tragedy, and it was a cowardly act perpetrated against (arguably) innocent civillians. Anyone with half a brain knows this. Any human being with even the most marginal vacuole of decency, the most miniscule morsal of morality- can see this. That's not the point though.

Hiroshima and Nagasake were tragedies too of course- which the Japaneese still honour by conducting themselves with dignity and sombre silence. Not like the sick circus we saw on our TV's 2 years ago- no gospel choirs holding candles, no 24/7 CNN "America Mourns" bull****.

Why is it different? It's different because it's America
Why is it that Bertie decided to have a "national day of mourning" for the US? Why not have one to honour the (ever-so-topical) Omagh bombing. Not a hope!

Does America deserve what happened to it?
Yes. They brought it on themselves. They needed to be taken down a peg or too- what happened was horrible but it could have easily have avoided it with sensitivity and a willingness to compromise. Not a hope of that though. Bush- he's disgusting, I don't think it would have happened if Clinton was in power- etc, etc, etc- these aren't my sentiments- these are my mother's. (A woman who isn't a bloodthirsty mercenary anarchst fascist terrorist/whatever you wish to call someone who's views are contrary to your own.) She's a sensitive and intelligent woman- this was her view. My view, the view of all my friends and the majority of people I've ever talked to about it- including, I must say- many Americans.

Was it a tragedy? Sure.
Was it wrong? Certainly.

But then how many "innocent civillians" died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lybia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Grenada...I'm just naming these off the top of my head here.

As a nation America should be held accountable for its crimes.
Sep11th, if viewed in that way- was that vengeance.

Now before you get all "So why don't you go live in the Soviet Union!" on me (Answer- because it doesn't exist- and it's horrible) let me also say that Osama Bin Laden should be strung up by the balls and beaten with baseball bats like a big beardy piñata.

IMHO both he and Bush are equally guilty in atrocities where not only the enemy, the innocent but also their own people (not literally but at least the people they say the represent) have died in their thousands.

Two jumbos slapped into a two big tall (phallic?) buildings, some people went boom, some went splat- national mourning, big tragedy, Wall Street surrenders boohoohoo- GET OVER IT!

The big tragedies are what happened afterwards.
911 was a catalyst for war, for greed, for the revocation of liberties, for lies, for hypocrasy and for a lot of crappy footage of token candle-toting black bitches shot against the background of Capitol Hill singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in the warbling Whitney Housten stylee.

Really, I symphatise to a point. But maybe the US does need another 911, another Vietnam and possibly another USSR just to put it in place, just to stop it killing in the name of the Almighty Dollar and dressing it up as "FREEDOM" (™ and © The Bush Administration)"
Do we need to reinstate another vicious brutal superpower just to counterbalance the US and shut up its big fat blowhole?

Really, I'm not afraid of Al Queda.
I'm afraid of us all becoming the United Planet of America.
And anything that stops that from happening is ok in my book.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
When the bullets start flying, do the reasons really matter? When the bullets stop flying, do the reasons really matter? The answer to both of these questions is NO!

Really?

Answer me this then....

If the Twin Towers had collapsed for an inexplicable reason - no bomb, no attack, no fire, no earthquake.....it just fell down.....would you be saying that the reason it fell down didn't matter?

Of course it would, otherwise we run the risk of more buildings falling down for the same reason.

Now consider what did happen.

We know that people flew planes into the buildings, ultimately causing them to fall. We don't know why these people did that, but you appear to be saying it doesn't matter. I would say that ignoring the reason will lead to the same end result - more buildings may fall down for this reason.

You can look at it in two ways, in my opinion :

1) We know who did it, and if we wipe them out, it won't happen again.

2) If we find out why these people comitted their actions, then we also have the option of learning if there is anything we can do to prevent others from doing similar.

The US went for option 1. They want to "wipe out terrorism" and have set out on a crusade to do so. Perhaps its just because its early days, but there seems to be an increasing feeling that they are creating more terrorists while weakening the major group that threatens them at the moment. So, while the US may ultimately ensure that Al Qaeda is no longer a significant threat, they may do so at the cost of creating an entire new generation of even more terrorists, and ultimately that may come back and bite them even harder.

