Did we deserve 9/11?

[achtungbaby]

On a day when Russian President Vladimir V. Putin told Bush in a phone call that "there are things we cannot forget, we must not forget," 53% of 2,803 respondents to an instant poll by the Echo of Moscow radio station said the United States "deserved" last year's attacks.


I didn't want to deal with this yesterday to pay at least some respect to those who died, but I was very disheartened to read this story in yesterday's LA Times. Almost on cue, a complete stranger instant messaged me on AIM, wanting to talk about our present situation in Iraq, and how America's insistence on being Global Asshole was feeding the fire for this sentiment.

After all, while thousands perished that morning, it's nothing compared to the innocents who have died around the world because of U.S. aggression.

Am I missing something? When did Osama bin Ladin become the spokesperson for those around the world with grievances towards the U.S.? When the did rest of the world want to even insinuate that the mass murder of thousands of civilians was a legitimate negotiating tool.

Let's keep things in perspective. I'm all for dealing with what's wrong with U.S. foreign policy, but if we're going to validate fanaticism, why did we ever execute that "freedom fighter" Timothy McVeigh?

[wylin]

that really depends whose perspective ur lookin at it from AB, i think america is just doing economic and cultural imperialism, instead of fuzzy men in boats saling and trading now we doit w/ the media, tele-communications, and etc.

But imperialism it is none the less and their will be a backlash by fundamentalist groups but like the indians being overrun by the white man in the end i think american cultural and economic imperialism will triumph. Notice everyone speaks sum english, and knows sum american words and products, coke/ cigarettes/ etc. America lifestyle and culture will win as with their market system but their will be bumps like 9/11 every so often.

For what ever reason murder of civillians by other civillians aka. terrorists is wrong or is it a means to an end ?

[ren28]

Of course not. Anyone who thinks that is on crack. It basically tells people that it's ok to use terrorism when you disagree with another countries foreign policy. One could conveniently make stuff up like OBL did and attack. It would also mean that I could have people fly some 747's into OBL's damn cave and his buddies' caves.

[Arex]

Did three thousand innocent American civilians deserve to die? Absolutely not. Did America as a nation have it coming? To a certain extent, I'd say so. Pick on enough people, completely silence their voices, and eventually some of 'em are going to come back packing heat in order to make certain that their message is heard. It's a simplistic way of putting it, but I think it's pretty much true.

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 12 2002, 11:58 PM
When the did rest of the world want to even insinuate that the mass murder of thousands of civilians was a legitimate negotiating tool.
Let's not forget that the United States killed upwards of 300,000 Japanese citizens, mostly civilians, by the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Granted, some will say that these attacks were justified because we were "at war." Who's to say that Osama's "war" against the United States for all of America's perceived atrocities committed against the Arab nations is any less a justification for his actions?

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone terrorist/military action taken against any civilian targets. I just think the U.S. (and its citizens) can be a tad self-righteous, which is part of the whole problem...

Alex



<!--EDIT|Arex|Sep 13 2002, 03:14 AM-->

[mrazntre]

CIA, Army special forces...


those guys are basically US enrolled terrorists. they're sent in either before a war, or if formal declaration of war is inappropriate to spread propaganda, train rebel forces and disrupt the current governing power in whichever state in question.

look at it however you wish, but for me it is ridiculous not to see that the US deserved the 9-11 attacks. I would go even further to say that the 9-11 attacks were so relatively miniscule that the US deserves even more terrorist attacks... that is if you want to look at in a tit-for-tat perspective.

[mrazntre]

Although we perceive the American public as "innocent" it is not true to a certain extent. If we look at our political system, it is rule by representation. Those innocents were the ones that elected the ones in power. Those in power authorized special military action in many foreign countries, resulting in prolonged civil wars and acts of terrorism.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by ren28@Sep 13 2002, 01:10 AM
It basically tells people that it's ok to use terrorism when you disagree with another countries foreign policy.
Exactly.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Arex@Sep 13 2002, 02:09 AM
Let's not forget that the United States killed upwards of 300,000 Japanese citizens, mostly civilians, by the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. &nbsp;Granted, some will say that these attacks were justified because we were "at war." &nbsp;Who's to say that Osama's "war" against the United States for all of America's perceived atrocities committed against the Arab nations is any less a justification for his actions?

