Why Shouldn't American Foreign Policy Be Blamed For 9/11?

[EagleKeeper]

One of the trigger points for 9/11 was the fact that we were over in Saudi.

Do you remember why we were over there?

Keep the two flash points of the ME seperate when providing theories.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Ron Paul is a looney.

Whats next? Blaming Europe for Hitler because they punished Germany for losing the first World War? Blaming GM for car deaths because they build cars?


The world has been meddling in the politics of the Middle East for hundreds of years.

I'm afraid simplistic thinkers like Ron Paul are unable to learn from history and are afraid to look inward for reasons why the terror groups desire to attack us.

FIXED.

Hitler and the Nazi party were the direct result of how France in particular wanted to punish the Germans for WWI. Do you believe that one day people got up and said "Hey this Hitler seems like our kind of guy! Let's put him in power. What a gag!"

No, when one country decides to make anothers life perpetual misery, then they should expect just such a thing.

Likewise, do you think those attacking us said, "Dudes, let's go bombing?" No, it isn't a particular event, but series of events over time in which the US has had a major hand. You haven't commented on Operation Ajax, where a plot far more reaching than any Saddam was supposed to be cooking up was pulled off, simply because it was what we desired.

Now does that mean we should be cheering on those who attacked us? No. Did Paul say that? No.

What he said is perhaps the most rational and honest thing to come out of a politician in a long time. Also accurate.

Here it is restated. Actions have consequences. For decades we as a nation haven't believed it as it relates to foreign policy. Backing Saddam? No problem. Pinochet? Hey whatever. Anything bad happens, it's THEIR fault, eh?

Even today you don't accept that the situation with Iran is a direct consequence of the current administration AND former US policy. Our collective words and deeds were the reason Iran is how it is. Bush used that stupid Axis speech, which others used in a fluid but more West leading situation that was key to having election rules changed which insured that we would get Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Before that, the Shah's dictatorship brought about the Islamic Revolution, and the Shah was OUR pick when we directly deposed a secularist leader because Churchill and BP asked we do so.

Now you want us to wring our hands, cry "Mea Culpa" and say "Please may we have some more?" so you can say Paul is an idiot or worse? No, not off the hook so easy.

We can't turn back time, we can't tolerate attacks, but YOU GUYS have to admit that arrogant stupidity in actions against other peoples DO have consequences, and very very often they bite us in the ass. STOP BEING STUPID. I know, the ultimate challenge.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
One of the trigger points for 9/11 was the fact that we were over in Saudi.

Do you remember why we were over there?

Keep the two flash points of the ME seperate when providing theories.

Because Bush Sr. lied to the Saudis and told them that Saddam had troops and tanks on their border preparing an attack?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Ron Paul is a looney.

Whats next? Blaming Europe for Hitler because they punished Germany for losing the first World War? Blaming GM for car deaths because they build cars?


The world has been meddling in the politics of the Middle East for hundreds of years.

I'm afraid simplistic thinkers like Ron Paul are unable to learn from history and are afraid to look inward for reasons why the terror groups desire to attack us.

FIXED.

You've changed my mind with your bottomless insight and perpetual love of humanity.


They actually DO hate us for our freedom.

Thanks for bringing me out of my chasm of reality and truth, I feel so much more insulated and safe, ohhhh, American Idol is on!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Ron Paul is a traitor...so his opinion doesn't matter.

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who is following what the founding fathers intended for this country. Yeah... he's a real traitor alright :roll:

 

[K1052]

The legacies of European imperialism/colonialism are still fscking with us.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
One of the trigger points for 9/11 was the fact that we were over in Saudi.

Do you remember why we were over there?

Keep the two flash points of the ME seperate when providing theories.

Because Bush Sr. lied to the Saudis and told them that Saddam had troops and tanks on their border preparing an attack?

And where were the troops and tanks? On the Iraq/Kuwait border?

Any idea why our troops were moved in in the first place.
Because Saudi was afraid that Saddam was going to continue to roll down after cleanup up Kuwait. They ASKED us to come over and stay for a while.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
One of the trigger points for 9/11 was the fact that we were over in Saudi.

Do you remember why we were over there?

