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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Originally posted by: shira

How is 9/11 "the largest national disaster we've ever had to face?"

The Depression was a much larger national disaster.

The Spanish flu of 1918/1919 was a much larger national disaster.

WWI and WWII were much larger national disasters.

The 1952 polio epidemic was a larger national disaster (over 3100 died - the majority children - and over 20,000 suffered some degree of paralysis).

Those are just a few I could think of top-o-my-head. There are undoubtedly many others.

Now, our response to 9/11 has made the cost much worse, but the Bushies get the exclusive blame for that.

Sorry shira, I should have worded that lots better. Of course what you list are all greater sustained hardships and losses of life than 9/11.

My point was that in a single day, out of no where (as in, everything is going along normal), and then Bam! 3,000 civilians are dead. That type of disaster.

The 9/11 cost was out of the blue, something we obviously didn't plan for, and most importantly, it was totally civilian in nature, and done for pure shock effect.

Iraq and Afghanistan are none of those, although I'm sure many will debate the planning point.

Chuck
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Originally posted by: manowar821
Regardless of what you're told, the "terrorists" don't hate us because of our "freedom".

They're pissed off because we're pushy assholes with money and power to do mostly anything we want, we sh1t on their region of the world, and we think that we somehow deserve their oil. Let me tell you nationalists something, from one american to another.

Piss off.

You're not special. You don't deserve better rights. You don't deserve more money. You're not tough. You're not god warriors. You're not saving people. You are not patriots.

You're just fat-ass bullies, and sometimes the bully gets hit back.

I'm not going to clear up my meanings or intentions for the sake of political correctness, either. So take this as you will, I know where I stand, and because of this I don't give a flying fvck what you partisan hacks think of me.

Nice rant.

If we're such bullies, why are we even paying Billions of dollars for the oil, especially if we deserve their oil?

I'm quite sure the majority of people in the US realize their not special, enjoy the rights and liberties they have, would love more money than they have now, but realize they've got it lots better than some poor 3rd world b@stard, and, Yeesh, the rest of your post was like some kind of self-hate or I hate you dad! type post.

Off to bed, got to rest up so I can bully donate my personal time tomorrow...man, I'm so tough when I do that... :roll:

Chuck
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
Umm I hate to bring this up, but if 9/11 was the fault of the Bushes administrations, then what about 1993 bombing?

can we lay that at the feet of Clinton?

After the failed attempt to bring down the WTC in 1993 the terrorists went back to the drawing board to look for a beloved patriot in our armor so they could make those buildings fall.

They found it in the form of lax airline security, and a very lax immigration policy plain and simple. The destruction of the WTC was in planning long before 1993 and from 1993-2001 they simply brainstormed until they hit upon an idea that the American people and the rest of the world were unprepared for.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Umm I hate to bring this up, but if 9/11 was the fault of the Bushes administrations, then what about 1993 bombing?

can we lay that at the feet of Clinton?

After the failed attempt to bring down the WTC in 1993 the terrorists went back to the drawing board to look for a beloved patriot in our armor so they could make those buildings fall.

They found it in the form of lax airline security, and a very lax immigration policy plain and simple. The destruction of the WTC was in planning long before 1993 and from 1993-2001 they simply brainstormed until they hit upon an idea that the American people and the rest of the world were unprepared for.

You could, but you'd be an idiot. The people resonsible were arrested and convicted, unlike the most recent attack. Of course, the family of the person implicated in the more recent bombing were allowed to leave the country without being formally questioned, sounds like they really wanted to catch him.

link

In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the bombing. In 1998, Ramzi Yousef was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers. In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators were convicted for their part in the bombing, each receiving prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years.
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Why Shouldn't American Foreign Policy Be Blamed For 9/11?

Because the "terrorists" magically woke up one day and decided they hated America's "freedom".

/thread
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Umm I hate to bring this up, but if 9/11 was the fault of the Bushes administrations, then what about 1993 bombing?

can we lay that at the feet of Clinton?