Option 2 offers the possibility of figuring out what went wrong. It offers a chance for us to say "how can we stop this happening again". Perhaps we might find out that the answer is "we can't", but perhaps we might just find out something useful....that we can make the threat less, or even remove it as a serious problem.

Let me put it a different way....when has armed resistance to terrorism ever worked? I'm not talking about just wiping out a terrorist organisation, but also preventing another one springing up to take up the cause? Now, think of how many "cycles of violence" we have seen in our lifetimes?

This, to me, would say that the "understanding is pointless" method of dealing with the problem has been a catastrophic failure, and that we should be looking for a new approach.

Those who ignore history... and all that

And they also struck a symbol of America, but failed to strike America itself.

Given the change in the US that this brought about - new laws, increased paranoia, a war-rampage....I'd hardly say that America was unaffected. The US way of life has been indelibly changed by 9/11. What more of a "strike" could American receive???

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Geromino
I have never seen a more inaccurate statement about the American political system than what I just read

Well, when I see a constructive criticism backed up with whatever evidence you care to share, then I will by all means respond and give it the dignity it deserves..until then....

Quoted from Geromino
What you are arguing is against the official recognition by the UN as de facto

What I am saying is that Israel has no raison d'etre outside of it's use by western especially American imperialism. I wasn't even bringing the UN into it - this is not a PRC / ROC situation.

Quoted from Geromino
As for Egypt and Israel, I think you are going to need to do some more research before making a statement

"America's defence budget usually amounts to around two thirds of the total world defence spending.....Interestingly, in contrast to it's total defence spending, the US devotes less than $10 billion to economic aid, a third of the average for Europe. Most of US aid goes to two countries, Israel and Egypt, or is used to boost sales abroad...."

- Tom Hanahoe, "America Rules" referenced to the 1998 UN Human Development report.

I did some research - it seems that over 50% of the amount of international aid laid aside by the US goes to fund politico-military aims. And, let's not forget, as Mr Hanahoe makes clear, the US defence budget increased massively post 11.09.01 and the international aid package did not with respect to the amounts not going to Egypt or Israel - and for the record, Israel gets several billion USD more than Egypt but that doesn't count for much since as the point is made later on, that money is used to buy arms for the country that "produces 70% of the arms supplies on the world market" - the USA. Also, the critique of Egypt stands.

Quoted from Geromino
Israel and Egypt are getting about an equal share along with those nations who are helping to fight the war on terror.

Yes, you are right - Israel and Egypt and three other nations, including Pakistan recieved $3.5 billion each in 2003 from the total of the US foreign aid package (Chris Toensing, Middle East Report).

Quoted from Geromino
America's dependence on ME oil did not come about until the 1960's, not 1940's

Sorry but America and American companies have been dealing with the Arabians since the British Empire took over the region - the Ottomans were hostile to Americans since prior to the ir loss of the region since they needed the British, hitherto Russophobes, to counter the Russian threat to the Hellespont / Bosphorus. As for dependence, well technically, Americans still aren't dependent on Arabian oil but as I said, the Persian Gulf has the richest and some of the most accessible deposits.

Quoted from Geromino
Not to mention you are using the ole JOG (Jewish Occupational Government) argument

Quoted from Geromino
a form of Nazi propaganda, and other histronic books I would find rather questionable.

Sorry but you're going to have to do better and actually show where I advocated the extermination of any Jew. Please go back over my posts and deal with them rather than denounce them as Nazi or anti-semitic when clearly they are not and are based rather on reason and historical precedent - none of your posts are supported with any evidence at all - never mind that you are glossing over what I say in order to hide the fact that your posts have yet to properly argue your point - and then you call me anti-semitic. I'm appalled.

Quoted from Geromino
The strategic alliance between the US and Israel from the 1940's up to the 1990's had more to do with Cold War politics than anything you have previously mentioned.

