Why this terorist attack only makes things far worse and should be condemned...

[Guest]

Alright, it has nothing to do with what Wistaria just said./php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

 

[Guest]

Sorry Sweetie, but we caused it ourselves only if the people at the controls of those planes were Americans. Otherwise it was the total and sole responsibility of those nutcases who decided that a building full of innocent civilians was a legitimate military target.

The only people to blame for 9/11 are those who planned it and carried it out. Nice try placing the blame other than where it belongs though.

 

[Guest]

But you have no problem blaming Saddam for any death and destruction you make in Iraq, right?

 

[Devin MacGregor]

<blockquote><hr>


But you have no problem blaming Saddam for any death and destruction you make in Iraq, right?


<hr></blockquote>

Was that part of her argument? Do you then have no problem in excusing Saddams actions because of past US actions? Or those of Rwanda? Or Somalia? Etc. Since we cant remain with the persons argument. I have no problem in saying that Hitler was not responsible for German deaths. Really he wasn't. He was completely innocent. All he wanted was a pepsi and they wouldnt give it to him.

How many times do we have to go round. You dont care for US action in Iraq, fine. Saddam was not going to leave without military force.

 

[Guest]

No problem at all... The UN tried to do it peacefully, Saddam refused./php-bin/shared/images/icons/biggrin.gif

Thank you come again...

Sorry, I'm in a good mood. Dallas just picked up this really good CB. ( Football, American style /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif)

 

[Red Wolf]

<blockquote><hr>

The UN tried to do it peacefully, Saddam refused.

<hr></blockquote>

No, he didn't. He accepted the terms. He got rid of his weapons of mass destruction. The US Army has been in Iraq for a while now and how many weapons of mass destruction have they found? ZERO.

My profile says UK as place of residence, since this is where I'm doing university. I don't see the relevance though.

Ask yourselves why during the war CNN was not showing footage of Donald Rumsfield shaking Saddam's hand back in the 80s, when the US supplied him his WMD in the first place. Or why it didn't cover the 30 year partnership between Saddam and the CIA, which included him being a CIA assasin, a CIA informant and later after a CIA staged coup, head of state supported by the CIA. To the point even that after the Baath party took control, the CIA provided Saddam with lists of Iraqi communists, who were then tortured and killed.

You don't have to pull the trigger to be a murderer. 9-11 was a direct blowback from US actions and there will certainly be another as a result of the in Iraq.

 

[Roscoe]

You need to read the news. There's another article showing WMDs indeed are in Iraq, they are getting new cooperation every day as the senior leadership falls into coalition custody on a regulars basis, and finally - please enlighten me as to what exactly the US has done to justify the killing of 3,000 civilians? And don't tell me you're not justifying it because you just did.

 

[ArchieGM]

"The CIA... bin Laden... Saddam... blah, blah, blah..."

*snooze*

Someone better remind the 1000s of bin Ladens the US has "created" that two can play that game. Yeah, ok, someone hits us again. Then what?

Yep, you guessed it. The gloves come off.

 

[Guest]

If Bush keeps going the way he is, every American is going to know what it feels like to be living in 'Northern Ireland' because you'll have every petty terrorist organization with a grudge setting off car bombs in NY, LA or WA.
Bush doesn't realize that whatever he does abroad is going to bight him in the azz at home. Sept 11th was a prime example &amp; it will happen again or something similar. How many American civilians is Bush willing to sacrifice to satiate his blood lust and hatred for Muslims?
I'd swear on my oath if Bush could get away with it he'd have death camps for the Muslims. Hell he had camp x-ray and that was only one step away from a death camp. That place broke every rule of the Geneva Convention and no one said anything. Half the men interred and tortured in camp x-ray weren't even Al Queda.

America is going to become the most hated and feared nation on earth if Bush has his way &amp; some Americans will shout ‘Yeah we should be feared!’ but you don’t realize that people have this strange habit of destroying what they fear.
Think about that for a minute. No way could America beat off an attack by the majority of the world &amp; do we really need that?
The best thing America could do for itself is NOT to re-elect that mad man back into office.

 

[Guest]

*points up to the two previous points*

Yes please, explain.