After the failed attempt to bring down the WTC in 1993 the terrorists went back to the drawing board to look for a beloved patriot in our armor so they could make those buildings fall.

They found it in the form of lax airline security, and a very lax immigration policy plain and simple. The destruction of the WTC was in planning long before 1993 and from 1993-2001 they simply brainstormed until they hit upon an idea that the American people and the rest of the world were unprepared for.

You could, but you'd be an idiot. The people resonsible were arrested and convicted, unlike the most recent attack. Of course, the family of the person implicated in the more recent bombing were allowed to leave the country without being formally questioned, sounds like they really wanted to catch him.
The family of Bin Laden had previously denounced him many years previously. There was no need to detain them.

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Umm I hate to bring this up, but if 9/11 was the fault of the Bushes administrations, then what about 1993 bombing?

can we lay that at the feet of Clinton?

After the failed attempt to bring down the WTC in 1993 the terrorists went back to the drawing board to look for a beloved patriot in our armor so they could make those buildings fall.

They found it in the form of lax airline security, and a very lax immigration policy plain and simple. The destruction of the WTC was in planning long before 1993 and from 1993-2001 they simply brainstormed until they hit upon an idea that the American people and the rest of the world were unprepared for.

You could, but you'd be an idiot. The people resonsible were arrested and convicted, unlike the most recent attack. Of course, the family of the person implicated in the more recent bombing were allowed to leave the country without being formally questioned, sounds like they really wanted to catch him.
The family of Bin Laden had previously denounced him many years previously. There was no need to detain them.

Yeah but didn't OBL attend the wedding of a family member just a few months before? I know the BL family is extremely large but there's a decent chance that one of more of these people would have had a way to get in touch with him if they needed to.

This is something that should have been pursued at least.
 

hydroponik

Senior member
Oct 2, 2006
530
0
0
No, islamic aggression would have happened regardless of our actions. Their holy books instructs them to make war with infidels.
 

firewall

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 2001
2,099
0
0
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.

Wars usually have a couple things in common at least - someone who thinks that they either have an advantage and something to gain, or are threatened, and flase justifications for the war.

Take the American civil war. The south had years and years of grievances, with no small amount of justification, that they were being screwed by the democratic principle that the majority non-southern states could screw them every which way economically, and they could only be the 'loyal minority' with so much abuse. The North, of course, arranged for the south to shoot first to look like the good guys - and the war became about ending slavery. Later.

Or take the previous war to that, the Mexican-American war. You had the US feeling its oats, and getting enoug more powerful than Mexico, who had a lot of land, that it encouraged the US to take the land by invasion. To do it, the US president unilaterally declared that the border had moved, put a few troops on the new 'border', and waited for a skirmish. Between that and the Alamo, the US were the good guys again.

Of course, not all Americans fall for the propaganda, but enough do. For example, Lincoln was a leading opponent of the war, and Grant called it as immoral war of a greater power by a gereater power against a weaker as there ever was. But the US smiled and kept the land.

The US, in my opinion, did wrong to many in the Middle East in several situations, for which 9/11 can be seen as a response - as or more justified than the American attack on Afghanistan in response to that.

Basically, it goes back to oil - the world industrial powers a century ago screwing the middle east to set things up for their benefit, and continuing to screw Middle Easterners, set up puppet regimes, and so on, in ways which leave them with little to say when they are given a tiny, tiny taste of their own medicine, relatively speaking.

When only the sanctions on Iraq, for just one example, killed hundreds of thousands, mostly children, horribly through malnutrition and disease in a previously prosperous society for the region, it outraged the region, and many of us Americans, who felt that the policy could be greatly improved in terms of reducing the harm to innocent people. Those hundreds of thousands greatly outnumber 9/11 victims.

That doesn't make 9/11 "right", any more than it's "right" for the Hatfields to kill a McCoy after the McCoys kill some Hatfields, but the thing is, too many fail to avoid the arrogance of power, and could care less about the suffering the US causes with its abuse of power over and over.