I brought up Nagasaki to the guy I was chatting with and said it would've been analogous to Americans saying at the time, "Yeah, those Japanese got what was coming to them, we warned 'em and they had to pay."

Maybe Americans did say that at the time, but God, I hope not.

Originally posted by Arex@Sep 13 2002, 02:09 AM
I just think the U.S. (and its citizens) can be a tad self-righteous, which is part of the whole problem...

I agree, Americans are arrogant asses...it can make things difficult -- but this was the consequence?!? It's like me telling Rudy to stop jumping up at strangers, and sorta laying in wait for the next time he does, when I then proceed to dismember him for disobedience.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by mrazntre@Sep 13 2002, 02:17 AM
look at it however you wish, but for me it is ridiculous not to see that the US deserved the 9-11 attacks. I would go even further to say that the 9-11 attacks were so relatively miniscule that the US deserves even more terrorist attacks... that is if you want to look at in a tit-for-tat perspective.
But the tit for tat perspective sucks! Israel and Palestine have been trying out that method for quite some time and it hasn't been working.

The CIA and Special Forces are indeed thugs. They've waged secret wars -- but against civilians? Deposing undesirable Presidents, beating down local rebels, whatever...but when have they ever deliberately targeted that many civilians for maximum casualities? When has anyone?

We do have the distinction of that from WWII, but like Arex said, a semi-reasonable argument could be made that we were at war, and we at least told them ultimate destruction was eminent (or so we say we did).

My point in bitching about this is that it's very convenient to say the U.S. deserved what it got, but in reality, those people who died certainly didn't deserve it. I knew someone who died...she was 30, dorky, an ex-raver who was still partying a lot and lived with her mom. Her father passed away a while back and she was an only child. And I'm almost certain she'd never even heard the name Osama bin laden.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by mrazntre@Sep 13 2002, 02:20 AM
Although we perceive the American public as "innocent" it is not true to a certain extent. If we look at our political system, it is rule by representation. Those innocents were the ones that elected the ones in power. Those in power authorized special military action in many foreign countries, resulting in prolonged civil wars and acts of terrorism.
Coincidentally, I heard Osama say in an interview several years ago that he saw all Americans as the same, since the civilian is only one weapon away from becoming a soldier.

Anyway, I think concluding that civilians are responsible for the sins of their government is a little unreasonable. I'm not sure how serious you were in making that claim, but decided to fiddle with it anyway:)

For one, what about the people who excercised their democracy by voting for the other candidate(s)? How about that fact that class and power still benefit whites on the whole? So wide is the disparity that many of us feel non-whites cannot be racist because of their lack of power -- shouldn't we all have been spared then? How about the apathetic, indifferent ones who dont' even vote (more than half the country, basically)...? They're guilty because they didn't pay attention in civics...? Just kinda sounds harsh.

By the way, can someone enlighten me as to the specific beef that Osama bin ladin -- a guy raised with a platinum spoon up his ass -- has against the U.S.? Seems like you see it in every movement, every struggle: the pretender, the guy or girl who jumps on the bandwagon and and becomes passionate of their big ideas for "humanity" but conveniently leave out people.

[deez nuts]

From a political and military point of view, I kinda figure a terroristic attack was bound to happen again. I mean come on they did make one attempt on WTC, before.

But I'm neither a politician or military leader. I just see it as an attack on me. Grew up in NYC all my life, went to school in NYC and probably gonna spend the rest of my life here.

But did it surprise me that it happened? No. I was here for the first attempt on the world trade; it didn't surprise me at all that there was a second attempt.

I don't like the phrase deserved it, because noone deserves this shit. But did we have it coming to us? I believe so. Those zealots are capable of anything. Was I surprised when it happened? No. Just didn't know how and when; what an elaborate scheme it was and how both towers were hit, the pentagaon and an attempt on another target. And the fact that both towers actually went down, is what surprised me.

Did innocent people deserve to die. Fuck no. Imagine that day walking into work or on a flight, not knowing it's your last day of living.

This week's been hell on me. Even worse for my cousin, who lost her husband, raising their child as a single mom now and going to weekly therapy sessions. Her husband was my Korean childhood friend, that was close to me as a brother, as my own flesh and blood brother. I hooked them up. I am the godfather of their son. I'm just glad this week is over. But life moves on. And politics will be politics.