 

[Roscoe]

I'd swear on my oath if Bush could get away with it he'd have death camps for the Muslims...

And this is based on what?

America is going to become the most hated and feared nation on earth

Oh please. Do you think people in Ireland go to bed every night wondering if the US is going to invade them? Britain? France even?

 

[Deforciant]

<blockquote><hr>

Bush doesn't realize that whatever he does abroad is going to bight him in the azz at home. Sept 11th was a prime example &amp; it will happen again or something similar.

<hr></blockquote>

You are blaming the wrong president.

 

[Baker|NV]

<blockquote><hr>

Someone better remind the 1000s of bin Ladens the US has "created" that two can play that game. Yeah, ok, someone hits us again. Then what?

Yep, you guessed it. The gloves come off.

<hr></blockquote>
This policy has worked wonders for Israel in preventing Palestinian terrorist attacks, so of course it will work for us! Right?

Terrorist are irrational extremists by definition, they are not likely to be deterred by any US threat, in fact many kill themselves in their attack. "Taking the gloves off" only push's more civilians into the irrational hatred that could make them a potential terrorist. This is not an effective policy.

 

[Guest]

&lt;nods&gt;

I agree with Baker on this topic. Its not a effective policy. But then laying down and doing nothing also promotes aggression to do it again.

When dealing with terrorists generally the only policy that works is kill the terrorist before he kills you, or do as the terrorist demands. Give him/her the power over you. I don't really like that idea, so I'll take the other not so bad, but still pretty much ineffective route.

 

[Roscoe]

This policy has worked wonders for Israel in preventing Palestinian terrorist attacks, so of course it will work for us! Right?

Israel has had to pull punches in dealing with Palestinian Arab Terrorism. Give Israel the same latitude that the US had in Iraq and we'd see a different situation.

 

[imported_Eladamry]

<blockquote><hr>

Alright, it has nothing to do with what Wistaria just said.

<hr></blockquote>There seems to be some residual “Lord_Chaos” logic around. I just can’t seem to connect all the dots and pinpoint it.

BTW. Did you change your post and remove the “I” from it? Cause I distinctly remember an “I” in there and not it is missing. Do I have Schizophrenia or something, seeing/reading things that are not there?

 

[ArchieGM]

We'll see.

*keeps an ear to the ground*

 

[ArchieGM]

Yep. And there is always the wild card.

 

[Guest]

<font color=blue>&gt;&gt;BTW. Did you change your post and remove the “I” from it? Cause I distinctly remember an “I” in there and not it is missing. Do I have Schizophrenia or something, seeing/reading things that are not there? </font color=blue>

Perhaps you were just tired, I have know idea... But no, I didn't change the post.

Can't miss that those!/php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif

Took me a while to figure out what you were saying.&lt;laughs&gt;

But I will say I have changed posts before, usually when I am tired and I reread what I wrote after I post, you know getting the the; and and problems... I don't see that happening in this case tho.&lt;shrug&gt;

Edit: I forgot to close one of the bolds to half the script was in bold, just so you know/php-bin/shared/images/icons/laugh.gif

 

[Bethusda]

The resurrection of a 2+ year old thread???

Yes, the possibility of another 9/11 exists. Of course for the radical Islamists whose target was Western Civilization (not merely the USA) that day on 9/11, the possibility exists whether the US (and Coalition) went into Iraq or not. Your point?

 

[KnightDupre]

Really when it comes down to it we've seen these arguments in a dozen newer threads, why resurect an ancient one?

 

[Red Wolf]

<blockquote><hr>

There's another article showing WMDs indeed are in Iraq,

<hr></blockquote>

No, there's been an article saying that there have been found materials that are suspect to what could possibly be chemicals that could be used for chemical weapons. Nothing whatsoever that justifies the term "evidence" has been found, even though before the war, the US government claimed to have precise intelligence on several WMD sites.

<blockquote><hr>

what exactly the US has done to justify the killing of 3,000 civilians

<hr></blockquote>

You trained, supplied and supported Osama bin Laden in a coup in Afghanistan which resulted in the deaths of many more civilians.