I don't think Americans should excuse 9/11; I think they should take responsibility for their own government's wrongs preceding 9/11. 9/11 was also a publicity stunt, a power grab, for Al Queda, serving their interests; like any power, they used the wrongs of the US as justification, just as the US used, with less justification, the Alamo for justification in its immoral war on Mexico, or Custer's Last Stand for its immoral war on the Native Americans.

9/10. :thumbsup:
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once upon a time, didn't we support OBL? Later, we just sort of abandoned support for him?
that is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that NONE of our money, weapons, or training went to OBL while he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

We funneled each of those items through the Pakistani ISI, and they handed out as they saw fit to the various Muj leaders throughout Afghanistan. Fact is, OBL had plenty of his own money and additional money that he raised from donors throughout the Arab world.

Go read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll if you want to learn the truth of the matter...

How do you know the ISI didn't assist bin Laden? You don't, therefore your argument falls flat.

Can you prove the ISI handed out USA arms to UBL? You can't, therefore your argument fall flat.

Fern
 

Dashel

Senior member
Nov 5, 2003
226
0
71
Originally posted by: marincounty


You could, but you'd be an idiot. The people resonsible were arrested and convicted, unlike the most recent attack.

Does the name Khalid Sheik Mohammad mean anything to you? If you check your own link, you'll stumble across this:

They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle.

KSM happens to be the mastermind behind 9/11, and was indeed captured but not by Clinton. What were you saying about idiots?




 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Umm I hate to bring this up, but if 9/11 was the fault of the Bushes administrations, then what about 1993 bombing?

can we lay that at the feet of Clinton?

After the failed attempt to bring down the WTC in 1993 the terrorists went back to the drawing board to look for a beloved patriot in our armor so they could make those buildings fall.

They found it in the form of lax airline security, and a very lax immigration policy plain and simple. The destruction of the WTC was in planning long before 1993 and from 1993-2001 they simply brainstormed until they hit upon an idea that the American people and the rest of the world were unprepared for.

You could, but you'd be an idiot. The people resonsible were arrested and convicted, unlike the most recent attack. Of course, the family of the person implicated in the more recent bombing were allowed to leave the country without being formally questioned, sounds like they really wanted to catch him.
The family of Bin Laden had previously denounced him many years previously. There was no need to detain them.

Yeah but didn't OBL attend the wedding of a family member just a few months before? I know the BL family is extremely large but there's a decent chance that one of more of these people would have had a way to get in touch with him if they needed to.

This is something that should have been pursued at least.

Yes. Was reported everywhere, but the story I picked from Google was PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/khadr/family/cron.html

Sept. 9, 1999
Bin Laden attends Khadr wedding

Osama bin Laden attended the wedding of Ahmed Said Khadr's daughter Zaynab. Later, in 2001, members of the Khadr family attended the wedding of bin Laden's son Muhammed.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: Wheezer
Umm I hate to bring this up, but if 9/11 was the fault of the Bushes administrations, then what about 1993 bombing?

can we lay that at the feet of Clinton?

After the failed attempt to bring down the WTC in 1993 the terrorists went back to the drawing board to look for a beloved patriot in our armor so they could make those buildings fall.

They found it in the form of lax airline security, and a very lax immigration policy plain and simple. The destruction of the WTC was in planning long before 1993 and from 1993-2001 they simply brainstormed until they hit upon an idea that the American people and the rest of the world were unprepared for.

You could, but you'd be an idiot. The people resonsible were arrested and convicted, unlike the most recent attack. Of course, the family of the person implicated in the more recent bombing were allowed to leave the country without being formally questioned, sounds like they really wanted to catch him.
The family of Bin Laden had previously denounced him many years previously. There was no need to detain them.

WTF? A family member is involved in a terrorist attack that kills 3000 people, and you are allowed to leave the country quickly, without a major FBI investigation?
I guess it depends on who your family is doesn't it? Maybe because they are business partners with GHWB?
If a member of your family had been involved, do you think you would be allowed to quickly leave the country?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Can you prove the ISI handed out USA arms to UBL? You can't, therefore your argument fall flat.