In some ways yes, in others no. For instance, the support for a right wing, violently paranoid government certainly kept the areas free from 'communist' influence except for the fringes which went pro-Moscow after Britain left them in the kaka - but if it was related to the cold war, why hasn't the US subsidy of the Israeli defence budget halted? Quite simply because the underlying motives where that they needed an ally in the region and since French and British colonialism had left everyone bar Turkey anti-Western and Turkey isolated, they just created one since the pre-text presented itself.

Éomer of Rohan

Thanks JC for putting us waaaay back on topic.

Anyway,

Quoted from Bonkey
2) If we find out why these people comitted their actions, then we also have the option of learning if there is anything we can do to prevent others from doing similar.

It seems to me that they know precisely what is causing the terrorism but they fundamentally CAN'T STOP causing the terrorism because to do that would change the face of the world - and the leaders of the major imperial powers just don't want to do that - let's not forget that every major imperial power has suffered terrorism - in fact one might say it is the mark of an Imperial power that it incurs terroristic attacks - the Uighur Freedom Fighters of China, the Indo-Chinese attacks on French civilians and the same in Algeria, with the British, it was Egypt, with Israel it is the Palestinians, with Russia it was the mudjahadeen.

To stop terrorism is to stop capitalism, and obviously this is me speaking as a socialist, because it is capitalism, the great flow of money from the poor to the rich, more so on a world scale than just on a national scale anymore thanks to globalisation, that is reducing nations to the poverty that even reactionaries acknowledge is a breeding ground for terrorism. Underpinning the desire to inflict harm however is the recognition of who is responsible - and no longer is it the army of occupation since a change in the way the world works means that that is no longer the method of oppression; we see the new associations being made between American corporate economic power and the persecution indigenous peoples suffer, increasingly at the hands of the unrepresentative governments that America can do business with - and make no mistake, they are correct that the corporations control the US government, or more accurately, a certain section of corporate interests have been so institutionalised (I refer to the Rockefellerian elites which form the Council of Foreign Relations and Bilderberg Group and various other pools from which many US government officials are appointed, most notably in this administration: Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, the Treasury Secretary Paul O Neill and so many more important positions that it fills a page in size 14 type), so that they control executive American perception of the outside world to the extent that they can shape foreign policy in a corporate friendly way.

THAT is, as an American communist described it, the cause of terrorism and the only way to halt terrorism of the sort that Al-Quaeda perpetrate is to stop the system that perpetuates the same attitudes and exploitations.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
It seems to me that they know precisely what is causing the terrorism but they fundamentally CAN'T STOP causing the terrorism because to do that would change the face of the world - and the leaders of the major imperial powers just don't want to do that - let's not forget that every major imperial power has suffered terrorism - in fact one might say it is the mark of an Imperial power that it incurs terroristic attacks - the Uighur Freedom Fighters of China, the Indo-Chinese attacks on French civilians and the same in Algeria, with the British, it was Egypt, with Israel it is the Palestinians, with Russia it was the mudjahadeen.

I'm surprised Northern Ireland was left off this list.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from SkepticOne
I'm surprised Northern Ireland was left off this list

Hmmm. Well, undeniably the origins of the conflict result from Imperialism, prior to the advent of nationalism, it was the imperialism of diarmuid macmurragh - and that was succeeded by Earl of Pembroke, Richard De Clare and then Henry II.

In Northern Ireland in particular, the planting of the colonies in North East Ulster changed things significantly, not to mention the naturalisation of that population.

In sum total, it may have been imperialism to begin with and the parliamentarian desire to maintain the link with Ulster up until the Second World War certainly indicates that that Imperialism, a throwback to the 'glory' days of the British Empire, was continuing - but what was Imperialism ended with the announcement by the British that they had no further strategic interest in Northern Ireland.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Really?

Answer me this then....

If the Twin Towers had collapsed for an inexplicable reason - no bomb, no attack, no fire, no earthquake.....it just fell down.....would you be saying that the reason it fell down didn't matter?