<blockquote><hr>

And don't tell me you're not justifying it because you just did

<hr></blockquote>

I'm not justifying it! I'm saying that you caused it yourself. If you drive a car without brakes, don't blame the tree you slam into.

<blockquote><hr>

Do you think people in Ireland go to bed every night wondering if the US is going to invade them? Britain? France even?

<hr></blockquote>

Maybe not yet, but I could name quite a few counties that do. Syria, North Korean, Iran, Sudan, Ukraine, Belarus, just to name a few that spring to mind. And once you're done with them, some of the countires you named will probably be next.

<blockquote><hr>

The resurrection of a 2+ year old thread???

<hr></blockquote>
<blockquote><hr>

why resurect an ancient one?

<hr></blockquote>

Because this thread has historical significance and I am making the point that you have LEARNT NOTHING from 9-11 and you have recently proved it by invading Iraq. There WILL be repecussions to such actions, possibly even greater than those of 9-11.

 

[ArchieGM]

WMDs are only a small piece of the puzzle. With each passing day, more intelligence is being gathered from inside Iraq, so that piece will either fit in time, or it won't. But intelligence from prior to the war is proving to be less than reliable. That could be because weapons and materials were moved or destroyed leading up to war, as well as faulty intelligence.

The US wasn't the only country that helped out Osama and the boys in Afghanistan. Take Saudi Arabia and Egypt, for example. The Soviets had no more business being there than Osama did, so I don't really see that as a coup. A counter-coup, perhaps, that sure lasted a long time. But the old cold war days, with all their successes and failures, are over.

Yes, there are a few regimes that should be worried about their survival. North Korea, Syria, and Iran come to mind. Too damn bad. They better be worried. We want them to be worried!

Oh, the US has learned much because of 9/11. It learned that Islamofascism has gone past the point of no return and must be confronted head on. It learned that regimes like the Taleban and Iraqi Baaths have no idea how little we care about their agendas anymore. It learned that forces have aligned against us, some that we thought were allies. Everyone who follows world events with even an inkling of curiosity knows that a strong offense is the best defense. We can't guard against every possibility, so instead we are going to go after the threat. That makes the US and her allies more secure in the long run, but more importantly, it makes the world MORE stable, free and secure in the long run.

The Eurocentric weenie appeasement strategy is the way to failure. If we get hit again, no matter how hard, that will only harden our resolve for total victory. Military action will only get us so far. Diplomacy will only get us so far. There are other ways to deal with this, including good police work, and you are forgetting about the wild card. We'll see in the end whether an aggressive strategy was the right choice. Sweet dreams.

 

[Red Wolf]

<blockquote><hr>

WMDs are only a small piece of the puzzle

<hr></blockquote>

Eh? Weren't they the reason Dubaya gave for starting this war?

<blockquote><hr>

hat could be because weapons and materials were moved or destroyed leading up to war

<hr></blockquote>

Yes, I'm sure my first priority after being invaded by the US is to quickly destroy all my weapons. If you are saying they were moved or destroyed BEFORE the war, than that is proof that Saddam was complying with the UN resolution.

<blockquote><hr>

The US wasn't the only country that helped out Osama and the boys in Afghanistan

<hr></blockquote>

No, you were just the country that supplied them all their cash, equipment, weapons, ammo, etc etc.

<blockquote><hr>

The Soviets had no more business being there than Osama did, so I don't really see that as a coup.

<hr></blockquote>

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan after a US staged coup overturning the pro-Soviet government. Osama was recruited and trained by the US to drive the Soviets out.

<blockquote><hr>

But the old cold war days, with all their successes and failures, are over.

<hr></blockquote>

Well maybe you should find Osama and tell him that? "Sorry, the cold war is over, you can't use the weapons or skills we gave you anymore."

<blockquote><hr>

They better be worried.

<hr></blockquote>
<blockquote><hr>

If we get hit again, no matter how hard, that will only harden our resolve for total victory.

<hr></blockquote>

It is exactly attitudes such as yours that will cause another 9-11.

<blockquote><hr>

We'll see in the end whether an aggressive strategy was the right choice.