Keep the two flash points of the ME seperate when providing theories.

Because Bush Sr. lied to the Saudis and told them that Saddam had troops and tanks on their border preparing an attack?

And where were the troops and tanks? On the Iraq/Kuwait border?

Any idea why our troops were moved in in the first place.
Because Saudi was afraid that Saddam was going to continue to roll down after cleanup up Kuwait. They ASKED us to come over and stay for a while.

To be fair, their monarchy (not the people) asked us to come and it happened to suit our interests at the time. They were justifiably freaked that Saddam would come for them next.

The House of Saud does not enjoy total support in Saudi Arabia which is one of the reasons they prefer to export their radicals and let other people deal with them.

The only way the situation will really change over there is for the oil to run out/low. The ME nations that had the foresight to diversify and westernize will prosper while those that didn't will collapse into unimportance.

 

[piasabird]

Terrorists commit acts of terror becasuse they are brainwashed by their Fascist Leaders who keep them poor, while they sit in their grand palaces in fancy robes. They are the peasants of the Muslim Kingdoms. They are oppressed so they want to kill someone and a well-off country with lots of money makes a good target.

Bin Ladin was making opium to buy guns. This is not the action of a person whith any real religious beliefs that cares about the people. These are actions of power-hungry would-be Kings.

 

[StormRider]

I think there is truth in what Ron Paul says but I personally feel that we were on a confrontation course with radical Islam no matter what we did in the past. Our past policies just made it happen sooner rather than later. I really do think that radical Islamists hate us because of who we are -- and they are using our past policies to help convert others to their cause.

BTW, it's almost impossible not to "meddle" in other people's affairs. If you think about it, isn't trying to spread a religion (like Islam or Christianity) to other countries the same as meddling? Our spreading US culture could be considered "meddling". Interaction (through trade) can be considered meddling. Islamist and their apologists might say they hate our meddling in the middle east. But the reason they are there in the middle east is because they meddle with other countries in the past -- supplanting the local culture (for example Iran/Persian etc) with the culture of Saudi Arabia. They got to that region by meddling in other countries affairs -- by conquering other peoples and cultures.

And sometimes I think meddling might start off somewhat innocently. Let's take a look at a fictitious example concerning China. China was bascially an insular nation but now their growing prosperity makes them go out looking for oil. They need oil. So they go to areas like the Sudan. They probably say, "Excuse me, can I speak to the person in charge of this land? We would like to make a deal. We would like to trade for some of your oil." The person in charge is a ruthless dictator and makes a deal with China. China builds some oil platforms and some of the locals begin to feel resentful that they are not seeing any benefits. Some time later the platforms are being vandalized. Later China workers there feel threatened. So China goes, "Can you provide some protection for our workers?" And the ruthless dictator, being the ruthless dictator that he is asks for more weapons to help with the security and crushes the locals with them. Soon the locals start hating the Chinese because they think they are propping a ruthless dicatator. Meanwhile, China realizes that they are dealing with a ruthless dictator but by now it's too late -- they really need the oil.

I'm not trying to say that the US (or China in the above example I made up) has been innocently propping up dictators in the past -- I know we've done some really bad things -- but I think the reality is complex and is more grey than black and white. Some of our meddling was carryover policies from the European colonization days. So I find it bizarre that some of our harshest critics are Europeans.

 

[Capitalizt]

If the terrorists hate America because of our culture and our "sinful" ways, why aren't they suicide bombing the crap out of Amsterdam? Legal drinking under age 21...legalized marijuana...legalized prostitution and gay marriage...MAJOR SINS under Islam. Yet they get ignored by Al-Queda....Why?

Maybe because they haven't been bombing muslim countries, overthrowing governments in the middle east, and occupying holy land with thousands of troops for the past few decades...

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Ron Paul is a looney.

Whats next? Blaming Europe for Hitler because they punished Germany for losing the first World War? Blaming GM for car deaths because they build cars?


The world has been meddling in the politics of the Middle East for hundreds of years.

I'm afraid simplistic thinkers like Ron Paul are unable to learn from history and are afraid to look inward for reasons why the terror groups desire to attack us.

FIXED.

Yes, Europe is to blame for WW2, along with the U.S. for imposing such harsh penalties for the end of WW1.