But in closing my answer is yes, we had it coming. And what tre said might sound callous but has truth to it. It's a whole new ballgame with these guys, there are no rules of war and engagement. Everything is fair game to these guys.



<!--EDIT|Chasiubao_Boy|Sep 13 2002, 08:18 AM-->

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Arex@Sep 13 2002, 10:09 AM
Who's to say that Osama's "war" against the United States for all of America's perceived atrocities committed against the Arab nations is any less a justification for his actions?

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone terrorist/military action taken against any civilian targets. I just think the U.S. (and its citizens) can be a tad self-righteous, which is part of the whole problem...

Alex
Also keep in mind, though, that Osama didn't act exactly with the approval of nations across the world, yes? I mean, governments fighting governments is one thing, but what authority exactly did this guy have? And what gave him the power to decide that just because lives have been lost in the past, that's any reason for lives to be lost today.
What America doesn't seem to realize is that there are America-haters out there. A lot of them. And the hatred they have for the United States is so much stronger than any hatred Americans might harbor against them. They're willing to go to any lengths to battle our way of life. Foreign countries may see us as lazy, commercial, superficial, spoiled, whatever they want... But bottom line is that nobody has the right to say that ANYBODY deserves to die. So... Septermber 11th: Did we deserve it? No. Was it necessary to finally get people to understand that we, as a nation, were in desparate need of a change? Perhaps...

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by mrazntre@Sep 13 2002, 10:20 AM
Although we perceive the American public as "innocent" it is not true to a certain extent. If we look at our political system, it is rule by representation. Those innocents were the ones that elected the ones in power. Those in power authorized special military action in many foreign countries, resulting in prolonged civil wars and acts of terrorism.
Sure, we are the ones who elect our leaders... but when our leaders make decisions we don't agree with, there isn't much we can do about it except complain.

[Arex]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 13 2002, 03:10 PM
Also keep in mind, though, that Osama didn't act exactly with the approval of nations across the world, yes? I mean, governments fighting governments is one thing, but what authority exactly did this guy have? And what gave him the power to decide that just because lives have been lost in the past, that's any reason for lives to be lost today.
What America doesn't seem to realize is that there are America-haters out there. A lot of them. And the hatred they have for the United States is so much stronger than any hatred Americans might harbor against them. They're willing to go to any lengths to battle our way of life. Foreign countries may see us as lazy, commercial, superficial, spoiled, whatever they want... But bottom line is that nobody has the right to say that ANYBODY deserves to die. So... Septermber 11th: Did we deserve it? No. Was it necessary to finally get people to understand that we, as a nation, were in desparate need of a change? Perhaps...
So "approval" of the rest of the world is what makes the killing of innocents more justifiable? Majority rules? I don't buy that for a second. The only thing that gives the United States any "authority" to do anything with respect to foreign affairs is the fact that we're the dominant world power. The United States just happens to have the biggest stick and the fattest wallet. In reality, our actual "authority" to act in the world arena is neither more nor less real than Osama's and the Taliban's. My point was basically just to point out that the U.S. is just as, and probably more, guilty of committing similar wrongs against people of other nations, that's all.

Yes, Osama committed a terrible act. But the United States is far from an "innocent" victim in all of this. While the 3000 individuals who lost their lives certainly didn't deserve to die, we as a country had it coming.

Alex

[mrazntre]

I agree with bunboy on the title of this thread, it should be "did the US have it coming." I think that would make it entirely a more feasible concept to accept.

As I was saying, although the apathetic masses have not set foot to disagree with political leaders and their actions, it is that very apathetic sense that concedes that the actions of their leaders were forthcoming and righteous. A country torn cannot wage an effective war, which is evident in the case of the Vietnam war. The problem with nations in general is that the nation is representative of those in power. Everyone else within the country is faceless and nameless because the brand "american" is placed on the association of the citizens of the US. Regardless of color. If anyone of us were to visit a foreign country, I am certain that we would all be labeled Americans, rather than by our ethnicities. AT first glance perhaps we would be asians, but immediately thereafter, after the observation of our movement and speech, we would simply be labeled "Americans." Other Asians would even call us Americans. It is because we were born/grew up here, it is because we have been constituted with American culture. We look American even though our genetic make up says different. Although we are the disparaged minorities in America, ultimately we are still Americans. It it that label, American, that immediately triggers hate. (im leaving that open ended). The arguments made can also be reflected back to the ignorant masses of the US who attacked and degraded those who "looked like afghans, muslims, and the like." It was that type of association that led americans to beat the shit out of americans (who happen to be of arabic descent, etc). Are they not Americans also? Those people must be in a very difficult situation, 1) being hated on by other US loving citizens, 2) being seen as traitors to their respective mother countries/or whatever.