Of course it would, otherwise we run the risk of more buildings falling down for the same reason.

There is a huge difference between idealogical and mechanical reasons. With mechanical reasons, there is a direct cause/effect relationship. You do not have that exactly with idealogical reasons. However, when it comes to idealogical reasons, those specific reasons generally do not matter wants the bullets start and/or stop flying. For example, what was the idealogical reason for assassinating the Arch Duke of Ferdinand in 1914? No one really knows but depending on where and when you lived, the reason varies greatly. Hence, idealogical reasons are fluid, change with experience or maturity, and reinvented with each new generation. The historians are going to argue about the Iraqi situation ten generations from now and the reasons will change with each new generation.

Now consider what did happen.

We know that people flew planes into the buildings, ultimately causing them to fall. We don't know why these people did that, but you appear to be saying it doesn't matter. I would say that ignoring the reason will lead to the same end result - more buildings may fall down for this reason.

You can look at it in two ways, in my opinion :

1) We know who did it, and if we wipe them out, it won't happen again.

If we find out why these people comitted their actions, then we also have the option of learning if there is anything we can do to prevent others from doing similar.

The US went for option 1. They want to "wipe out terrorism" and have set out on a crusade to do so. Perhaps its just because its early days, but there seems to be an increasing feeling that they are creating more terrorists while weakening the major group that threatens them at the moment. So, while the US may ultimately ensure that Al Qaeda is no longer a significant threat, they may do so at the cost of creating an entire new generation of even more terrorists, and ultimately that may come back and bite them even harder.

Option 2 offers the possibility of figuring out what went wrong. It offers a chance for us to say "how can we stop this happening again". Perhaps we might find out that the answer is "we can't", but perhaps we might just find out something useful....that we can make the threat less, or even remove it as a serious problem.

Let me put it a different way....when has armed resistance to terrorism ever worked? I'm not talking about just wiping out a terrorist organisation, but also preventing another one springing up to take up the cause? Now, think of how many "cycles of violence" we have seen in our lifetimes?

This, to me, would say that the "understanding is pointless" method of dealing with the problem has been a catastrophic failure, and that we should be looking for a new approach.

Those who ignore history... and all that

Unless you are into the conspiracy theory, option one is the most relevant and most direct. However with both options there is always risk. The risk of option one is creating or continuing the idealogical fight. However, any direct attack because of idealogy needs to be met with force. Otherwise you are just begging for another attack while you are trying to figure out the why and to what extent. Any other response would appear weak in world eyes and to those who make the attack. The reward would be to eliminate that specific threat before it becomes too large to handle. Hence going to point number 2

Option 2 offers the possibility of more deaths and carnage without really knowing the reason why. But if you solely use option two and find the root cause, then what? Do you bow down and state we were wrong and you were right? Or once you find the reason and they state their is no room to compromise, then what? What options will there be once you find the reason behind the attack. Simply giving into demands will not solve the answer. That is a fool errands run. Simply hiding behind a rock so that you will think it will go away will not work either. History will definitely repeat itself in option 2 rather than option one.

Given the change in the US that this brought about - new laws, increased paranoia, a war-rampage....I'd hardly say that America was unaffected. The US way of life has been indelibly changed by 9/11. What more of a "strike" could American receive???

jc

You are describing the reactionary results of a nation that was deliberately attacked on a civilian target much like what happened after Dec 7th, 1941. However, they still did not strike America itself: the true essence of American free will. I think you have been reading too many doom and gloom reports that often do not describe the full or accurate story. Nevertheless, America is not about the twin towers, or the Sears tower or even a hotdog or McDonald's. IT is about the spirit of competition, to make your dream without regard to your past history or family. I have seen many "rags" to "riches" stories, mainly coming from immigrants over the past twenty years. Does this means that they are like Bill Gates? No! Does this means that everybody who comes to the US will automatially be "rich?" NO! If you have the determination, the work ethic, the endurance, the free will, and the desire, then anything and almost everything is possible.