<hr></blockquote>

There's something we agree on. I'm just worried about how many innocent people have to die (including Americans) before your government realises it is wrong.

 

[ArchieGM]

The Bush Administration gave a few reasons for invading Iraq. The Baath regime's noncompliance with UN Resolutions (including disarmament of WMDs), the regime's support for terrorism, and to "liberate" the Iraqi people from the tyrannical regime, which was "regime change". I'm of the opinion that the real reason was to change the political landscape of the Middle East.

Concerning the destruction of WMDs before the war, well, I am talking about a couple of weeks right before the war when it became more and more apparent that conflict was going to commence. Reports coming out of Iraq after the war suggest that destruction of weapons, material and evidence MAY have occurred. I've no opinion on that until all the evidence is in, which could prove to be as unreliable as the intelligence prior to the war. Saddam's regime was NOT complying with the UN Resolutions. Even Blix said that, although he was certainly for having more time to complete inspections as opposed to armed conflict.

Umm... no, it was not a US-staged coup. Afghanistan was going through a civil war and the members of the main opposition party were executed to prop up the Soviet puppet state. Then the president at the time was assassinated and the prime minister started sniffing around for help from Pakistan and the US. That's when the Soviets invaded and put their guy in power. So that was the coup.

Do a little research on who funded the mujahideen and you'll quickly find that Saudi Arabia and Egypt were just as involved as the US. Undoubtedly the US gave the mujahideen the help they needed to eventually repel the Soviets. It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback and say that the US should have stayed out of it, but what would have prevented the Soviets from trying to expand their influence into the Middle East if the US had not stood in the way? Nothing that I can think of. Besides, the US did NOT create Osama, but we sure did help train him and the mujahideen, and supplied them with the weaponry needed to defeat the Soviets. The mujahideen would have fought against the Soviet invasion regardless of US involvement.

If we get hit again by another terrorist attack, we should not harden our resolve and fight back, with the goal of achieving victory? What would you have us do? Ask the Islamofascists to play nice and stop their goal of world domination? Look around the globe at the many conflicts being INSTIGATED by radical Islamic militants and then tell me who is the biggest threat to world peace right now. Sure, you can blame it all on the US if you want, but that is a very naive attitude, and no amount of bobbing for sand will remove that threat.

I don't know what your approach would be, since I haven't seen you come up with concrete ideas on how to approach the situation (and if you have I missed it), but the US approach is to go after the terrorists, and the regimes that harbor them. That's an aggressive approach, yes, and one I agree with. I think your attitude is the one that will lead to greater instability and chaos since the Islamofascists are not going to stop their plans unless we force them to.

 

[Red Wolf]

<blockquote><hr>

The Baath regime's noncompliance with UN Resolutions (including disarmament of WMDs),

<hr></blockquote>

Which other resolutions were they non-compliant to? Their non-compliance on WMD remains to be proven. According to the UN weapons inspectors however, they were complying.

<blockquote><hr>

the regime's support for terrorism

<hr></blockquote>

Completely unproven. The Bush administration is yet to present a single piece of evidence on this.

<blockquote><hr>

to "liberate" the Iraqi people from the tyrannical regime, which was "regime change"

<hr></blockquote>

Also known as a coup. Something which is infringing upon the rights of a sovereign nation, which at no point actually asked for your help, in fact quite the opposite.

<blockquote><hr>

I'm of the opinion that the real reason was to change the political landscape of the Middle East.

<hr></blockquote>

That's the point. The reason for this war was simply to forward the US agenda at the expense of thousands of innocents.

<blockquote><hr>

I am talking about a couple of weeks right before the war when it became more and more apparent that conflict was going to commence.

<hr></blockquote>

Like when Blix came out and said that Iraq is complying with UN resolutions? When the weapons inspectors could not find any WMD? If Iraq destroyed WMD themselves at any point before the US invaded, then they were only doing the right thing.

<blockquote><hr>

Even Blix said that, although he was certainly for having more time to complete inspections as opposed to armed conflict.

<hr></blockquote>

Blix said he was having trouble negotiating with the Iraqi leadership on a few issues, such as interrogating Iraqi scientists outside the coutry and having US spyplanes fly over Iraq. He also said they were making progress and needed more time.

