Did anyone really have any doubts...?

[skooooo]

Right after 9/11 happened, I remember thinking that it was inevitable that the US would launch massive retaliations that would go beyond the scope of anything we had previously done in wartime.

Everyone was justifiably angered and outraged at the destruction of the WTC, but it went beyond anger. Really, it was like someone angered a 15-year-old, testosterone filled, not-so-bright boy to the point of violence.

Sure enough, we have acted in kind destroying any sense of good will toward the US, and living true to form just as the terrorists wanted us to.

Another thing I remember, right after 9/11 was the consensus among family and friends that the terrorists had done a spectacular job at what they attempted. I had no idea how successful they had been until the last few years rolled out and I saw how morally bankrupt and corrupt our leadership was.

Yes, the terrorists did quite a spectacular job on 9/11 and the dividends are paying off for them rather handsomely thanks to us.

[kalian]

1. The "terrorists"....

why is it that people keep on believing that there were "terrorists"
behind all this...? :shrug: Once we get beyond this, then we can
truly discuss this issue.

My apologies for hijacking this thread, but its something that needs
to be discussed.

[skooooo]

2. Well, there ARE terrorists....

...simple as that. The word is misused alot, so I understand where you are coming from, but they do exist. Now that we've attaced Iraq, the picture and terms are even muddier.

Care to comment on anything else I wrote?

[Senior citizen]

14. There was a poster

back when I was a volunteer in a branch office of retired Congressman Ron Dellums, D(CA), and it had two identical figures side by side. The one on the left was labelled "terrorist" and the one on the right was labelled "freedom fighter."

Are there terrorists? I don't know of any definition that couldn't also be applied to us. We have been known to kill innocent women and children--we call it collateral damage. We are the only country that ever used weapons of mass destruction.

Many of us believe that our morally bankrupt and corrupt leadership knew about 9/11 in advance and either LIHOP or MIHOP.

I guess the way you can tell a terrorist from a freedom fighter is that the terrorist is usually poor, and the freedom fighter relatively better off. Some of us believe that colonialism and exploitation leave people without the means of basic subsistence, so that they lose hope and are vulnerable to recruitment by militants. I'd guess the terrorists get their cannon fodder in basically the same way we get most of ours--if you can't afford to go to school, can't get a job, and can't pay rent, you join the military.

Maybe there really are terrorists, and maybe we're the terrorists. My guess is that the poster on the wall explained it: The two are so identical that they are indistinguishable, except that the "terrorist" is always on the left, and the "freedom fighter" is always on the right.

I think you're right, that we've destroyed any sense of goodwill towards the U.S., but I don't know if that's what the terrorists wanted us to do, or that's what the current administration wanted to do, or if they are one and the same. But that's because I'm on the left. The folks on the right know everything, if they do say so themselves.

[skooooo]

17. Well, ok....

...but the world consensus was that the people who destroyed the WTC were terrorists, and I would have to agree with them.

I understand and agree with many of the points you make, though. Frankly, I don't blame bin Laden and his ilk for hating us -- not one bit. However, no matter who does it, killing innocents is wrong.

Yes, I would agree that the US government has played the role of the terrorists for many years. That doesn't justify flying planes into buildings, though.

[Goldmund]

4. What would you call them?

Somebody did kill 3,000 civilians that day, right? Isn't that the very definition of terrorism?

[kalian]

24. Well....we have to look at the definition of "terrorism"....

Webster's University Dictionary
Systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.

US Dept of Defense
The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

US State Department
International terrorism is terrorism conducted with the support of a foreign government or organization and / or directed against foreign nationals, institutions or governments.

FBI
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

The Problem
According to these definitions the "Boston Tea Party" was a terrorist act and the British troops had every right to fire at the "Boston Massacre."

These definitions make one go "hmmmm...". Why? Because given these
definitions, one would assume that what shrub has done in
Afghanistan and in Iraq are "terrorist acts" but through military
means.
My original post is that we have to separate what the government is
telling us is "the truth". The ONLY thing that we know about these
"terrorist attacks" is what the government of the US and the UK have
been spewing off as "evidence of a radical Islamic group". That's
ALL we know. Then, we're bombarded with images of the "perpetrators"
and in some cases, these images were shown to the sheeple within 48
HOURS after the event. All this "evidence" starts piling up to
create a scenario...they created an "enemy" which they quickly called
"terrorists".