Éomer of Rohan

I don't think I have ever read a greater amount of self congratulatory bull**** and as someone we know might call it "intellectual masturbation" (© and ™ The Corinthian lol). Here's why....

Quoted from Geromino
However, when it comes to idealogical reasons, those specific reasons generally do not matter wants the bullets start and/or stop flying

Nonsense. Ideological fights have a definite purpose and a definite cause regardless of the hindsight of historians. We live in the age of modern media and it is through that we take most of our information on events happening outside the spheres of our everyday lives. From that information, relative to the perceptions of each person, we derive our opinion on things - BUT - that is irrelevent to the cause of the politically / ideologically motivated fight and to the effects of that cause which are mechanical regardless of the opinions of people not directly involved.

Quoted from Geromino
For example, what was the idealogical reason for assassinating the Arch Duke of Ferdinand in 1914? No one really knows

He was shot as an act of nationalism by a Serb on his state visit to Serbia, a region which the Austro-Hungarian Empire held sway over, a fact which enraged Serbian nationalists.

Quoted from Geromino
Hence, idealogical reasons are fluid, change with experience or maturity, and reinvented with each new generation

What piss! Ideological reasons MAY be fluid over the course of a life but events happen at a point in time; the adults who flew the planes into the WTC had made a point in time decision to commit to their cause, however justified or unjustified - they did not sit around waiting for their perception of ideologically motivated concepts to change.

Quoted from Geromino
The historians are going to argue about the Iraqi situation ten generations from now and the reasons will change with each new generation

That does NOT mean the reasons for the ideologically motivated violence CHANGED, it just means that historians are crap at analysing past events when the evidence pertaining thereto is kept locked in a government database for a hundred years.

Quoted from Geromino
Unless you are into the conspiracy theory, option one is the most relevant and most direct

Most direct certainly but most relevent it is not; if America had announced that she was going to curb the Israeli flouting of UN Resolutions and that she was going to withdraw her military from the Middle East (which was originally put there from Cold War logic) then the world might have got a new found respect for her - but we knew what she was going to do from the minute the planes hit the buildings. It's nothing to do with being most relevent, it was a knee-jerk reaction of the world's imperial hegemon.

Quoted from Geromino
However, any direct attack because of idealogy needs to be met with force. Otherwise you are just begging for another attack while you are trying to figure out the why and to what extent

Congratulations! When that logic is applied to your earlier example of an ideologically motivated attack, ie the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, you get World War One! At a stroke several million people have been slaughtered in the trenches.

Quoted from Geromino
Option 2 offers the possibility of more deaths and carnage without really knowing the reason why. But if you solely use option two and find the root cause, then what? Do you bow down and state we were wrong and you were right? Or once you find the reason and they state their is no room to compromise, then what? What options will there be once you find the reason behind the attack. Simply giving into demands will not solve the answer. That is a fool errands run. Simply hiding behind a rock so that you will think it will go away will not work either. History will definitely repeat itself in option 2 rather than option one.

I have some trouble believing that I just read that. First of all, America is not ever going to admit she is wrong - out of pride more than anything else - unless it is politically expedient to her domination to do so and in so doing get a few wavering liberal allies on her side. AMERICA FAILS TO SEE THE REASON FOR TERRORISM AGAINST HER BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T WANT TO SEE IT. It would mean acknowledging the fact that her democracy is a sham and that her foreign policy over the last 50 years especially befits flipping China. America cannot withdraw from the position in which she is set and that is for ideological reasons - she is the world's foremost economic and military power and the only way to step back from that and to step back from the enemies that rise from the regions she exploits is to renounce capitalism and to actually become the social paradise that her hitherto empty rhetoric claims she is.