Back to the point. As minorities, we do not wish to associate with those in power because we have no voice, yet that is not how OSama and the bunch saw us. They saw "americans." Disgruntled americans, loyal americans, sad americans... etc. "americans." As in, Asian-American, African-American, Mexican-American, and the list goes on. It is that hyphen that associates us with those in power.

Just by living, breathing, and thinking we are supporting all that is American... we have all been trained by American society to propogate the ideals of democracy and capitalism, hand in hand. In essence, it is the American dream -- make money, be happy. To make money in America is to own a business. To own a business is the first step to capitalism.

if we don't agree with our leaders, we have the power of impeachment (not to say that it works, but it's supposed to)

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Arex@Sep 13 2002, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 13 2002, 03:10 PM
Also keep in mind, though, that Osama didn't act exactly with the approval of nations across the world, yes? &nbsp;I mean, governments fighting governments is one thing, but what authority exactly did this guy have? &nbsp;And what gave him the power to decide that just because lives have been lost in the past, that's any reason for lives to be lost today.
What America doesn't seem to realize is that there are America-haters out there. &nbsp;A lot of them. &nbsp;And the hatred they have for the United States is so much stronger than any hatred Americans might harbor against them. &nbsp;They're willing to go to any lengths to battle our way of life. &nbsp;Foreign countries may see us as lazy, commercial, superficial, spoiled, whatever they want... But bottom line is that nobody has the right to say that ANYBODY deserves to die. &nbsp;So... Septermber 11th: Did we deserve it? &nbsp;No. &nbsp;Was it necessary to finally get people to understand that we, as a nation, were in desparate need of a change? &nbsp;Perhaps...
So "approval" of the rest of the world is what makes the killing of innocents more justifiable? Majority rules? I don't buy that for a second. The only thing that gives the United States any "authority" to do anything with respect to foreign affairs is the fact that we're the dominant world power. The United States just happens to have the biggest stick and the fattest wallet. In reality, our actual "authority" to act in the world arena is neither more nor less real than Osama's and the Taliban's. My point was basically just to point out that the U.S. is just as, and probably more, guilty of committing similar wrongs against people of other nations, that's all.

Yes, Osama committed a terrible act. But the United States is far from an "innocent" victim in all of this. While the 3000 individuals who lost their lives certainly didn't deserve to die, we as a country had it coming.

Alex
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Never ONCE did I go anywhere CLOSE to saying that "approval" was what makes killing Americans justifiable. I was trying to say that acting on the part of his nation is in NO way a justification for his actions. You mentioned something about how his justification for doing what he did was "America's percieved atrocities committed against the Arab nations," and I was simply pointing out that a majority of the citizens of the Arab nations did not condone his acts either. Remember, Osama was an EXTREMIST. Given, yes, a number of people were on his side, but in no way did he have the support of any nations.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by mrazntre@Sep 13 2002, 03:35 PM
I agree with bunboy on the title of this thread, it should be "did the US have it coming." I think that would make it entirely a more feasible concept to accept.

The thread title was deliberate, because my point was that while the U.S. has been guilty of said murder and atrocities, did we deserve 9/11, kind of the same way the Japanese deserved the atomic bomb? Maybe the distinction between "deserved" or "did the U.S. have it coming" is being lost on me.

Originally posted by mrazntre@Sep 13 2002, 03:35 PM
Just by living, breathing, and thinking we are supporting all that is American... we have all been trained by American society to propogate the ideals of democracy and capitalism, hand in hand. In essence, it is the American dream -- make money, be happy. To make money in America is to own a business. To own a business is the first step to capitalism. &nbsp;if we don't agree with our leaders, we have the power of impeachment (not to say that it works, but it's supposed to)

I'm not sure what your point is -- are you saying that we've been tainted by Western notions of capitalism and democracy and greed? Absolutely, and I'm sure Osama agrees. He'd also probably say that we should all be executed for even having an idea of what a porn looks like; nevermind that some of us would be more intimately aware of the details, we'd all be swept under the rug.