Fern

During the Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s saw the enhancement of the covert action capabilities of the ISI by the CIA. A special Afghan Section was created under the command of colonel Mohammed Yousaf to oversee the coordination of the war. A number of officers from the ISI's Covert Action Division received training in the US and many covert action experts of the CIA were attached to the ISI to guide it in its operations against the Soviet troops by using the Afghan Mujahideen, Islamic fundamentalists of Pakistan and Arab volunteers.

Wikipedia
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
The massive proliferation of small arms and light weapons in South Asia is directly linked to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and the subsequent creation by the United States of a system, commonly known as the Afghan pipeline, to funnel weapons covertly to the Afghan resistance. The Afghan pipeline enabled the transfer of tens of thousands of tons of weaponry to the mujahidin; the weapons were procured by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (cia), and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (isi) served as the conduit. The isi received and stored weapons acquired by the U.S. and distributed them to Afghan party leaders who turned them over to field commanders. To conceal U.S. involvement, the cia provided limited oversight over the workings of the pipeline and imposed virtually no effective controls. Even the total numbers of weapons that the cia transferred may have been impossible, or too sensitive, to document; the former director of the Afghan bureau of the isi maintains that the isi kept no records.

Link
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The massive proliferation of small arms and light weapons in South Asia is directly linked to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and the subsequent creation by the United States of a system, commonly known as the Afghan pipeline, to funnel weapons covertly to the Afghan resistance. The Afghan pipeline enabled the transfer of tens of thousands of tons of weaponry to the mujahidin; the weapons were procured by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (cia), and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (isi) served as the conduit. The isi received and stored weapons acquired by the U.S. and distributed them to Afghan party leaders who turned them over to field commanders. To conceal U.S. involvement, the cia provided limited oversight over the workings of the pipeline and imposed virtually no effective controls. Even the total numbers of weapons that the cia transferred may have been impossible, or too sensitive, to document; the former director of the Afghan bureau of the isi maintains that the isi kept no records.

Link

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Fern
Can you prove the ISI handed out USA arms to UBL? You can't, therefore your argument fall flat.

Fern

During the Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s saw the enhancement of the covert action capabilities of the ISI by the CIA. A special Afghan Section was created under the command of colonel Mohammed Yousaf to oversee the coordination of the war. A number of officers from the ISI's Covert Action Division received training in the US and many covert action experts of the CIA were attached to the ISI to guide it in its operations against the Soviet troops by using the Afghan Mujahideen, Islamic fundamentalists of Pakistan and Arab volunteers.

I've not heard anyone dispute the ISI - CIA program. OTOH, I've never see anyone offer any evidence that UBL received anything from it or us (even indirectly, contrary to popular myth).

Your posts above offer no evidence of that whatsoever.

Notwithstanding the above issue, there's arguably a very substanial difference between the US selecting/approving UBL specifically for such aid, and the Pakistani's doing it with what might end up coincidentally being a US provided material.

Fern
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern
I've not heard anyone dispute the ISI - CIA program. OTOH, I've never see anyone offer any evidence that UBL received anything from it or us (even indirectly, contrary to popular myth).

Your posts above offer no evidence of that whatsoever.

Notwithstanding the above issue, there's arguably a very substanial difference between the US selecting/approving UBL specifically for such aid, and the Pakistani's doing it with what might end up coincidentally being a US provided material.

Fern
It was buried so deep I doubt anyone could produce evidence of anything happening specifically, still there's the possibility that our aid, albeit funneled through the ISI, helped OBL in some tangible or intangible way. We were fighting a proxy war with Russia, he and the other mujahaideen were our allies even if it was all played at a distance.

<Shrug>

As for the difference, you're right it's direct vs. indirect, but more importantly it's more proof of America's meddling in the region and the law of unintended consequences. We couldn't have any knowledge of it, so we let some other country do our dirty work. Another example of our history of meddling in the region and playing one side vs. the other. Even if not a single bullet supplied by the U.S. got into OBL's gun, all of that is still true.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It was buried so deep I doubt anyone could produce evidence of anything happening specifically, still there's the possibility that our aid, albeit funneled through the ISI, helped OBL in some tangible or intangible way. We were fighting a proxy war with Russia, he and the other mujahaideen were our allies even if it was all played at a distance.