<blockquote><hr>

Umm... no, it was not a US-staged coup.

<hr></blockquote>

I'm not going to waste time proving facts to you. The CIA admitted long ago that Hafizullah Amin was their agent. He had the pro-Soviet president assasinated and THAT was the coup. He didn't start "sniffing around for help from Pakistan and the US" (what a ridiculous suggestion), he was their man all along.

<blockquote><hr>

quickly find that Saudi Arabia and Egypt were just as involved as the US

<hr></blockquote>

What is your point? "Oh but the other guy was doing it!"

<blockquote><hr>

The mujahideen would have fought against the Soviet invasion regardless of US involvement.

<hr></blockquote>

That's just not true. At the very most they would have been completely unsuccessfull without US weapons.

<blockquote><hr>

What would you have us do?

<hr></blockquote>

Investigate the cause of the terrorist attacks and put a stop to it. Osama bin Laden had an agenda in his attacks, he demanded that US troops be withdrawn from the Muslim holy lands. Had they been withdrawn, their would have been no 9-11.

<blockquote><hr>

stop their goal of world domination?

<hr></blockquote>

I have never heard any statement by any follower of Islam, no matter how radical, that it was their aim to conquer the US.

<blockquote><hr>

Look around the globe at the many conflicts being INSTIGATED by radical Islamic militants and then tell me who is the biggest threat to world peace right now.

<hr></blockquote>

Any you are helping this by giving them reason to instigate conflicts?

<blockquote><hr>

Islamofascists are not going to stop their plans unless we force them to.

<hr></blockquote>

The more you blow on a fire, the stronger it will burn. Yet rather than finding a way to put the fire out, you insist on using brute force to make millions of people, guilty and innocent alike, comply to your will, no matter what the cost. My approach would be for the US to stop bullying the world and learn to get along.

 

[Vio]

<blockquote><hr>

According to the UN weapons inspectors however, they were complying.

<hr></blockquote>
Actually, according to the weapons inspectors, they were in material breach at the least. That and they were not exactly co-operating.
<blockquote><hr>

That's just not true. At the very most they would have been completely unsuccessfull without US weapons.

<hr></blockquote>
Prove it. The mujahideen wasn't instantly bestowed with US assistance when they decided to fight. They were fighting (and fighting well) long before we arrived. The Soviets were having the same problems that we had in Vietnam. They were fighting a different war than they were trained and equipped for. We identified the need, which was protection vs their gunships and attack planes, and assisted them with that, plus the training to utilize those tools effectively. Also, we helped smuggle in weapons, but by no far means did we arm them all.
<blockquote><hr>

estigate the cause of the terrorist attacks and put a stop to it. Osama bin Laden had an agenda in his attacks, he demanded that US troops be withdrawn from the Muslim holy lands. Had they been withdrawn, their would have been no 9-11.

<hr></blockquote>
You do realize that we were there at the requeast of the Saudis right? If you really want to get silly we could always say that had Saddam not invaded Kuwait, thus prompting the Saudis to ask for our assistance, there would be no 9/11. Not to mention it is never a good idea to give in to appeasement. I thought we learned that lesson in '38?
<blockquote><hr>

Any you are helping this by giving them reason to instigate conflicts?

<hr></blockquote>
Would you prefer we cow to them? Here's a homework assgnment. Find out where all little hotspots in the world and then figure how many of them are muslim vs. &lt;insert opponent here&gt;. I betcha at least 60-70 percent of them will be that way.

I'm not hip with the "lets wage war against the world" either, but I'm not dumb enough to believe that pretending they don't exist is going to make them go away. The solution of lets try to understand doesn't work. While your busy understanding they are planning on putting a hard rain on your head.
<blockquote><hr>

he more you blow on a fire, the stronger it will burn. Yet rather than finding a way to put the fire out, you insist on using brute force to make millions of people, guilty and innocent alike, comply to your will, no matter what the cost. My approach would be for the US to stop bullying the world and learn to get along.