Quoted from Geromino
However, they still did not strike America itself: the true essence of American free will

What nationalist jingoistic b*llocks. Oh say can you see...! The essence of America is ignorance - ignorance is strength and the media is insular and biased for that very purpose. The people of America either ARE responsible for the actions of their government or they are not; I choose to believe they are not all responsible and the only way to explain the continuation of such an ineffective situation is ignorance - ignorance of the truth of what America does? Ignorance of politics? Ignorance of how to change their own government for the better? Miseducation? Undereducation? Therefore, 'free will' is an illusion - this even extends to the commercial level - and I would refer to Professor Barry Glassner "American media corporations put out this doom and gloom view of their own country, murder, rape, killer bees and bang, cut to commercial."

Quoted from Geromino
If you have the determination, the work ethic, the endurance, the free will, and the desire, then anything and almost everything is possible

First of all, these rags to riches stories that you here will be a vast minority of the actual events - is Fox News not just after doing yet another programme on Mexican immigrants and their occupation of the lowest rung of society? To say that almost anything is possible is rubbish; if I naturalised in America, if I didn't become a democrat or republican and wealthy, I couldn't get elected to Congress. Why not? I'd be an American citizen. But that's not it; I'd need to compromise on my political ideals in order to secure things like campaign funds and the right kind of political contact to organise dinner parties and to invite me to sit on the Council for Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission or the host of other Rockefellerian groups which provide many of the elected representatives and most of the important non-elected administratives in the USA - in other words, I'd need to become one of the political elite myself. Those political elites form the basis of the Republicans and Democrats - and so everyone else, including the Greens, is left out of the circle which is self perpetuating. Remember there are two ways into politics. Be able to co-opt big business or BE big business - and both of these ensure that the true left wing stays well out of power. Almost everything is possible...what a joke.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
With mechanical reasons, there is a direct cause/effect relationship. You do not have that exactly with idealogical reasons.

So you're saying that the attack on the US was fundamentally illogical - that there is no rational cause/effect relationship?

For example, what was the idealogical reason for assassinating the Arch Duke of Ferdinand in 1914? No one really knows but depending on where and when you lived, the reason varies greatly.

Yes, but the lesson learned was that massive "mutual defense" alliances which would set one half of a continent in opposition to the other as a result of a minor dignitary in a minor nation being assasinated is a really stupid idea.

You are arguing that considering the cause and effect is pointless. I am saying there are lessons to be learned.

The historians are going to argue about the Iraqi situation ten generations from now and the reasons will change with each new generation.

Speculation. I see absolutely no indecision about the causalities of WW2 in historian's minds, but again, you are arguing that understanding such causality is a waste of time.

I never said every situation can be understood. I said that we should try and understand every situation - there is a significant difference.

Unless you are into the conspiracy theory, option one is the most relevant and most direct.

Huh? Conspiracy Theory?

You're telling me that I would have to believe in conspiracy theories to believe any lesson can be learned from the leadup to any historical war? Sorry - but thats reading like "trust us - there's nothing to be learned from questioning our actions". Bollox there isn't.

However, any direct attack because of idealogy needs to be met with force.

For a man who's telling me that reasons don't matter, and aren't known, you're very quick to assign reasons in order to prop up your own argument. Strange that.

Also, you seem to have completely ignored my point that history is littered with examples where this "logical" approach has been an unmitigated failure. Conversely, there are precious few examples where it has been successful. Yet, you would have us believe that sticking to the tried and tested method of almost-guaranteed-failure is the best option????

Otherwise you are just begging for another attack while you are trying to figure out the why and to what extent.

Mr. Bush has asked his government for 87 BILLION DOLLARS to continue his war on terrorism for another year. At the same time, he has spent a massive 300 million dollars on "homeland defence".

You do the math. "Begging" for another attack would seem to sum it up right well - as the US seem to believe that the best defense of their nation is to go out and spend 250 times more money attacking others than in actually trying to protect itself.

If you'd like to argue in defence of this that the best defence is a good offence, then perhaps you could enlighten me as to how this strategy will prevent a new generation of terrorists from attacking the US.

The reward would be to eliminate that specific threat before it becomes too large to handle.