Cause and effect. If the effect is FORESEEABLE, then the creator of the cause is to be held to blame.

It is called responsibility for ones' actions.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Ron Paul is a looney.

Whats next? Blaming Europe for Hitler because they punished Germany for losing the first World War? Blaming GM for car deaths because they build cars?


The world has been meddling in the politics of the Middle East for hundreds of years.

I'm afraid simplistic thinkers like Ron Paul are unable to learn from history and are afraid to look inward for reasons why the terror groups desire to attack us.

FIXED.

Yes, Europe is to blame for WW2, along with the U.S. for imposing such harsh penalties for the end of WW1.

Cause and effect. If the effect is FORESEEABLE, then the creator of the cause is to be held to blame.

It is called responsibility for ones' actions.

It wasn't the US out for revenge at Versailles, it was the French and the British. We actually pushed for much more lenient treatment of Germany but were ignored.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Ron Paul is a looney.

Whats next? Blaming Europe for Hitler because they punished Germany for losing the first World War? Blaming GM for car deaths because they build cars?


The world has been meddling in the politics of the Middle East for hundreds of years.

I'm afraid simplistic thinkers like Ron Paul are unable to learn from history and are afraid to look inward for reasons why the terror groups desire to attack us.

FIXED.

Yes, Europe is to blame for WW2, along with the U.S. for imposing such harsh penalties for the end of WW1.

Cause and effect. If the effect is FORESEEABLE, then the creator of the cause is to be held to blame.

It is called responsibility for ones' actions.

It wasn't the US out for revenge at Versailles, it was the French and the British. We actually pushed for much more lenient treatment of Germany but were ignored.

Aye, less blame than europe.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
If the terrorists hate America because of our culture and our "sinful" ways, why aren't they suicide bombing the crap out of Amsterdam? Legal drinking under age 21...legalized marijuana...legalized prostitution and gay marriage...MAJOR SINS under Islam. Yet they get ignored by Al-Queda....Why?

Maybe because they haven't been bombing muslim countries, overthrowing governments in the middle east, and occupying holy land with thousands of troops for the past few decades...

Because of limited resources? Maybe al-Qaeda is first going for the bigger threats?

I think I remember the one-eye-sheik who came to New York (and was responsible for the 1st Trade Center attack). I read that he said something like, "first we defeat Russia in Afghanistan then the US will fall".

When the US is defeated, I'm sure all the other western countries will start experiencing more problems with radical Islam.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Deal, it is that type of mentality that has lead to 50+ years of violence between Israeli and Palestinians.

I don?t know about you, but the ?he hit me first? excuse stopped working for me when I was about 5.

It's too bad the "lying your ass off at every turn" never stopped working for you.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Not enough Americans understand why there are wars. Too many just blindly wave at the flag and say that any war has their full support.

It is our duty to call our leaders on mistakes they make, and to demand they correct them. It is something entirely different to have the mindset that we need to be stopped in the middle of a war so that we can give those who have sworn to kill us a chance to succeed.

Iraq is a small battle in the global war. If America did not exist at all this war would still be waged across the globe. The Islamic supremacists are angry at and waging war against anyone they want who does not convert and subject themselves unto Islamic law. We just happen to be the strongest/biggest target.

If it wasn?t us, how about Danish cartoonists, or Australian women not properly clothed on the beach, or gays? The world will either stand up and kill the Islamists, or be converted. Our enemy leaves no middle ground, the only thing close are ploys by which they get you to grant them time to develop nuclear weapons and other amenities and preparations for the upcoming battles.

You?re delusional to believe America is the evil in this world causing all of this to happen. Our existence is irrelevant to their 7th century brainwashing that ferments a religious zealotry. You can internalize this all you want for political gain, to attempt to subjugate this nation under their will, but all you?re committing is suicide and the aiding and abetting the upcoming murder of millions of our people.

You say they are not a threat, but then sit idly by and watch as they develop nuclear weapons. We were just as retarded in dealing with North Korea, but they are not trained from birth to kill for god so they can achieve heaven and peace. We know what middle ground means coming from you, it means we give our enemy everything they want and we get nothing. When our desire is survival, and theirs is to kill us (as with the Islamists) then there can never be a middle ground. Your idealism must never come to pass, to give them their ultimate desire.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Shivetya said:

Ron Paul is a looney.