Intolerance of any kind can be a scary thing. It leads governments to round up people and place them in camps, makes dumb-asses kill Vincent Chin's because we all look alike, makes other dumb-asses attack anyone for looking Middle Eastern, and yes, can make one man send off 19 others to murder over 3,000 because they had the unfortunate distinction of being born American, and therefore, guilty.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 13 2002, 04:52 PM
Remember, Osama was an EXTREMIST. Given, yes, a number of people were on his side, but in no way did he have the support of any nations.
Thank you. I'm not sure why this has been lost on everyone lately.

Immediately after 9/11 I remember watching a special on the Holocaust, and survivors were saying how most people today were fortunate enough to not have to have witnessed true evil or hate, only shades of them.

Maybe we've been desensitized by Dubya's constant use of the word "evil" to reference anything anti-American, our own resentment in high gear to justify the actions of U.S.-haters. I'm sure Hitler had very good reasons for doing what he did right?

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 14 2002, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by mrazntre@Sep 13 2002, 03:35 PM
I agree with bunboy on the title of this thread, it should be "did the US have it coming." I think that would make it entirely a more feasible concept to accept.

The thread title was deliberate, because my point was that while the U.S. has been guilty of said murder and atrocities, did we deserve 9/11, kind of the same way the Japanese deserved the atomic bomb? Maybe the distinction between "deserved" or "did the U.S. have it coming" is being lost on me.





I kinda figured you were trying to make a point, AB. And no the civilians of Japan did not deserve the A-Bomb either. I buy into the fact that the US was itching to test their new atomic capabilities.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 14 2002, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Sep 13 2002, 04:52 PM
Remember, Osama was an EXTREMIST. Given, yes, a number of people were on his side, but in no way did he have the support of any nations.
Thank you. I'm not sure why this has been lost on everyone lately.




Nicely said angel.

And yah, sure seems like it sometimes



<!--EDIT|Chasiubao_Boy|Sep 14 2002, 04:26 PM-->

[mrazntre]

AB: yup exactly.

[ren28]

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 18 2002, 08:27 PM
if anything, george bush is the zealot - a fanatic christian on a crusade....for a oil. anyhow, you can only compare the attacks with hiroshima and nagasaki to an extent, for although both countries suffered temendous loss of people, the country of japan did not deserve it (emperor apologized and surrendered beforehand (twisted by our history texts)), while the country of america did deserve it. partly, its because of our overriding arrogance and ignorance ("i dont know who osama is - whats afghanistan?") that caused these attacks. its also the presence of u.s. imperiliasm that caused these attacks. lemme tell you, if it had not been for osama, supposedly making this a religious cause, there would have been plenty of other "terrorists" that didn't need a muslim fundamentalist mentality to attack our country of "freedom, liberty and justice".

love, prof. frink
I don't like Bush. I will, however, say something about Japan. The emperor surrendered uncoditionally only after the two a-bombs and he did so reluctantly. If he surrendered before the bombs, why did he not sign the Potsdam declaration for unconditional surrender which was only about a month before? Sure, there was an offer beforehand to surrender... but not unconditionally. Besides this fact, why did he not sign the Potsdam declaration? The war would have ended right there. It sounds like you are rewriting history to prove your own point. It does not make dropping those two bombs on civilians right in any way shape or form but those are the facts. Nothing was signed.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 18 2002, 12:27 PM
if anything, george bush is the zealot - a fanatic christian on a crusade....for a oil.

Why do you think he's a zealot or fanatic?

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 18 2002, 12:27 PM
anyhow, you can only compare the attacks with hiroshima and nagasaki to an extent, for although both countries suffered temendous loss of people, the country of japan did not deserve it (emperor apologized and surrendered beforehand (twisted by our history texts))

So what texts should we be reading? Please qualify this claim you're making.

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 18 2002, 12:27 PM
partly, its because of our overriding arrogance and ignorance ("i dont know who osama is - whats afghanistan?") that caused these attacks.

So it's arrogance that drives American ignorance?