I've already asked you to point out where this has been successful? Israel? North of Ireland? Beruit? Where? Come on...there has to be at least some evidence backing up your claim that military oppression is the way to peace? After all, I can line up the examples of where it has singularly failed to lead to peace, and you're insisting I'm wrong, so you must have better and more plentiful counter-examples?

Option 2 offers the possibility of more deaths and carnage without really knowing the reason why.

Redivert that 87 billion to homeland defence. See how easy your nation will be to inflict carnage on then.

Also, I assume when you say "more deaths and carnage", what you really mean is "more US deaths and carnage", because last time I checked option 1 lead to a significant number of deaths, and a massive amount of carnage, amongst innocent people in Iraq.

But that doesn't matter....no....thats the "better" option because it keeps the US death-count down, and thats all that mattersm right?

But if you solely use option two and find the root cause, then what? Do you bow down and state we were wrong and you were right?

Well, if you are wrong, then thats exactly what you should do. Diffciult concept to grasp, I know, but there you go.

Or once you find the reason and they state their is no room to compromise, then what?

Then you can approach option 1 from a far-more informed point of view, and do a better job, as opposed to the knee-jerk reactionism we've seen where we have a US government desperately trying to tell us that they did have a plan, but they just completely underestimated how bad a condition the nation outside Baghdad was in.


Of course, lets not mention the fact that weapons inspectors had been travelling the nation off and on for over a decade. The fact that the US told us it knew there were WMDs hidden in the nation was also insignificant. No - apparently all of these things could be done without knowing the slightest bit of information about the landscape the inspectors were traversing constantly, nor the landscape that the US have been satelite-monitoring for over a decade.

No - it was not lack of planning. It was lack of information. The satellites that can apparently read newsprint headlines couldn't figure out that other than the major cities there was no evidence of electricity in the nation.

You would have us believe that acting in such a precipitous manner is the best way to go. Forget learning about things....just do what you feel is needed to "protect" yourself and damn the rest of them.

Sorry, I still think that such knee-jerkism is the best way to make a situation worse.

What options will there be once you find the reason behind the attack.

Well, gee, that would depend on the reasons found, wouldn't it.

Without information, you are pretty much guaranteed to do the wrong thing. With information, you have a chance to do the right thing.

I am arguing in favour of looking for the information.

However, they still did not strike America itself: the true essence of American free will.

And what "true essence" is that?

The true essence that now targets arabic people within its own borders to about one step short of how those demon Japanese living in the US were treated in WW2?

The true essence that has shown how personal freedoms (one of the pillars of US society, apparently) have been subverted by PATRIOT et al in the name of protecting those freedoms?

IT is about the spirit of competition, to make your dream without regard to your past history or family. I have seen many "rags" to "riches" stories, mainly coming from immigrants over the past twenty years.

Ahh! I see. The true essence of the US is making money!!!

America == Capitalism. Right. How foolish of me to think that the US valued anything above the almighty dollar. Freedom, Equality, and all the rest of it have nothing to do with anything as long as people are getting rich.

Incidentally, did you miss the collapse of the US economy which was aided and accelerated by 9/11? Or are you referring to the fact that the US is the most indebted nation in the world?

And would this true essence of capitalism also be your defense of the attack on Iraq? That bombing another nation and then expecting it to pay you for sending your own nation's companies in to build it back up? Thats obviously part of your "true essence" as well, cause a shedload of American people are going to get very very rich out of the devestation the US has caused.

But - like you said - thats the true essence of America.

NO! If you have the determination, the work ethic, the endurance, the free will, and the desire, then anything and almost everything is possible.

I notice with amusement that the only reference to ethics in there was "work ethic".

OK - I concede. If the "true essence" of the US is pure, unadulterated capitalism, then you're dead right...striking at the TT did not injure America. In fact, it opened up so many possibilities for this true essnce to manifest itself that its actually been one of the best things to happen to the US in a long time.

I'm guessing you'll take offense at that, but bear in mind that you are the one implying that manking money is the "true America", not me.

jc