Typical...

Ron Paul is only Republican with the guts to speak truth to power.

Ron Paul committed the unpardonable sin for Republican politicians: he told the truth. US foreign policy often causes unintended - and deadly - consequences.

For those that have painted themselves into the ideological corner where the US can do no wrong, Paul's statement must be viewed as "treason," as portrayed by Giuliani's mock outrage.

Giuliani (and apparently the entire GOP) is engaging in the same kind of mindless, fact-free jingoism - untethered by the bounds of mere "reality" - brought to us by Bush 43. One would hope that the country has now seen enough of this and is ready to get on with business, even if it means accepting reality over coolness.

Ron Paul scares the GOP, as does Chuck Hagel, because he dares to kick the last rational for electibility the GOP believes they have standing, a supposed superiority when it comes to foreign affairs and "national security".

My hope is that Ron Paul will either cause the implosion of the current GOP (worst case) or force the GOP to put up at least two real candidates who have appeal to independents and not just the wack jobs on the far right.

I fail to see how promoting torture, pre-emptive war, secret domestic spying with no meaningful oversight, no habaeus corpus, and obscene deficits fit into the world view of the average Republican.

They don't...

Only the Kool-Aid drinkers subscribe to those views. I don't know any totalitarian Republicans, yet the GOP candidates running (minus Ron Paul, of course) tailor their positions that way.

The 2 MSNBC debates and the 1 Fox debate so far have provided a real microcosm of everything that has gone wrong with our political discourse since the end of the Fair and Balanced Doctrine and media deregulation in general.

The moderation and the questions are carefully managed. They let the candidates start conversations but if it gets too substantial they cut it and move on to the next topic "in the interests of time".

Questions for Democrats are designed to keep them on the defensive using worn-out talking points. Questions tend to be kinder to "top tier" candidates than lesser-known candidates. It's all very subtle if you are not used to looking for it, but it's there.

And there are quite a few topics that simply aren't supposed to be talked about. So when Ron Paul and Mike Gravel insist on talking about them, everyone gets nervous.

The blatant attempts to marginalize those two, portray them as crazy old coots, and even to propose that they be left out when they both are demonstrably popular with the younger, tech-savvy crowd, is proving to a lot of people that our mainstream media truly does think it gets to choose who we are allowed to vote for.

If the GOP is smart, and wants to look to the future, not the Reagan past.

Here's hoping the GOP wakes up to reality. And that we have a real Presidential election next year with good options. Failing that, I hope the current GOP implodes so that real Republicans can reclaim their party and put up candidates who reflect Republican values, not totalitarian values.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: marincounty
That's exactly the problem. " They finally hit us on our own soil"? Huh, that was the second attack on the WTC, which they had vowed to attack.
And we just ignored the first attack, where was the enhanced security at this building?
The outgoing national security team specifically warned the incoming administration about terrorists wanting to fly planes into buildings, so of course they ignored the info and concentrated on getting rid of Saddam, the only secular leader in the middle east.

Can you back up the bolded part with some proof?
I am almost 100% sure that there were no ?terrorists want to fly into buildings? type warnings.
There were warnings that terrorists wanted to hijack planes, but terrorists have been hijacking planes for 40 years, no one thought much of it, at least not enough to revamp our airport security plans.

As follow up to what Chucky said?
When England busted up a plot to blow planes up using liquids they responded by banning most liquids from planes.
Following that a bunch of people came on here and complained about what a waste of time that was etc etc etc?

Finally? look at the response to the Buffalo, Miami and Fort Dix terror plots. We have a group on here who down play the threats, call the wannabe terrorists a bunch of fools etc etc.
Now imagine if the Feds had busted the 9-11 group a week before they pulled off their attack and tried to explain to American how 19 guys with box cutters planned to destroy the World Trade Centers, White House and Capital building. Everyone would have laughed, or accused Bush of creating a threat to post his ratings etc etc.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: K1052
The legacies of European imperialism/colonialism are still fscking with us.