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 18 2002, 12:27 PM
its also the presence of u.s. imperiliasm that caused these attacks.

What "imperialism" exactly are you referring to that drove Al Qaeda to attack? Do you even know what spurned Osama in the first place?

I hate to be ticky tacky, but lately I've noticed in this forum a tendency to steer towards opinions -- which any moron can have -- rather than arguments.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 18 2002, 11:03 PM
1.zealot=one who is overly fervent, impassioned, and fanatic. have you not listened to the speeches and the wording of bush?:"evil, crusade, terror, never forgot, etc." (don't tell me that he's not one, just cuz he doesn't write them)
2.what texts you ask? how about zinn's people's history of the u.s?any text of ronald takaki is also good. go find numerous articles that prove that the american govt. was aware of pearl harbor (i'm sure all of you will have a field day with this one, oy), or articles that "qualify the claim", as you put it, that the a-bombs of japan were unneccesary. why, here's one of many by "qualified" scholars and scientists:http://www.oneworld.org/news/world/bloomfield.html
3.of course, arrogance isnt the only factor in ignorance, but it's definitely contributed.
4. are you kidding with the imperialism factor? you can translate imperialism with military power and presence any day now.
5. i thought all this time that opinions are what "drives" arguments. sorry if my "opinions" dont flow with you all.

love, prof.frink
1. We all use those phrases. I do. Am I a zealot? It's okay to be impassioned when it comes to patriotism. I'd rather have somebody who loves America to be president than somebody who is apathetic. I might not like Bush that much, but I'll give him that.

2. Note that the text you say is good is written by someone named "Takaki." Is that Japanese? I mean, maybe he's not... I could be wrong. But you see my point. Textbooks come from opinions that people have. The person's backgrounds and beliefs strongly affect what they write. Textbooks, I'll tell you, are not always right. Some are swayed to make America look good, some are swayed to make America look bad. Just because something is in print doesn't mean it's not true. So if you don't believe the standard American History books, why should I believe yours?

3. Arrogance and ignorance, I believe are two different things. Having both at the same time is bad. Having one or the other... also bad. They are independent of one another. And I don't think the fact that many Americans don't know what's going on in the outside world counts as a good reason to blow their brains out.

4. Umm.. no comment. :)

5. achtungbaby is just saying that using your opinions as arguments for something isn't a good way to go. To argue, use facts. State your opinions, but don't push them as fact.



<!--EDIT|angel nympho|Sep 19 2002, 02:31 AM-->

[kasia]

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 18 2002, 08:27 PM
if anything, george bush is the zealot - a fanatic christian on a crusade....for a oil. anyhow, you can only compare the attacks with hiroshima and nagasaki to an extent, for although both countries suffered temendous loss of people, the country of japan did not deserve it (emperor apologized and surrendered beforehand (twisted by our history texts)), while the country of america did deserve it. partly, its because of our overriding arrogance and ignorance ("i dont know who osama is - whats afghanistan?") that caused these attacks. its also the presence of u.s. imperiliasm that caused these attacks. lemme tell you, if it had not been for osama, supposedly making this a religious cause, there would have been plenty of other "terrorists" that didn't need a muslim fundamentalist mentality to attack our country of "freedom, liberty and justice".

love, prof. frink
apologizing may just have been a military tactic. and coming from japan at that time after what they did in nanking, i wouldn't have found them credible. whether they surrendered beforehand has not yet been proven. there are a lot of theories out there--but no solid evidence.

are you saying that u.s. imperialism caused these attacks b/c the only way to attempt to stop the u.s. is through sneak attacks? an actual declaration of war won't cut it because we're too powerful of a nation? b/c this would seem like the only logical argument coming from that perspective.



<!--EDIT|kasia|Sep 19 2002, 03:09 AM-->

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 18 2002, 03:03 PM
1.zealot=one who is overly fervent, impassioned, and fanatic. have you not listened to the speeches and the wording of bush?:"evil, crusade, terror, never forgot, etc." (don't tell me that he's not one, just cuz he doesn't write them)

I'm not disputing that his speeches are ridiculous. But a real zealot would have already launched a preemptive attack on Iraq by now. A real zealot would have also dismissed any notion of deliberation and immediately bombed the hell out of Afghanistan. Comparing Bush's zeal to wipe out terrorism with bin Laden's conviction that all Americans must die is politely subjective.