If you were to ask a muslim arab what a "terrorist" is, I'm sure that
they would point to the overflying Apache gunship...or the rolling
M2 Bradley. Its all a matter of definition. Since we are "at war",
we can no longer label people "terrorists" since they are now
combatants. We're taking out their civilians and their civilian
centers with complete and blatant disregard to international law...
yet we consider ourselves "above the law" while we label our\
enemies as literally sub-human.

In my personal case, I do NOT believe what the bushistas passed off
as "the truth" and I think that everybody should question what we're
being told to believe. The sheeple are being conditioned to believe
that there is a "new enemy" that can bring down the US. This is not
true. Our enemy is within. Our enemy is economic, corrupt and hidden.
Our enemies are within our gates...

[Kahuna]

8. What is your "title" for the assassins on 9/11?

nt

[pagerbear]

3. Remember *'s quote: "We are at war!"

....upon being told of the attacks.

[skooooo]

6. ...And.?

His quote doesn't seem inapropriate to me. What is inapropriate is how we chose to fight the "war".

We were at a fork in the road and took the wrong path.

[pagerbear]

9. It was a knee-jerk reaction

But when considered in the context of the PNAC conspiracy and the need for justification for a war they were already planning, it's even more telling.

[skooooo]

10. The problem is that we were all running on emotion....

...there was no tolerance for subtle debate. If there's any lesson for us in all of this, its not to let emotions rule you. Unfortunately, Americans don't seem to have that concept down yet.

We're always suspicious of people who think or use logic.

[msmcghee]

20. Any politician who was in office during 9/11 . .

. . had to react emotionally, had to express the outrage and sorrow and anger of the American people.

But there are honorable, just ways to do that . . and there are jingoistic, stupid ways.

I suspect president Gore's words, had 9/11 happened on his watch, would have been measured and honorable while expressing that outrage - and he would have used the immense good will of the world in a positive way to make the world a better, more peaceful place.

(I have wondered whether bin Laden would even have attacked a Democratic led nation that had made peace in Israel/Palestine a top priority, picking up where Clinton had left off.)

[Goldmund]

5. I absolutely agree

But the terrorists aren't the only ones cashing in dividends. Neocons are as well. The attacks were a score for both Osama's and Bush's minions.

[skooooo]

7. This is true...

And as usual, the everyday people who are just trying to feed their families are the ones that will suffer the most.

I weep for my country (and everyone else for that matter).

[many a good man]

11. I was surprised

I thought the devastation and grief of 911 would lead Americans to a soul-searching reappraisal of "why do they hate us so much?" I thought it would lead to an honest evaluation of US government policy in the Middle East and beyond that would spark an internal debate. I looked forward to our politicians and academics discussing the linkage between our consumer lifestyles and the projection of military and economic power abroad which is required to make it possible.

As the beacon of "freedom and humanity," I expected the United States to take the lead to battle the social and economic injustices that give rise to terrorism all over the world. Instead we have killed tens of thousands of innocents and destroyed their homes and infrastructure. Instead we are creating the failed states and circumstances that lead to more terrorism.

I was surprised.
:hurts:

[skooooo]

12. Well, you might expect that from a mature entity..

...but I think we behave much more like an angry adolescent who wants to lash out. We want our sex and violence - that comes first before anything else.

I wish we had done exactly as you expressed in your post.

[tabasco]

13. Something that really shocked me ...

- is how the Bush cabal was able to retire some of the best generals, who opposed the Iraq war plans, and appoint yes-men. That was a big part of enabling the unjustified reaction to 9-11.
- I hope we can learn from this and prevent an administration from corrupting the military like this ever again.
- I believe we had a right to attack al qaeda forces in Afghanistan. However, because of the fixation with Iraq, the Bush cabal did not want to dedicate a large number of ground troops to Afghanistan. So they relied on a cruel and inefficient bombing campaign in a stupid attempt to destroy a guerrilla army.
- The only people in the entire world who believe the Iraq invasion had anything to do with 9-11 are misinformed people in the USA. The neocons do not believe this - they only use 9-11 as a pretext to conduct war profiteering on a scale never seen before.
- The neocons are traitors for fraudulently attempting to justify a war, and then profiting from the war. I hope we can muster the will of the American people to punish these traitors and put them behind bars.

[swinney]

15. Taliban removal approval overlooked

Bush submitted a "finding" to Congress, on Afghan, as required by law.

He stated two goals. Capture/kill OBL and remove Al Queda elements.