<Shrug>

As for the difference, you're right it's direct vs. indirect, but more importantly it's more proof of America's meddling in the region and the law of unintended consequences. We couldn't have any knowledge of it, so we let some other country do our dirty work. Another example of our history of meddling in the region and playing one side vs. the other. Even if not a single bullet supplied by the U.S. got into OBL's gun, all of that is still true.

"the law of unintended consequences". Good point. I generally think of this as the most powerful law in the universe. Recognizing it's existance gives me a measure of peace, and allows me a measure of amusement as events unfold (instead of being grumpy and pissed off).

God only knows what's coming down the pipe from this Iraq stuff. It looks like the err "original plan" ain't quite happ'nin.

Well time to go home & turn my thoughts to important/intelligent stuff, like "Lost" & "Idol".
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once upon a time, didn't we support OBL? Later, we just sort of abandoned support for him?
that is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that NONE of our money, weapons, or training went to OBL while he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

We funneled each of those items through the Pakistani ISI, and they handed out as they saw fit to the various Muj leaders throughout Afghanistan. Fact is, OBL had plenty of his own money and additional money that he raised from donors throughout the Arab world.

Go read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll if you want to learn the truth of the matter...

How do you know the ISI didn't assist bin Laden? You don't, therefore your argument falls flat.

For the most part, the decision-makers in ISI during the 80's despised OBL and his collection of foreign Muj. Most first-hand testimony on the subject indicates that the ISI intentionally kept OBL from receiving any fund, training, etc from the US coffers. Like I said before, OBL had plenty of his own funding.

Trust me, this is one historical subject I know very well. You really should stick to hugging al Sadr and leave this one alone...
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once upon a time, didn't we support OBL? Later, we just sort of abandoned support for him?
that is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that NONE of our money, weapons, or training went to OBL while he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

We funneled each of those items through the Pakistani ISI, and they handed out as they saw fit to the various Muj leaders throughout Afghanistan. Fact is, OBL had plenty of his own money and additional money that he raised from donors throughout the Arab world.

Go read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll if you want to learn the truth of the matter...

How do you know the ISI didn't assist bin Laden? You don't, therefore your argument falls flat.

For the most part, the decision-makers in ISI during the 80's despised OBL and his collection of foreign Muj. Most first-hand testimony on the subject indicates that the ISI intentionally kept OBL from receiving any fund, training, etc from the US coffers. Like I said before, OBL had plenty of his own funding.

Trust me, this is one historical subject I know very well. You really should stick to hugging al Sadr and leave this one alone...

Even if OBL did not receive US training or money, plenty of other future terrorists did. Whether or not specific terrorist groups rose from our efforts in the Middle East, it's undeniable that our actions there during the Cold War directly gave rise to many of the armed radical groups in that area.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Maybe we can blame 9-11 on our foreign policy.
Investor?s Business Daily made a pretty good case that you can blame it in on Jimmy Carter due to the chain of events he put in place.
1. Removed support for the Shah causing his regime to collapse.
2. In its place we get the first Islamic Fundamentalist government in the world, the role model for the Taliban.
3. The Soviets see how we are unwilling and unable to stand up for our allies decide to invade Afghanistan knowing that we can?t do anything about it.
4. The long fight against the Soviets becomes the genesis for AQ and many other anti-western Islamic groups.
5. Following the withdrawal of the Soviets the Taliban take over creating the Islamic utopia favored by people such as Osama.
6. Given sanctuary and free reign Osama sits back and plans his terror attacks on the west.

All this starts with Jimmy Carter deciding that humanitarian concerns are more important that global security concerns. A mistake he has repeated many times since.

Example: ?Oh look at the poor Palestinian people living in apartheid. They economy is suffocated, kept locked up like criminals behind walls etc etc??