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 18 2002, 03:03 PM
go find numerous articles that prove that the american govt. was aware of pearl harbor (i'm sure all of you will have a field day with this one, oy), or articles that "qualify the claim", as you put it, that the a-bombs of japan were unneccesary. why, here's one of many by "qualified" scholars and scientists:http://www.oneworld.org/news/world/bloomfield.html

Whether or not the U.S. was aware of Pearl Harbor has nothing to do with whether the Japanese offered an unconditional surrender.

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 18 2002, 03:03 PM
3.of course, arrogance isnt the only factor in ignorance, but it's definitely contributed.

That's a ticky tacky point. Why? Because the penalty for this "contributing" factor was the murder of over 3,000 civilians. Of course we could all stand to pay attention during civics class -- and if we don't, we should die, correct?

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 18 2002, 03:03 PM
4. are you kidding with the imperialism factor? you can translate imperialism with military power and presence any day now.

It's a simple question. Osama bin Laden didn't attack us because of what we did to the Native Americans or Chinese with the railroads. Why did he do it then?

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 18 2002, 03:03 PM
5. i thought all this time that opinions are what "drives" arguments. sorry if my "opinions" dont flow with you all.

Look, I didn't mean for my comments to be a personal attack in any way, but I just think it's fair that if you're going to post your opinions, that they be qualified. And so far, you've done that, save for the imperialism thang I guess.

[loserbutt]

hmm, I got into a huge flamewar last year in asianavenue.com over this issue

ren you were there, you might remember.



I still stick by my guns on this, people who say that the US had it coming are akin to Falwell and RObertson.


and if US civilians are the same as soldiers, then why don't the fucking arabs stop complaining about civilian casualties. hate that logic.

[pfc beansprout]

Originally posted by loserbutt@Dec 28 2002, 06:44 PM
hmm, I got into a huge flamewar last year in asianavenue.com over this issue

ren you were there, you might remember.



I still stick by my guns on this, people who say that the US had it coming are akin to Falwell and RObertson.


and if US civilians are the same as soldiers, then why don't the fucking arabs stop complaining about civilian casualties. hate that logic.
*arabs or "fucking arabs" isn't exactly the talk/attitude we need to understand the whole situation...yes, we got shit on a year and a half ago, but that doesn't mean since we are the 'biggest/baddest dogs on the block, we bully everyone around.' if anything, attitude like that will get us into more trouble...we really do not need 300 MILLION arabian folks hatin on us...

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by Arex@Sep 13 2002, 05:09 AM

Let's not forget that the United States killed upwards of 300,000 Japanese citizens, mostly civilians, by the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Granted, some will say that these attacks were justified because we were "at war." Who's to say that Osama's "war" against the United States for all of America's perceived atrocities committed against the Arab nations is any less a justification for his actions?

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone terrorist/military action taken against any civilian targets. I just think the U.S. (and its citizens) can be a tad self-righteous, which is part of the whole problem...

Alex
Let's get Hiroshima and Nagasaki straight. Before the use of atomic, the Japanese already...

-killed millions of Chinese, Flippino, Malaysians, Indonesians, Koreans, etc.
-force Allied soldiers in the Bataan Death March, build a railroad (slave labor), and/or executed them... all this in violation of the Geneva accords.
-Surprise attack a naval base in Hawaii. Thus causing a state of war between the US and Japanese.
-Despite the firebombing and regular bombing, the whole nation of Japan was ready to sacrifice itself to repel and land invasion.

The atomic bomb could have saved more lives than killed (it was projected that 1 million allied soldiers could die and millions more Japanese if there was a land invasion.

Then we have Osama, who...

-is friggin terrorist
-blames the problems caused by Arab autocracies (and himself) on the US and Israel

If I, for instance, declare Jihad on France (which I would like to do sometimes) because they collaberated with Axis Germany 50 years ago (Vichy France), would that be justifiable. Osama lists of U.S atrocities goes all the way back to the Crusades.

Every country sets its policy based on self-interest, EVERYONE of them. EVERY country believes what they do is right for THEMSELVES. The US happens to be more powerful and of greater influence to the world then Latvia or Tanzania (or any country in the world).

[Hiroshi2]

I agree with what was said above: we may not have deserved it, but we sure as hell had it coming.

Whoever believes that America does not impose cultural imperalism abroad is either ignorant or racist, IMO. There is anti-american sentiment in all parts of the world now, from Europe to the Middle East, to East Asia. And that is the reason why. I'm suprised they didn't do more. We are so hypocritical. We call them the bad guys, but we haven't done anything much different than what they have. They bomb us and kill civilians, hell we did that in 1998 against Iraq. We certainly did it with the A-bombs over Japan, I agree w/professor fink, it was not neccessary. The only difference between us and the Arab world: we represent two different idealogies: our capitalistic, freedom-loving society, versus their religiously fundamental society. Why we think we have the right to tell them how to live is beyond me.

[rakovlam]

Let's reduce the situation. A police officer in Cincinatti wants to reduce crime any way he can. Therefore he starts targeting profiling blacks and hispanics in order to find drug dealers. This tactic spreads throughout His reason is that in the US, drug dealers tend to be of hispanic and black origin (just look at the stats). In effect, crimes that are associated with drugs (murder, prostitution, theft, smuggling, etc) goes down drastically (racial profiling was one reason why NYC's crime went down, along with giving harsher sentences for "root crimes"). However, the black and hispanic communities are outraged that their people are being profiled. As protests escalates, the officer who started the racial profiling was capped by a black gang member. Did the police officer "had it coming"?

Which gets to my next point. The US has done more for Muslims than any other country, including the countries that are being aided. We fought a war in the Balkan, even though it was not of US interest to do so, to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo. The US provides a place for everyone, regardless of religion, to worship freely. So all Muslims are welcomed in the US, Sunni or Shiite. Most of these actions are definately the US intervening in other countries, but did the US "had 9-11 coming" for hurting the feelings of a group of terrorists?

Did the jocks had it coming in Columbine for teasing and ignoring Harris and Klebold? If so, its a good time for popular kids to wear a bullt-proof vest to school nowadays.

To me the US is like parents and the rest of the world are their kids. When the parents care too much about them they snap back at them.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by Hiroshi2@Dec 28 2002, 10:15 PM
I agree with what was said above: we may not have deserved it, but we sure as hell had it coming.

Whoever believes that America does not impose cultural imperalism abroad is either ignorant or racist, IMO. There is anti-american sentiment in all parts of the world now, from Europe to the Middle East, to East Asia. And that is the reason why. I'm suprised they didn't do more. We are so hypocritical. We call them the bad guys, but we haven't done anything much different than what they have. They bomb us and kill civilians, hell we did that in 1998 against Iraq. We certainly did it with the A-bombs over Japan, I agree w/professor fink, it was not neccessary. The only difference between us and the Arab world: we represent two different idealogies: our capitalistic, freedom-loving society, versus their religiously fundamental society. Why we think we have the right to tell them how to live is beyond me.
You forget what a "fundementalist society" is in the Arab world. The government controls the media, destroys all opposition, keeps the people miserable and angry at someone else, bans all other religions. The people in the Arab world are already being told how to live (and who to hate). Why not introduce capitalism and constitutional rights to these countries? Remember Saudi Prince Alaweed? He's the guy who offers Rudy Guiliani a $10 million check if the US would change their foreign policy on Israel and the rest of the Arab world. The world always tries to tell us what to do. We just tell them to shove it. The US will not deal with anyone who just bitches and complains all the time. If it makes you happy, maybe the US should not care that the rest of the world could be held hostage by terrorists and a few nuclear weapon waving nations. Continue to dig a hole so you can shove your head in it.

[rakovlam]

I put on my flame-proof suit. I'm also putting extra padding on my ass.

[loserbutt]

gotta agree with rakovlam.

[loserbutt]

the fundamental flaw in the reasoning of the US imposing "cultural imperialism" is that it leaves no room for choice. the US does not shove McDOnalds down people's throats. people choose to goto McDOnalds to eat food there. if they didn't want McDOnalds then they wouldn't go there.

for instance, this summer I went to taiwan. I saw mcdonalds there, but I chose not to go there.

people who rail against "cultural imperialism" are like those stupid college students who burn newspapers with articles they don't like- they have it all wrong. the solution to offensive ideas is not to shut up the person shouting them (or selling them). the solution is to shout louder.