<hr></blockquote>
And you believe this will magically fix things? A psycho who wants you dead is going to see that you die no matter how much you kiss his ass. I firmly believe the majority of the people you can 'get along' with. I also believe there are groups out there who just want you to die and no amount of niceties will change that. Yours is a nice comforting solution, but it isnt very realistic.

 

[GBob]

Do you just make this stuff up or do you just have really bad sources. The ties America had with the Anti-Russians forces ended when the Russians left. The Taliban came to power long after that and most of thier support came from the Pakistan Security Forces and Bin Laden's own bank role.

What we learned from 9-11 is its not safe to wait for terrorists to attack. I hope countries that support terrorism are scared and sleep poorly. It is one of the reasons we attacked. What do you think the war in Iraq is? It's a repecussion. It's quite possible another attack will happen - only this time those who commit the attack will have a better idea of what will happen to the groups that support any such attack and the lengths will we go to pursue them.

I really question the idea that any American action will cause reactions while any attack on us is merely a reaction to US. Perhaps you should be saying that the terrorists should stop provoking the US -if they do something really bad the US reaction could be devastating.

As far as this -
I have never heard any statement by any follower of Islam, no matter how radical, that it was their aim to conquer the US.

-you need to get out more or read more of course thier goal is more global.

 

[Red Wolf]

<blockquote><hr>

Actually, according to the weapons inspectors, they were in material breach at the least. That and they were not exactly co-operating.


<hr></blockquote>

That's not what Blix said. The Iraqis were co-operating, and he asked for more time to resolve the major issues.

<blockquote><hr>

They were fighting (and fighting well) long before we arrived.

<hr></blockquote>

Not true. The Soviets had complete air supremacy until the US supplied the mujahideen with vast quantities of Stinger missiles, many of which are still on the international black market today. Also you smuggled in the majority of their rifles and ammunition. You are right, the Soviets had exactly the same problems in Afghanistan as the US did in Vietnam, where the Vietnamese would have never been able to fight without support from the Soviets. Without your support, the mujahideen would not have been able to fight either.

<blockquote><hr>

You do realize that we were there at the requeast of the Saudis right?

<hr></blockquote>

You were there at their request during the first Gulf War. Not after. But the US has a tendancy that once somebody invites it to make a military base, it never leaves. For example, the military bases in Central Asian countries that were set up for the war in Afghanistan are still operational.

<blockquote><hr>

The solution of lets try to understand doesn't work.

<hr></blockquote>

Oh what a beautiful summary of US mentality.

<blockquote><hr>

I also believe there are groups out there who just want you to die and no amount of niceties will change that.

<hr></blockquote>

Groups? Entire countries! Millions, hell, billions of people! And you honestly think that they "want you to die" because they are all "psychos"?

 

[Red Wolf]

<blockquote><hr>

Do you just make this stuff up or do you just have really bad sources.

<hr></blockquote>

Did you read my post or just press the reply button?

<blockquote><hr>

The ties America had with the Anti-Russians forces ended when the Russians left.

<hr></blockquote>

When have I said otherwise?

<blockquote><hr>

The Taliban came to power long after that

<hr></blockquote>

The Taliban were a political group comprised almost entirely of former mujahideen. They came to power in the civil war after the Soviets withdrew.

<blockquote><hr>

I hope countries that support terrorism are scared and sleep poorly.

<hr></blockquote>

Once again, IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11. There is NO evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to ANY terrorist organisations. How can you possibly state that as "one of the reasons we attacked".

<blockquote><hr>

will have a better idea of what will happen to the groups that support any such attack and the lengths will we go to pursue them

<hr></blockquote>

Oh My God that makes NO sense!

<blockquote><hr>

while any attack on us is merely a reaction to US

<hr></blockquote>

*sigh* Read my post, 9-11 was a reaction to your previous actions.

<blockquote><hr>

Perhaps you should be saying that the terrorists should stop provoking the US -if they do something really bad the US reaction could be devastating.

<hr></blockquote>

It's the brick wall syndrome.

<blockquote><hr>

you need to get out more or read more of course thier goal is more global.

<hr></blockquote>

I'm sorry, are you claiming that it is the goal of Muslims to conquer the world? Would you like it if people went around claiming that it is the goal of Christians to conquer the Holy Land? Or that it is the goal of Judaism to castrate every man? What a stupid statement.

 

[DevilHimself]

Never forget.

 

[Nestorius]

Aside of course for teh fact that it has resulted in the deaths of presumably thousands of innocent people... i'd like to elaborate and make certain that there can be no misinterpretation of any of my statements against aspects of US foreign policy that imply that i in any way shape or form support terorist acts such as what went on yesterday...

This terrorist act has a completely insane and criminal character and must be condemned - but not for the hypocritical reasons given by Bush and Blair. I'd oppose individual terrorism because it is counterproductive and plays into the hands of the most reactionary sections of the ruling class. (not to mentions kills people who really have not a lot to do with anything to do with why they may want to commit terorist acts...)
This is clearly the case here: this bloody outrage will play into the hands of US Big Business and imperialism. It will give Bush a free hand to do anything he wants in the Middle East and on a world scale. US public opinion will be softened up for any reactionary policies at home and abroad.
It will have a similar effect on US public opinion to Pearl Harbour, which Roosevelt publicly condemned but probably secretly welcomed. The American public will now be prepared to accept the atrocities of so-called counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist actions abroad, and also reactionary and anti-democratic legislation at home.
It is not possible to say exactly who is behind the present attacks. Hell in Oklahoma the bombing that was blamed on "Middle East terrorism" turned out to be the work of right wing American organisations.
My guess is that it probably is Bin laden, tho i wouldnt want to jump to too much of a comclusion yet...
It is obvious that this attack is in accord with Bin Laden's aims and methods and that he would have the necessary means of carrying them out. Bin Laden has called in Moslems everywhere to attack and kill Americans. He warned three weeks ago of an "unprecedented attack" on US interests because of Washington's support for Israel. This man and his movement of course has nothing in common with socialism or anything progressive, but representative of the most rabid reaction. However, it is not enough to shout about Bin Laden. It is necessary to explain how he arose and why.
It must not be forgotten that Bin Laden was originally financed, armed and backed by US imperialism and was the creature of the CIA. When it suited Washington to stir up Islamic fundamentalism as a weapon against the Soviet Union, they did not scruple at supporting such epileptic reactionaries and mass murderers. As long as the people being murdered were far away - in Afghanistan or the Middle East, these hypocrites could afford to turn a blind eye. Now they suddenly discover that Bin Laden and his like are the "enemies of civilisation". But in that case, the threat to civilisation should be stamped "made in USA".

The fact that the Security & Intelligence forces of teh US failed to see this attack coming or prevent it is certainly most interesting... and for my mind is certainly something that shows that rampant military spending etc is no answer to preventing this sort of act... i will refrain from implying that perhaps the CIA etc may even have known about this and let it happen precisely to justify themselves and general action etc... but there is of course no evidence of this...

One thing is certain. That the consequence of the attack will be to strengthen imperialism and the right wing in the USA. Once again, we see the reactionary consequences of individual terrorism - which is to be unconditionally condemned.

The economic effects of the attack have been immediate and dramatic. Trading on the New York stock exchange was halted indefinitely. This news was followed by steep falls on the stock exchanges in London and other world trading centres. Portions of the Internet was down, and mobile phones out of action, adding to the panic.

The dollar's strength - given the weakness of the American economy - has defied the law of gravity. It has been so far seen as a safe haven in a period of global instability. At a certain stage, it was inevitable that this would be reversed as foreign investors withdrew their funds from America, provoking an increase in interest rates in the USA and pushing the US economy into recession. This process may have already begun.
After nearly ten years of boom in the USA, the world economy is already hovering on the brink of a serious recession. The reality of globalisation turns out to be - a global crisis of capitalism. The underlying cause of capitalist crisis is overproduction. Once the economic cycle reaches the critical point where quantity becomes transformed into quality, any incident can push it over the brink into recession. This was the case with the oil shock of 1973-74. It is necessary to remind ourselves that the rising price of oil was linked to events in the Middle East. Now it is possible that history will be repeated.

Overnight, the greatest super power the world has ever seen turns out to be a colossus with feet of clay. The most powerful military state the world has ever seen has shown its powerlessness in the face of terrorism. Before the Second World War, Trotsky predicted that America would emerge as the victor and establish world hegemony, but he added that it would have dynamite built into its foundations. These prophetic words have now turned out to be literally true. Ten years ago, after the fall of the Soviet Union, President Bush's father promised a New World Order. Now the reality has struck home with a vengeance.
The **** of the planet by Big Business has created a world fraught with misery, war and chaos, which has now impacted on the heart of world imperialism. This is the real cause of the present atrocity. The terrorism of world-wide hunger, disease, misery, exploitation and oppression which torments millions of men, women and children each and every day of their lives, is the root cause of the turmoil and instability which is sweeping the planet in the dawn of the 21st century.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in Palestine, where the people on the West Bank and Gaza are daily subjected to the bloody attacks of Israeli imperialism, their homes demolished, their young people shot down, their livelihood taken away. Is there any wonder that sections of the Palestinian youth have been driven to desperation? Is it surprising that there is a fierce hatred of US imperialism which backs Israel and remains silent about all these atrocities? Where was the condemnation of President Bush when the leader of the PFLP was recently murdered by the Israelis in a rocket attack? Where was all the talk about an "attack on civilisation" when hundreds of Palestinian civilians were being killed and maimed by the Israeli army?
All this has had the most terrible effects on the consciousness of the Palestinian masses. Hours after the attacks there were reports of celebrations on the streets of Nablus on the West Bank. The terrible suffering inflicted on the Palestinian people by Israeli imperialism, backed by Washington, is what provokes such a reaction. But it is profoundly misguided. Scenes of Palestinian youths on television demonstrating support for the killing of hundreds of US civilians will do tremendous harm to the Palestinian cause in the USA and internationally. The sympathy which they had won among the workers of the USA and other countries because of their suffering at the hands of the Israeli oppressors will be forgotten in a wave of revulsion, which will be used by the US reactionaries to whip up anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab feeling. This in turn will pave the way for new and monstrous acts of repression against the Palestinians which will be more acceptable to world public opinion, whereas previously they were condemned.
The Americans will have to launch a strike against some Arab country - presumably Iraq. They will need the collaboration of Israeli intelligence to carry this out. This will strengthen the hand of Israel, not weaken it. It will harm the cause of the Palestinians, not help it. Therein lays its reactionary character. One has to be blind not to see this.
Despite its spectacular impact, even the best-organised terrorist attacks can never succeed in destroying or even seriously weakening imperialism. George Robertson, the NATO secretary, immediately took advantage of the attack to advocate the stepping up of NATO's military power. The consequences of the present attacks will be serious and reactionary. US imperialism will be under pressure to retaliate, and will not be fussy about which victims it chooses. Already, there have been attempts to blame Iraq for the atrocity. New bombings and devastation will be the answer, adding to the devilish spiral of killing and counter-killing. As far as the peoples of the Middle East are concerned, the present incident will do nothing to help them in their plight. The Palestinian people will derive no benefit from this attack. The US imperialists will be driven even further into the arms of Israel. The brutality of the latter against the Palestinians will be "justified" by the alleged threat of terrorism.
After the terrorist attack in Africa, the US imperialists bombed Libya and Sudan, although neither of these countries had anything to do with it. They will now presumably return to bombing the helpless people of Iraq - as if one bloody crime justified another. In this way, they will aggravate all the contradictions on a world scale, creating new victims and new hatreds - the fuel for new acts of terrorism. This is what they call the "It has been said said that capitalism is horror without end. In recent years the Americans and Europeans have been arming to the teeth, with a view to intervening against the movement of the masses in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, as in the so-called Colombia Plan. The present atrocity will mean a further acceleration in this aggressive programme of rearmament. It bodes nothing positive for the workers and peasants of the world, but is just another manifestation of the convulsive crisis of capitalism on a world scale. In the words of the Roman historian Tacitus: "And when they have created a wilderness, they call it Peace".

[] - [<a target="_blank" href=http://uo.stratics.com/bsc/>Britannian Society of Chefs]

Wow, good call on Iraq.

 

[Aran]

lololol 9/11