He did not, as required by law, state an effort to change the regime.

He broke the law. Impeach.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. It's not about terrorism. It's about getting the boob re-elected.

You're right about this country acting like some pea-brained adolescent. All that has been accomplished is to fill the reservoir with Al-Queda recruits.

[neebob]

18. There are really only two things that surprise me

(1) how many boot-in-yer-ass people there are and (2) how many can't see the moral bankruptcy and corruption. It should be obvious, even to people who only ever watch Fox News.

[Jade Fox]

19. Re-post from another thread....

We chose Afghanistan to enact our revenge on for 9/11, I believe, because
they were a poor country already ravaged by years of war and unable
to retaliate. The Bush Administration offered up the civilians of Arghanistan as
payback for the dead of 9/11, and most Americans seem to have accepted that.

We had a chance after 9/11 (which, after all, could have been easily prevented
by simply upping airport security or adequately funding INS) to respond to
Terrorism without victimizing the innocent. We chose not to follow that road
because it did not offer the satisfaction of revenge.

[seabeyond]

21. i agree.....working with a 9 and 6 year old boys

just this morning told oldest, you me and your brother, we have to work on solving these issues without violence. it wasnt like this so many years ago, everyone angry, everyone resorting to kicking your ass. just wasnt all my world was in the 60's 70's and 80's. told son, the three of us have to figure it out, cause if we cant, how can the world. we do, adn the world figures out too, we arent that special.

so yes, the world of today has gone to the 15 year old testostrone driven kick your ass shit. feeding all the older males so well........this weekend as i turn off news, what was sickening me, bush and cheney in their ugliness getting joy sending these young men to die. that is what is sitting with me. husband put out our flag. oosh may need a new one, a bit tattered. weathered. walked by and saw it, told oldest boy, our flag very appropriate, the last year has been rough on u.s. of a. tattered torn adn faded feels perfect

[skooooo]

23. great post...thanks

[Deja Q]

22. Back in the day before LIHOP/MIHOP was even thought of,

Bush* had a chance to be a true hero, Christian, and patriot. Of course, that's what it looked like to the world and 91% of us agreed for a few short weeks...

I started worrying when the adolescent bully* used tactics of "You are either for us or against us" and other such bullshit.

Then came patriot act.

And he kept getting more brash and posturing...

Even with the Iraq quagmire he bestowed onto everybody just so he can have Saddam's rusty gun hanging on the wall in the White House, he continues to chide and poke other countries into antagonizing them for war. (swift move, ex-lax*.)

And all the while, convincing more and more of the world that we are not trustworthy as a country. Gee, I can't fathom why... :eyes:

Not to forget Patriot II, which comes right out of the books that old-school Russia and Hitler's Germany wrote.

With LIHOP proven and even MIHOP not beyond a reasonable doubt, more of the world (and our own in the US) are waking up. So when will * try to pass Patriot II? It's going to take something big to accomplish that feat. He's said it himself, he wants to be a dictator - one that God sent him to be, naturally... The only place he should be is in a padded cell. Anybody else who claims God's told them to do something ends up in a padded cell...

[Zorra]

25. In 2000, I was 99% sure that an attack on US soil was going to occur

if Bu$h came into power. The attack had to be spectacular enough to thoroughly frighten the people of the US in order for it to be politically effective.

Conspiracy theory?

No. Just plain logic based on historical precedent.

I left the country right after Bu$h was selected - not because I was afraid of being the victim of an attack, but because I believed I understood what Bu$h was planning to do to the US.

Anyone with a semblance of intelligence should understand this by now: Bu$h and the neo-cons are conscienceless fascists, and have no allegiance to America or the American people. Their allegiances are solely to commercial interests. Serving these commercial interests is how these meglomaniacs are able to fulfill their twisted personal need for power, and they will lie, cheat, steal, and kill in order for this need for power to be satisfied. They will do anything, no matter how diabolical, to promote their agenda.

The agenda of the PNAC is the agenda of the Bu$h-neocon regime. Studying the PNAC manifesto, and logically extrapolating on what is written in this frightening document, is the key to understanding what the neo-cons have planned for the future of the US. Make no mistake - to the neocons, a human life is nothing, and the people of the US are nothing but expendable tools to be used, economically and physically, to accomplish neo-con goals.

If they steal another election, (and they will do everything possible to do so), democracy in the US will only be an illusion harbored by the naive.