He ignores the fact that Israel is forced to treat them that way because the second they let up on security the Palestinian?s respond by blowing up a café or a buss filled with innocent people.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Maybe we can blame 9-11 on our foreign policy.
Investor?s Business Daily made a pretty good case that you can blame it in on Jimmy Carter due to the chain of events he put in place.
1. Removed support for the Shah causing his regime to collapse.
2. In its place we get the first Islamic Fundamentalist government in the world, the role model for the Taliban.
3. The Soviets see how we are unwilling and unable to stand up for our allies decide to invade Afghanistan knowing that we can?t do anything about it.
4. The long fight against the Soviets becomes the genesis for AQ and many other anti-western Islamic groups.
5. Following the withdrawal of the Soviets the Taliban take over creating the Islamic utopia favored by people such as Osama.
6. Given sanctuary and free reign Osama sits back and plans his terror attacks on the west.

All this starts with Jimmy Carter deciding that humanitarian concerns are more important that global security concerns. A mistake he has repeated many times since.

Example: ?Oh look at the poor Palestinian people living in apartheid. They economy is suffocated, kept locked up like criminals behind walls etc etc??

He ignores the fact that Israel is forced to treat them that way because the second they let up on security the Palestinian?s respond by blowing up a café or a buss filled with innocent people.

No one person is responsible for the last 40 years worth of poor foreign policy. Is he partially responsible? Absolutely.

Every president that has supported the ME dictators to secure oil is to blame, among others.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
No one person is responsible for the last 40 years worth of poor foreign policy. Is he partially responsible? Absolutely.

Every president that has supported the ME dictators to secure oil is to blame, among others.
How much blame do we place on the people who did the act?

Were people wrong in picking on the VA Tech shooter? Yes. Was his reply acceptable? Of course not.

I think the problem when we get into these semantic games is that we tend to shift blame from where it belongs to other places.

If you want to blame our foreign policy then blame us for not reacting strong enough when they attacked us in the past.

The Soviets set the perfect example when a diplomat was killed and some others kidnapped. The KGB tracked down and killed a member of the kidnapper?s family. The hostages were released and no one ever messed with the Soviets again.

Look at Libya as a perfect example. They were a major supporter of terrorism in the 1980s until Reagan missed Khadafi by a few hundred feet. After that they changed their ways.

If we had responded to the 1990s AQ attacks with a real and meaningful response then maybe the Taliban would have decided that harboring Osama wasn?t worth the trouble.
Instead of a few cruise missiles we should have sent in a dozen B-2 and went after the leaders of the Taliban and Osama?s training camps at the same time.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once upon a time, didn't we support OBL? Later, we just sort of abandoned support for him?
that is a complete fallacy.

The truth is that NONE of our money, weapons, or training went to OBL while he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.

We funneled each of those items through the Pakistani ISI, and they handed out as they saw fit to the various Muj leaders throughout Afghanistan. Fact is, OBL had plenty of his own money and additional money that he raised from donors throughout the Arab world.

Go read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll if you want to learn the truth of the matter...

How do you know the ISI didn't assist bin Laden? You don't, therefore your argument falls flat.

For the most part, the decision-makers in ISI during the 80's despised OBL and his collection of foreign Muj. Most first-hand testimony on the subject indicates that the ISI intentionally kept OBL from receiving any fund, training, etc from the US coffers. Like I said before, OBL had plenty of his own funding.

Trust me, this is one historical subject I know very well. You really should stick to hugging al Sadr and leave this one alone...

Even if OBL did not receive US training or money, plenty of other future terrorists did. Whether or not specific terrorist groups rose from our efforts in the Middle East, it's undeniable that our actions there during the Cold War directly gave rise to many of the armed radical groups in that area.
Those actions also gave rise to the Northern Alliance - who, coincidentally, fought by our side in 2001 to decimate the Taliban and AQ's forces in Afghanistan. Go figure!

I even have a painting of Ahmad Shah Massoud on my wall that I commissioned - from a local - during my first tour in Afghanistan...

Speaking of walls, some say that the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan played a very large role in the collapse of the Soviet Union; and, ultimately, the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Crazy, eh?

So, my point? You take the good with the bad...
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |