9/11

RupertofOZ

It's cool peashoots, after rereading the thread I realised that you were quoting another post and then commenting....

Takes on a different meaning and intent then.... at least I hope so

TimC

You have to be very careful with sarcasm on forums. It usually doesn't read the same way as it sounds.... Been caught out a few times...

I am being good and holding my tongue....

janethesselberth

I was home on maternity leave on 9/11. Holding my newly-adopted daughter from China and wondering if she was really going to appreciate her newly-gained US citizenship when hatred for the US was manifesting in so profound of a physical form. I watched the first tower collapse on live TV in utter disbelief. I found it difficult to believe that a group's hatred for another group could be intentionally channelled to create so much destruction and suffering. I have trouble understanding that degree hatred.

The hatred and fear and hostility that rippled out from the attacks was to be expected, but extended to anyone with Middle Eastern features or with an Islamic name. I had trouble with that, too. I suppose people were trying to focus their anger on something, but a terrorist organization is hard to find and hold and hate, so people grasped at what the could. It would have made nearly as much sense to me to decide to hate all blue-eyed people. Family and friends spoke in support of profiling to try to catch terrorists on US soil. I know it was done and I know it had results, but how many innocent people were harmed by that? Twenty years from now, will it be some Asian radical group that blows something up? And will my daughter, as a young woman lost on her way to her first apartment in a rental truck, be pulled from the truck and beaten because someone thinks she has a load of explosives instead of a bureau and a mattress? As I asked that a time or two, some of those in favor of profiling became more contemplative. I hope they thought about that a long time.

So now we've all learned to hate and fear even better than we did before, and it will be difficult to heal the wounds. I mourn for the lives lost, the families destroyed, and the new reality that it has created in the world.

Thanks for listening.

creative1

love thy neighbour!

RupertofOZ

Nicely said Janet, it's not just a sense an innocence and trust that has been suffered due to this event, but sadly a lessening of faith in humanity.

I only hope with time that the voices of reason on all sides will overcome the sickness and poison of the extremists of many ideologies and political persuasions, including those within our own countries

michael_Ferrini

Steve, discussing the fallout of 9/11 is part of the healing process. We went to Afghanistan immediately following the attacks, and then on to Iraq. Many people oppose or question that logic, but the United States is now committed for various reasons, one of which Rup touched on.

Now, the rationale for unseating a dictator like Saddam was a little shortsighted I admit. And some of the long range motives for ousting the dictator are not yet revealed, but I can say this with certainty. Our greatest objective in the middle east should be to curb the threat of nuclear or (other bombs) proliferation within Iran and Pakistan (upon implosion). If the United States withdrew from Iraq completely you can bet your bottom dollar that Iran would quickly support a pro-Iranian, or a government sympathetic to Iran's primary objective, securing nuclear weapons. When Pakistan implodes....which it WILL.....soon, you will hear a sucking sound greater than the World Trade Center towers. Right now the NWF region of Pakistan is ripe with Taliban activity, sympathy, and partial control by pro-Taliban sympathizers if not outright Taliban. They have a long history in the region and Al Qaeda is indistinguishible within the movement and culture. Our worst fears are starting to materialize within the NWF and the Pakistan Army having senior members sympathetic if not completely involved in Al Qaeda/Taliban.

What does anyone think they will do with AQ Kahn? Kill or keep? He is already spouting anti american rhetoric to save his arse.

In a perfect world, these people would solve thier problems peacefully, but it's not going to happen. The terrorists want western civilization out of thier region entirely, and they want the regoin for themselves. They are taking it a piece at a time. When Pakistan implodes we need to be on all sides of Iran and Pak to keep Iran and Pakistan in check. I'm sorry to say, but Iraq is nothing but a logistic setup and a stonewall to keep the terrorists/Iran from moving into that region. Compared to the mess we have no, it pales in comparison to the mess we will soon have on our hands post Pakistan. The world's first terrorist nuke will originate somewhere in Iran or Pak, and I would prefer our kids be on the ground to find it before it makes it's way over here.

9/11 should have been a serious awakening to how committed our enemy is. And it should not be forgotten....... Iraq may appear to be shortsighted, but long range commitment to the region was unavoidable from the first plane hitting the south tower

RupertofOZ

Quote:

long range commitment to the region was unavoidable from the first plane hitting the south tower

I would argue Michael that in fact it is almost solely because of our LACK of commitment to the region BEFORE 9/11 that the region has become what it is and Al-Queda has grown to the point it has.....

Until we recognise and genuinely commit to resolve the real problem of Isreal and Palestine then we have NO hope of EVER solving any problems within the region.

Iran's priciple driving force for the developement of nuclear weapons is the fact that it spent over a decade of fighting overwealming man and firepower from Iraq, sponsered and directly supplied with weapons of terror by the USA.

It has also seen many decades of armed threat and agression against itself and it's neighbours by a vast technologically advanced nation which has itself developed a nuclear weapons program.... Isreal, again sponsered by the USA.

Pakistan's nuclear program developed in response to that of India.... to supply India with nuclear fuel and uranium, despite not being a signatory to the NPT, is a direct confrontation and threat to the Pakastanis.

The Pakastanis are intimately linked to the Taliban and more recently Al-Queda on levels of radical theology, arms supply and training and provision of safe haven and intelligence..... and have been from the highest levels of government, secret service and the military for decades.

When it suited our purposes we openly patted them on the back, funded them and supplied vast amounts of military equipment to arm and train the "Taliban" to fight the Russians.....

Now we rabbit on about freedom and democracy and the support of religious tolerance while we threaten those who we once called "friends" with military force, invasion and or decimation by nuclear or bio-chemical weaponary.

The problem from the point of view of people in the region Michael is so completely stark and apparent to them that they fail to see how we can not understand it.....

They feal threatened pysically, economically, militarily....

Abandoned and betrayed through many years of history and promises...

Threatened culturally and religiously and left with the overwealming believe from a century of lies, broken promises and direct betrayals that the west is nothing more than a collection of soulless, bigotted, rascist, hypocritical liaring bullies bent on the destruction and pillage of their nations.

And we compound that believe daily and threaten annialation with nuclear force......

NOTHING we have done in the region for a century has proven anything but that to them.

We need to review our history of our involvement in the region and openly declare our true economic and strategic interests.

Put frankly Michael, they just don't believe a word we say.

And frankly I don't believe a word the masters of western foreign policy have to say about the region either.....

If we wanted to fight/stamp out terrorism and Al-queda and bring democracy to the region, we would have.....

Invaded Saudia Arabia, the principle source of funds and supplies for Al-queda.....

Bombed and or invaded Pakistan, the principle harbourer, trainer and idealogical sponser of Al-Queda....

Got tough and sorted out a recognition of a Palestinian state, with the involvement of Syria, Lebanon and Iran

And we should have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER have introduced bio-chemical and nuclear technologies into the region in the first place.

We ultimately bear the responibility for our own actions.

Sorry but IMHO....The rest is just all complete bullshit.

Bkausfish

The West’s Middle East policies has been called into question ever sense WW1. When the Turks ran the place they just killed whoever gave them a problem.

But what we are looking at now is WWIII it has already started and will spiral out of control until the Islam religion comes into the 21 century. The different Islam groups can’t get along and spend most of there time killing each other.

The bottom line as I see it will result in the whole area boiling over into a full war with many dead when it’s over. And I can only hope I’m wrong and Peace will come at lest that’s what I pray for!

RupertofOZ

I too would hope for peace in the region Bkaus....

Sadly I just don't see that our being there is going to in any way help the situation.

As you say, our reasons for being in the region are and have been questionable since WW1.

The only people being "fooled" as to the reasons for western interests being in the region are the peoples of the western nations.

Nothing we do will solve the problems in the region, only exacerbate them.

The bottom line is they just do not want us there.

Our bottom line is we WANT to be there for our own economic reasons...

Like I said, we aren't fooling anyone except ourselves. If we had any brains we would be hellbent on trying to rebuild/build the whole region and it's infrastructure with massive progarms and funding....

As friends.... offering help and assistance..... not attempting to control

tamo42

It's amazing to see a rational discussion of policies in the Middle East.

Frankly, I don't think there is a negotiable solution to Israeli-Arab conflict. The Israelis want to live in Israel, and the Arabs want them not to. You can negotiate when you want different things the other has, but in this case they both want the same exact thing.

I believe the only long term solution is 2-fold: Make Israel so strong that it wins the fight through deterrence (they've had significant weakening of will over the past few years), and developing the entire region to a standard of living where people don't get worked up enough over theology to kill people.

You can look all around the world. The worse the standard of living, the more people turn to religion to answer the question of "why does my life suck?" As living conditions improve, the majority shift away from religion until you get to the other extreme: where life is no longer a battle for survival and many turn back to religion to find inner peace/harmony/whatever you want to call it.

This devlopment of the region has to be in a self-sustaining way. They simply don't have the cultural and political institutions that helped Europeans (and colonies like US and Aus) progress from the Middle Ages, where their society pretty much is now, through the Enlightenment and on into modern society. It took the Euros 500 years to get there. How we do that with a large and diverse group like the Middle East in a reasonably short time-frame I have no idea :/

And yes, even now, we have religious extremists who are willing to kill and die in the US. But they are vastly outnumbered by more moderate people, and are only noticed because of their rarity.

Bkausfish

The reason for being there “Middle East” goes way beyond economic the way I see it. It has to do with a way of live we in the west have come to expect. I go to the doctor for treatment none of this can happen with out OIL. Everything in my live centers around that stuff it’s a curse but it’s also a blessing. Think back what life was like without OIL it basically was very hard and short. The other reason we can’t leave the Middle East is Israel! There is only one way out, Islam has to change and that will be done through war. They have the stuff “OIL” and we are not going to give up our way of life so the racial Islam leaders can suppress their people.

We are rebuilding Iraq but the racial Islam is destroying it. Look to Afghanistan the Afghanistan people love us. It’s only the Taliban that wants us gone.

Without the rule of law Dictators will control the people, we need law not Dictators with Power trips suppressing the people of the Middle East.

Bottom line there is no way we can leave.

mokevinb

I recently heard a study that is rather interesting; it stated that the more often a lie is repeated the more it is given the weight of truth. While there has been several things said that are untrue, by the various politicians, but the facts are coming out.

1) Iraq did not have WMDs, and was not capable of producing them in quantity. (This is not to say that there was not an effort to obtain them or construct them.)
2) Al Qaida, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, had minimumal support or activity in Iraq. Saddam wouldn't tolerate thier interference in his regime.
3) The Tal Ah Ban had minimumal activity, other than the "tribal" areas of Pakistan, outside of Afghanistan. What turned them into an enemy of the West was thier support of Al Qaida (primarily due to finances given to them from Bin Laden), and thier adherence to Sharia Law. Most recent information is showing that IF the west had embraced and worked with the Tal Ah Ban, Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan would have been much more stable and not turned towards Al Qaida.
4) Our allies, and even certain officials at the UN, undermined the sanctions upon the Iraqis, thus exacerbating the situation in Iraq. (Like most despots Saddam wanted the ever bigger stick so that he could have more control, and was not concerned about what he was doing to his people. Unfortunately, we, the west, we're not concerned with relieving the plight of the Iraqi people, and turned a blind eye towards what our allies were doing.)
5) Planning and foresight have been abysmal! Former Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld had already had a grudge against the military establishment before he took the position. (He had gotten his nose bloodied by his own incompetence during the Ford administration when he was appointed to the same post at the end of Viet Nam. BAD JOSS TO PUT AN INCOMPETENT BACK INTO THE SAME JOB, EVEN IF TWENTY YEARS HAS PASSED!) So, he did not listen to the recommendations made by military officers who had years of knowledge and experience. Instead he listened to a retiring officer who told him, "we can take Bagdad with 50,000 men." To take a city is one thing, to take a nation is another, and to hold either is yet another! Then, after we "took" the nation, the planning did not forsee the need to reinforce the total committment, not only in personnel, but in supplies and finances. (We failed early on in winning "the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi citizens. Running water, electricity, and functional sewers go a long way in pacifying a nation!)
6) The Iraqis are failing themselves! They have not been able in settling their own sectarian differences to establish a functional government, let alone law enforcement and justice for themselves.
7) Since when does a contractor working for the US government have rights and authority above those of the citizens of the country he/she is posted to? Every incidence of unprovoked or unnecessary force used by a US contractor in Iraq should be heard in the Hague as a war crime! (Strong language from someone who supports the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we are not talking about members of the military. We are talking about people hired to do a job, which does not entitle them to the same rights and authority as the military, although congress did give them an exemption in a bogus piece of legislation.)
8 ) An immediate withdrawl would be disasterous for the entire region, and ultimately to all western nations. While a draw down is the best option currently available it will only be effective as Iraqi and Afghani forces come on line and replace the western ones. (We know that the UN will not get involved, because of the overwhelming sentiment throughout the world against doing so. But that would be the best solution, share the load and responsibility in settling the issue.) The chore of "nation building" must be started. The people need governments, institutions and services that they can count on, without them instability will hold sway.

Did 9-11 cause the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't think so, I think was a convenient excuse, but I also believe that we needed to take action to ferret out and get rid of the criminals who committed the atrocity! The ones who were on the planes are now in Hell, but the ones who backed it are still free and must be stopped before they continue. To stop searching for them and persecuting them will only allow them to regroup and organize for even larger crimes.

michael_Ferrini

Rup....... leaving the region is simply not an option and if you really believe so, then you are ignoring history yourself. You say we created this monster so to speak, but I say culturally and theoligically, they refused to play in the sandbox of the developing global free market post industrial revolution. Yes we exploited thier resource rich oil reserves and maybe they felt thier hand was being forced, but they had every opportunity to better thier lives in the Middle East with all the money pumped into the region over the last 50 years, and certainly the governements became wealthy to the point of being able to buy thier way into western civilization. But dictators and self anointed royalty kept all the money and shat on thier own people, who in turn needed a scapegoat for thier woes, Israel, USA, Europe, anyone who they could blame, and they did, and took up cause by hijacking, kidnapping, murdering, extorting, blackmailing, deploying ordinance, suicide bombers, IED's, etc. . Time and again our well intentioned efforts were met with failure, not because we didn't try, but because they resisted and thwarted attempts based on a cultural and theological ideology that conveniently reinforced thier position in the world as the oppressed and exploited people, martyrs of the modern world. Give me a break.

Anwar Sadat was the first, murdered by the same theological extremists who viewed him as a sellout, a dove in a region of no compromise. That was our first clue there was an extremist movement. Sadat's assissination was based on the same theoligical and cultural ideology that has plagued Islam from its inception and would later spawn Al Qaeda. I don't believe for a second that the Saudis would fork over money unless it was to protect thier own interests, and to that end I believe they pay ransom (as opposed to support) to terroists for some stability within Saudi. You can't really blame them for not wanting us to deal with thier problem, that would make things worse. So they take the lesser of two evils. They really have no other option, for now. As far as India goes, they are simply an ally against the Pakistani trojan horse which will one day implode. Mushariff's days are numbered and his back is so tight up against a wall you couldn't squeeze an atom behind him. But AQ Kahn can.... yet you blame ourselves for creating this tension by helping India become a nuclear power? AQ Kahn is a national hero, and soon to be martyr. I'm glad we were committed to helping India stave off the craziness within Pakistan. At least we are right there. But alas, the method of deployment from either Pakistan or Iran will not be conventional. So it really doesn't matter. We need intelligence sources within Pakistan and Iran....big time. And we need a troop presence around the region to keep the extremists contained. Otherwise we will have to build one crazy huge wall of isolationism around the western world. Because they will not relent....
switching energy infrastructures around the world would be a good start but guess what, with China in the mix now, it's not going to happen anytime soon either.

michael_Ferrini

mokevinb wrote:

I recently heard a study that is rather interesting; it stated that the more often a lie is repeated the more it is given the weight of truth. While there has been several things said that are untrue, by the various politicians, but the facts are coming out.

1) Iraq did not have WMDs, and was not capable of producing them in quantity. (This is not to say that there was not an effort to obtain them or construct them.) WMD's and the very longstanding game Saddam played with the UN over WMD's was his downfall. It then became an excuse to invade rather than explain to the world that we had a long range objective to contain terrorist forces throughout the middle east and needed Iraq as a strategic ally or, in this case a forced occupation.

2) Al Qaida, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, had minimumal support or activity in Iraq. Saddam wouldn't tolerate thier interference in his regime. But Al Qaeda immediately showed up on scene once he was gone, and that was the problem from the beginning, the containment of an Al Qaeda threat with Saddam in place. If we didn't remove Saddam, he could have thwarted the long range goal of terorist containment and that's really about what we expected with all the games he played. It was a risk, Saddam was an evil and corrupt person anyhow, so an expendable player on the global stage got what he deserved. It was never about Iraq, but rather the Middle East and the strategic plan for terrorist containment.
3) The Tal Ah Ban had minimumal activity, other than the "tribal" areas of Pakistan, outside of Afghanistan. What turned them into an enemy of the West was thier support of Al Qaida (primarily due to finances given to them from Bin Laden), and thier adherence to Sharia Law. Most recent information is showing that IF the west had embraced and worked with the Tal Ah Ban, Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan would have been much more stable and not turned towards Al Qaida. This is perhaps the most problematic assessment and critical mass issue that others misinterpret. What difference does it make if theologically and culturally the Taliban shuns western ideas? They only cooperated with us back when we needed them to fight a common enemy, the Soviets. After that, we became the enemy to them, not that we saw them as the enemy. It wasn't easy to predict that the Taliban would become synonmous with Al Qaeda until after Bin Laden fled the Sudan, Clinton bombed training camps in Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole. By then it was to late for diplomacy.
4) Our allies, and even certain officials at the UN, undermined the sanctions upon the Iraqis, thus exacerbating the situation in Iraq. (Like most despots Saddam wanted the ever bigger stick so that he could have more control, and was not concerned about what he was doing to his people. Unfortunately, we, the west, we're not concerned with relieving the plight of the Iraqi people, and turned a blind eye towards what our allies were doing.) Not sure how this is of consequence now?
5) Planning and foresight have been abysmal! Former Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld had already had a grudge against the military establishment before he took the position. (He had gotten his nose bloodied by his own incompetence during the Ford administration when he was appointed to the same post at the end of Viet Nam. BAD JOSS TO PUT AN INCOMPETENT BACK INTO THE SAME JOB, EVEN IF TWENTY YEARS HAS PASSED!) So, he did not listen to the recommendations made by military officers who had years of knowledge and experience. Instead he listened to a retiring officer who told him, "we can take Bagdad with 50,000 men." To take a city is one thing, to take a nation is another, and to hold either is yet another! Then, after we "took" the nation, the planning did not forsee the need to reinforce the total committment, not only in personnel, but in supplies and finances. (We failed early on in winning "the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi citizens. Running water, electricity, and functional sewers go a long way in pacifying a nation!)
I wasn't there, but I can only imagine all the options were put on the table and there was no way to win the hearts of the Iraqis before invading. Saddam's rhtorical hatred of the United States, facsist grip over his people, and ideological distrust of western allies eliminated the possibility of winning sentiment over Iraqi people pre invasion.
6) The Iraqis are failing themselves! They have not been able in settling their own sectarian differences to establish a functional government, let alone law enforcement and justice for themselves. Well I agree, more evidence that our withdraw would leave a great huge suck wound that would be filled with Taliban or Iranian forces/sentiment.
7) Since when does a contractor working for the US government have rights and authority above those of the citizens of the country he/she is posted to? Every incidence of unprovoked or unnecessary force used by a US contractor in Iraq should be heard in the Hague as a war crime! (Strong language from someone who supports the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we are not talking about members of the military. We are talking about people hired to do a job, which does not entitle them to the same rights and authority as the military, although congress did give them an exemption in a bogus piece of legislation.) Not sure how this equates, but I tend to agree they have no business there...period.
8 ) An immediate withdrawl would be disasterous for the entire region, and ultimately to all western nations. While a draw down is the best option currently available it will only be effective as Iraqi and Afghani forces come on line and replace the western ones. (We know that the UN will not get involved, because of the overwhelming sentiment throughout the world against doing so. But that would be the best solution, share the load and responsibility in settling the issue.) The chore of "nation building" must be started. The people need governments, institutions and services that they can count on, without them instability will hold sway. This will never happen in our lifetime

Did 9-11 cause the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't think so, I think was a convenient excuse, I'm sorry, I don't think the death of nearly 4,000 civilians and public safety officers is an excuse of any kind. I think it is an act.....of war. Unconventional, and simply intelligent by design, it was an act indicitive of an enemy without borders, without diplomatic recognition, without maleability, without regard for rules of engagement, sourced from within a region historically at odds with western civilization. Iraq Afghanistan Pakistan Iran Saudi Arabia Syria Lybia Lebanon are all potential and probable enemies

but I also believe that we needed to take action to ferret out and get rid of the criminals who committed the atrocity! We started with Afghanistan and eliminated Saddam as a spoiler. Time to move to the next objective The ones who were on the planes are now in Hell, but the ones who backed it are still free and must be stopped before they continue. To stop searching for them and persecuting them will only allow them to regroup and organize for even larger crimes. Agreed

steve

Quote:

Steve, discussing the fallout of 9/11 is part of the healing process.

Had to go back and check what i said.

Anyway, i was just making a point that i didn't want to see this thread degrade into a flame war as it is both a sensitive issue AND MORE SO on the actuall anniversary date when people might be more sensitive. Thats all.

Backyard Aquaponics A place to discuss aquaponics

9/11

Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics