[Split] (Ed) 9/11 in perspective

[gumboot]

OK - so, this reads:

Was the invasion of Afghanistan justified by this?
Well - did Afghanistan attack the US?

Yes, the invasion of Afghanistan was justified by this.

Does anybody know of anything that was said in the UNSC about this?

Both the UNSC and the General Assembly issued resolutions in response to the 9/11 attacks that essential condemned the attacks and charged all nations with the responsibility of punishing those responsible and anyone who in any way assisted or harboured those responsible.

No there was no explicit approval of military force in either resolution.

-Andrew

 

[TobiasTheViking]

As far as I can see you use many many words, only to blur the distinction between "conversation" and "discussion".

The imperfection is yours.

If what you say is right, and applicable, one would in a discussion never be able to bring up something that does not "go with the flow". Surely that's ridiculous.

False, it is not required to "go with the flow" but it is required to be RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND. That, means, that someone talking about the bombings in the UK subway would also have been aok. because that was relevant to the subject at hand.

Discussing CT denial, or doing what you did is not only irrelevant to the subject at hand. it is contrary and in the way of the subject at hand.

Well... maybe I - or you? - were confused about whether what we were engaged in was a discussion or a conversation.

Why would it matter if it was a discussion or a conversation?

It was common sence, from simple observation, what the subject of the thread was about.

And it is aok to make a mistake, but when you are told that "this is not the thread for that, please take it elsewhere" you should do that.

Have you noticed that many people have agreed with my position, but no one has agreed with yours.. maybe that is because you didn't use common sence.. or because you didn't observe.

And i still stand by my claim that you were acting like Fred Phelps.. simply because you acted contrary to what common sence and observation of the situation at hand says is proper.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Not really. You could have shared an account of 9/11 as follows:

I had just finished on the shooting range when Omar - may Allah bless him always - revealed to us the joyous news of the victorious brothers and their successful mission against the infidels.

We wept for joy that Allah - he above all others - would bless us so well with a great and mighty victory. Tears streamed over my face and a leader - may Allah bless him - clapped and applauded. It was a great day for us all, the mighty and righteous follows of the true path of Jihad. I watched the cursed towers of the infidel non-believers crash to the ground, and my heart soared, as if touched by The Prophet - he who dwells in paradise forever.

You certainly couldn't call this "going with the flow".

-Andrew

I would also feel that this was contrary to the subject at hand.

 

[Darat]

Merged the two threads together

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[brumsen]

Here's some perspective; people that use memorials as a podium to promote their political positions.

I agree that it's annoying. But my reading is that I annoyed people by promoting a political position in disagreement with the one they were themselves promoting. Who started?

And what would those numbers look like if UBL had decided against his attack? Would the Taliban still be in Afghanistan chopping the heads from uppity women, blowing up priceless works of art, and stealing kites from little kids? Sure they would.

Would Saddam still be handing out cash prizes to the families of suicide bombers, getting rich off the UN "Oil For (scam)", filling mass graves with his political foes, and watching his nation suffer under forever sanctions? Sure he would.

...and so how many people are actually alive now because of the fallout from 9/11? Impossible to quantify, true, but it's a very signifigant number just the same. Thousands in Iraq alone died every year just from the adverse effect of the UN sanctions.

You make valid points. But the US rushed into these invasions because of 9/11, and they would likely have cost fewer lives had they been more carefully planned. We agree, I guess, that thinking about ways to intervene in those countries should have happened way before 9/11/01.

Then no argument is likely to impress you. You are simply acting as an apologist for terrorism. 9/11 was an unprovoked terrorist attack designed to maximize death and destruction...as are all terrorist attacks.
[...]
Now Brumsen, you may be willing to plead with UBL. You may be willing to trust his good intentions in not using a "dirty bomb" and going so easy on us on 9/11/01. The rest of us are not nearly so näive.

Me an apologist for terrorism? No, I am trying to find rational thought in OBL's actions. That's not naive, and it's not apologism. It is: trying to understand what happened, in order to think what might be appropriate responses. Let me be clear in condemning al-Qaeda's terrorist activities.

So now Madrid and London are Bush's fault? To my mind they are the perpetrators fault. What about the Tanzania-Kenya embassy bombings? Who's fault were they? What about the USS Cole? The bombing of the WTC? What did Bush do to cause these things?

I did not say they were Bush's fault. I said, though, that they were the result of religious fanaticism on the increase as a result of his actions.
Embassy bombings and USS Cole: Bush was no president at the time was he? Again, sure, the perpetrators were at fault, but they were reacting to US foreign policy.

They do their thing untilk they get what they want.

Same goes for US in its foreign policy, some would say.

 

[Darth Rotor]

OK - so, this reads:
Does anybody know of anything that was said in the UNSC about this?

Learn To Google.

Start with 1368. The UN's web site has loads of various notes of meetings and resolutions if you take the time to do your own homework.

DR

 

[brumsen]

...it is required to be RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND. That, means, that someone talking about the bombings in the UK subway would also have been aok. because that was relevant to the subject at hand.

I have asked for criteria of relevance, and you insist on common sense and observation. I'm afraid I don't see how these differentiate between what I said, and mentioning bombings on the London subway. Please explain.

Have you noticed that many people have agreed with my position, but no one has agreed with yours..

Argumentum ad populum.

 

[gumboot]

I agree that it's annoying. But my reading is that I annoyed people by promoting a political position in disagreement with the one they were themselves promoting. Who started?

This is your mistake. I wasn't promoting a political discussion. The fact that you think I was says something about you.

You make valid points. But the US rushed into these invasions because of 9/11, and they would likely have cost fewer lives had they been more carefully planned.

You don't seem to know much about warfare. The death tolls from both wars are pitifully low. For both civilians and coalition troops. (By the way, are you aware about 90% of so-called "civilian" deaths in Iraq are adult males? This in a country were adult males account for less than 25% of the population?)

We agree, I guess, that thinking about ways to intervene in those countries should have happened way before 9/11/01.

I thought the common CT claim was the US Government had the Iraq invasion planned before 9/11?

Me an apologist for terrorism? No, I am trying to find rational thought in OBL's actions. That's not naive, and it's not apologism.

You might not have heard. Al Qaeda want to establish a Muslim Caliphate across the entire world in preparation for the return of the Prophet and Allah. Frankly I have a hard time fitting "rational" into that goal. You?

Embassy bombings and USS Cole: Bush was no president at the time was he? Again, sure, the perpetrators were at fault, but they were reacting to US foreign policy.

Yes, namely US foreign policy in Somalia, which equated to "If you kill any of our soldiers we will run away and leave you alone".

Osama bin Laden has continuously cited the Battle of Mogadishu and the USA's hasty retreat from Somalia after 18 deaths as a primary motivation for further attacks. US foreign policy through the 90's indicated weakness. That weakness encouraged attacks.

-Andrew

 

[brumsen]

Learn To Google.

Start with 1368. The UN's web site has loads of various notes of meetings and resolutions if you take the time to do your own homework.

DR

I know how to Google, thanks. I asked gumboot for UNSC resolutions and he said there weren't any on that topic. And the resolution you cite does not justify the use of force against Afghanistan.

ETA:

Both the UNSC and the General Assembly issued resolutions in response to the 9/11 attacks that essential condemned the attacks and charged all nations with the responsibility of punishing those responsible and anyone who in any way assisted or harboured those responsible.

No there was no explicit approval of military force in either resolution.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I have asked for criteria of relevance, and you insist on common sense and observation. I'm afraid I don't see how these differentiate between what I said, and mentioning bombings on the London subway. Please explain.

Well, then you have no common sense and/or no observation skill. It is so blatantly obvious that i can't really figure out how to respond to it.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Brumsen, can you tell me how PETA is not relevant to this discussion?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Argumentum ad bungholium.

At some point, self awareness requires that you look in the mirror and acknowledge who you are, and what your internet persona projects. This thread's bickering revealed a self-centered, hard headed, myopic idealogue. I know hard headed. *taps own head*

"Brumsen" aka "Phelps wannabe," the Secretary will disavow all knowledge of your posting, to avoid embarassment. This post may self destruct in 30 seconds. Good luck, Phelps, you are going to need it.

DR

 

[brumsen]

I thought the common CT claim was the US Government had the Iraq invasion planned before 9/11?

Have I claimed this?

You might not have heard. Al Qaeda want to establish a Muslim Caliphate across the entire world in preparation for the return of the Prophet and Allah. Frankly I have a hard time fitting "rational" into that goal.

Well, speaking of religious fanaticism: you may remember that Bush conceives of the war on terror as a crusade. Who's rational here?

Yes, namely US foreign policy in Somalia, which equated to "If you kill any of our soldiers we will run away and leave you alone".

Osama bin Laden has continuously cited the Battle of Mogadishu and the USA's hasty retreat from Somalia after 18 deaths as a primary motivation for further attacks. US foreign policy through the 90's indicated weakness. That weakness encouraged attacks.

OBL does not attack the US with the fact that he can get away with it as his primary motivation. He'd have a hard time deciding with which country to start.
He wants the US military out of Saudi-Arabia.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I know how to Google, thanks. I asked gumboot for UNSC resolutions and he said there weren't any on that topic. And the resolution you cite does not justify the use of force against Afghanistan.
ETA:

But Article 51 does, smart guy. So does the exercise of national sovereignty by the sovereign nation that was attacked, that was the target of aggression condoned by the Taliban, before and after the fact, and further condoned by their refusal to hunt down, arrest, and extradite the persons responsible for the attack.

Do you note any UN resolutions, SC or GA, that condemn the US attack on Afghanistan? Discuss.

He (Osama) wants the US military out of Saudi-Arabia.

And I want a pony.

So what?

The King of Saudi Arabia, last I checked, happens to be the head of government. What's your point?

Osama wants. OK, I want something.

[sarcasm]
I want the Belgian flag to be retired, and the government of Belgium dissolved. American, Canadian and British blood was shed to liberate Belgium from German occupation. Since Belgians are nothing but self important bureaucrats, (OK, and excellent chocolatiers) Belgium needs to be re allocated into its rightful place as parts of the Netherlands and France. It must be demoted from its dubious position as nation state. Belgium has never been able to support, nor defend, its sovereignty since inception without massive foreign (British/French/ et al) aid and assistance. It is a security welfare state, an anachronism, a parasite upon the other nations of Europe. (We'll get to Lichtenstein a bit later. Hey, Luxembourg, if you think you will go unscathed, Not So Fast!)

Does that mean I get what I want? Does someone need to start blowing up Belgian trains to get this political realignment started? [/sarcasm]

As to GWB's crusade metaphor (which I found clumsy and ill advised) do you understand the difference between political rhetoric and policy?

DR

 

[Flo]

That's no explanation.

I agree that it implies guilt by association. So? That was just my point..

and it is basically flawed (and despicable, on top of it). I don't expect you, and every single Belgian, whatever their age, opinion, or political orientation, to feel guilty for all and any crimes committed by the Belgian government just because Belgium happens to be a democracy ...

I disagree that it is flawed because on occasion it is used by people to attempt justify unsavory behaviour. But I already said that

You can say it as many times as you like, it won't make it right.

 

[gumboot]

Have I claimed this?

No, you haven't. It's just a common argument I hear.

I don't know much about the invasion of Afghanistan, I get the impression the wiley Al Qaeda simply outfoxed us (yes, "us" - New Zealand played a substantial part in the invasion). Bear in mind, Al Qaeda were on their home turf - the same home turf on which they beat the Soviet Army.

As for Iraq... I thought the plan for the invasion itself was excellent. It was risky, gutsy, and it worked beautifully.

The problem was Rumsfield didn't listen to his generals, and he cut short their man power. They needed twice as many men. It's all fine and dandy to execute a stunning strike into the heart of the enemy, but you still need forces to come behind and secure your captured areas. Alexander the Great - the master of this type of warfare - knew this lesson well.

Collateral damage and sectarian violence could have been stemmed if more forces had been available to secure conquered areas and begin ferriting out insurgents.

For the record, in my ideal world, in about 1998 the UN would have invaded Iraq with an army of about a million troops - spear-headed by a US strike force that did much as happened in the invasion, but supported by an enormous coalition of international troops to secure order once Saddam was toppled.

Well, speaking of religious fanaticism: you may remember that Bush conceives of the war on terror as a crusade. Who's rational here?

Well I can't stand religion, so Bush doesn't get the thumbs up from me for using the "C" word (apart from the really clumsy PR repercussions). But as Darth said, Bush was using "crusade" as a bit of political rhetoric to fire up support.

In contrast Al Qaeda's religious mission is their openly and primary stated actual goal. (I'm not making this up, read their training manual)

OBL does not attack the US with the fact that he can get away with it as his primary motivation. He'd have a hard time deciding with which country to start.

I think you missed my point. Lack of US backbone ENCOURAGED Osama that he could ACTUALLY GET WHAT HE WANTED. That's not a good thing.

I'm not overly interested in OBL anyway. He's only one man. I'm more concerned with the various Militant Islam Terror Networks. OBL just happens to lead one of them. I can't see Al Qaeda dissolving just because OBL is killed.

-Andrew

 

[brumsen]

The problem was Rumsfield didn't listen to his generals, and he cut short their man power. They needed twice as many men. It's all fine and dandy to execute a stunning strike into the heart of the enemy, but you still need forces to come behind and secure your captured areas. Alexander the Great - the master of this type of warfare - knew this lesson well.

Collateral damage and sectarian violence could have been stemmed if more forces had been available to secure conquered areas and begin ferriting out insurgents.

Exactly.

Well I can't stand religion, so Bush doesn't get the thumbs up from me for using the "C" word (apart from the really clumsy PR repercussions). But as Darth said, Bush was using "crusade" as a bit of political rhetoric to fire up support.

In contrast Al Qaeda's religious mission is their openly and primary stated actual goal. (I'm not making this up, read their training manual)

It strikes me as a bit easy to dismiss it as innocent political rhetoric. Given that he basically has America's religious voters... and given his contacts...
this rhetoric comes from somewhere. The man believes God has been talking to him. Now this may not lead to openly and primary stated goals... but many believe that there's more to this.

 

[brumsen]

and it is basically flawed (and despicable, on top of it). I don't expect you, and every single Belgian, whatever their age, opinion, or political orientation, to feel guilty for all and any crimes committed by the Belgian government just because Belgium happens to be a democracy ...

I think that you should (mutatis mutandis, as I am not a Belgian citizen). In any case, you hardly demonstrate the alleged flaw
in the argument by saying what your personal expectations are.

You can say it as many times as you like, it won't make it right.

Same for you.

 

[brumsen]

Osama wants. OK, I want something.
[..]
Does that mean I get what I want? Does someone need to start blowing up Belgian trains to get this political realignment started?

Well, in all the stuff you say about Belgium we finally find something to agree on!
But seriously.
You write as if I condone OBL's acts, which I certainly do not. We were talking about trying to understand them, which is a different matter.

 

[gumboot]

It strikes me as a bit easy to dismiss it as innocent political rhetoric. Given that he basically has America's religious voters... and given his contacts...
this rhetoric comes from somewhere. The man believes God has been talking to him. Now this may not lead to openly and primary stated goals... but many believe that there's more to this.

I think you're reading too much into it. Yes, in the context of the Middle East and Islam in particular, "crusade" has rather profound connotations of a religious nature.

But it's a common word in English usage:

3. any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse.

Bush's "War on Terror" IS a crusade. It's just a really stupid idea to call it that in a public speech. I also don't give much credit to the "he thinks God talks to him" BS. I don't like Bush. Frankly I don't like American politicians full stop.

But the man gets unfairly trashed. I think it has something to do with his eyes being so close together, and having pretty average public speaking skills (he also doesn't seem to be able to think on his feet too well). I've heard tell he's dyslexic, which I haven't heard confirmed.

I see no evidence that he's evil, or especially stupid, or a religious nut. He seems genuine to me, if misguided. He's also had the misfortune of having a speight of really nasty events during his presidency.

I find the rampant Bush-bashing a bit tiring. The man was democratically elected. Nor does he wield absolute power over every action that happens in the USA. I see personal attacks on leaders to be the last refuge of scum who don't have a legitimate issue with the government. I can't STAND New Zealand's current government, and I'll be quick to jump on our PM when she does things I think inappropriate, but I've also been known to defend her when I felt the criticism was unfair or unwarranted.

-Andrew