Very true...
It was France and England that tried to dived the Middle East between them post WW 1, why aren?t they attacking them instead of us?

 

[MagicConch]

I talked to one guy and he said that he felt changing policy for the sake of appeasement creates long term problems as witnessed in Europe in WW2 and earlier. I disagreed b/c I think if we got involved less and became less dependent on their oil, they would stop attacking us and focus their aggression on each other since that would be an easier target.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: marincounty
That's exactly the problem. " They finally hit us on our own soil"? Huh, that was the second attack on the WTC, which they had vowed to attack.
And we just ignored the first attack, where was the enhanced security at this building?
The outgoing national security team specifically warned the incoming administration about terrorists wanting to fly planes into buildings, so of course they ignored the info and concentrated on getting rid of Saddam, the only secular leader in the middle east.

Can you back up the bolded part with some proof?
I am almost 100% sure that there were no ?terrorists want to fly into buildings? type warnings.
There were warnings that terrorists wanted to hijack planes, but terrorists have been hijacking planes for 40 years, no one thought much of it, at least not enough to revamp our airport security plans.

As follow up to what Chucky said?
When England busted up a plot to blow planes up using liquids they responded by banning most liquids from planes.
Following that a bunch of people came on here and complained about what a waste of time that was etc etc etc?

Finally? look at the response to the Buffalo, Miami and Fort Dix terror plots. We have a group on here who down play the threats, call the wannabe terrorists a bunch of fools etc etc.
Now imagine if the Feds had busted the 9-11 group a week before they pulled off their attack and tried to explain to American how 19 guys with box cutters planned to destroy the World Trade Centers, White House and Capital building. Everyone would have laughed, or accused Bush of creating a threat to post his ratings etc etc.

Actually, I think I read somewhere that some people did hear about plots to fly a plane into a building. I'm sure most people would think something like that was unlikely to occur at the time -- but 9/11 changed everything. Now we know that it can occur.

Good point about if the Feds had busted the 9-11 group. This is my exact feeling too -- I get a little annoyed by how everybody thinks that Bush is creating threats to boost his rating. I think Bush is an idiot and quite possibly the worst president in our history -- but I think the threat from Islamic terrorists are real.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: MagicConch
I talked to one guy and he said that he felt changing policy for the sake of appeasement creates long term problems as witnessed in Europe in WW2 and earlier. I disagreed b/c I think if we got involved less and became less dependent on their oil, they would stop attacking us and focus their aggression on each other since that would be an easier target.

I'm not going to disagree about our need to stop funding them.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: MagicConch
I talked to one guy and he said that he felt changing policy for the sake of appeasement creates long term problems as witnessed in Europe in WW2 and earlier. I disagreed b/c I think if we got involved less and became less dependent on their oil, they would stop attacking us and focus their aggression on each other since that would be an easier target.

I've always been in favor for becoming less dependent on oil so we could be less involved in that region. It's nothing but trouble over there. But right now, we can't survive without oil.

It like if the only gas station around was owned by an abusive jerk. But if we buy gas from him then are we then supporting him? But can we go without gas?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: StormRider
Actually, I think I read somewhere that some people did hear about plots to fly a plane into a building. I'm sure most people would think something like that was unlikely to occur at the time -- but 9/11 changed everything. Now we know that it can occur.

Good point about if the Feds had busted the 9-11 group. This is my exact feeling too -- I get a little annoyed by how everybody thinks that Bush is creating threats to boost his rating. I think Bush is an idiot and quite possibly the worst president in our history -- but I think the threat from Islamic terrorists are real.

Here is parts of the Presidential daily briefing on Bin Laden wanting to attack the US.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

Then nine small paragraphs later.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Things to remember:
Terrorists have a LONG history of hijacking planes and then asking for the release of certain prisoners.
The Presidents daily briefing tends to be filled with unsubstantiated and unfiltered comments and threats. Notice the ?not been able to corroborate? part?

Think of it this way?
We know terrorists would like to kill 50,000 Americans, I believe they came right out and quoted that number.
We also know that if they could they would set off a Nuke on US soil.
Does that mean that there is a credible and realistic threat of them setting off a nuke in NYC in the near future?