9/11 coverup?

[kandrathe]

Can anyone possibly dispute that the US foreign policy has not played some part in the anti-American sentiments at the root of (some) terrorist activity?

Many leading politicians in many nations put their foot squarely into their mouths on occasion. I'm sure many of the non-Americans here know of things that their leaders have done and said that make them cringe on occasion. Now, they are not the leader of the free world, but our politicians are still just as human and susceptible to gaff as any others (maybe more so due to the preponderance of media microphones shoved into their faces). The propagandists are the ones who twist those statements out of context and add gasoline to the fire. I'll offer as examples of the sometimes inarticulate Bush, "You are either with us, or with the terrorists", and "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Now consider the fact that if either of the two jokers running for president wins, the rhetoric and the policies will not change much due to the centrism of congress. A new Kerry administration will be as inept as the new Bush administration was, and it will be until they hit their stride sometime in 2006. Think about exactly what it is that has pissed you off about the US foreign policy, and exactly what you think the alternative should have been.

I'm still not sure myself which will be worse between staying the course with the now experienced Bush, or changing horses and waiting for a Kerry administration to get up to speed. I understand that people and politicians outside the US think that a change of leaders will change the tone, but the policies that are in place will continue. So if it is merely the heavy handed tone (Texas swagger) of Bush that is the objection, then I think that it is a little petty. I've worked with my share of Texans (no offense Occhi), and there is a reason they wear a ten gallon hat. Ok, so the US is not perfect and it will probably never be perfect, and may many times even make horrible mistakes. I know I would rather that the Rwandan genocide had been addressed, or that we wouldn't give in to North Korean black mail, or that we would work more closely with Putin and not just dismiss his claims of Chechyn involvement with international terrorism. The US was dragged into the Balkans conflict and so we went, and it is better now, right? If Europe wants things done better in the future, maybe Europe needs to develop the capability of doing things for themselves.

I'm against the entire Kerry domestic agenda, so for me the only thing that matters is whether Kerry would be better able to prevent terrorism. The terrorists did not start planning 9/11 on the day Bush took office, so I believe it would have happened under a Gore administration as well. Al Queda was formed and gained power under the kinder, gentler, and vastly more globally popular Clinton administration.

I'm not one of those people who believes we need to fight a softer gentler war on terrorism. I don't think if we are nicer, that terrorism will stop. Ask the parents of the dead children in North Ossetia what the children did to deserve their fate.

[Minionman]

the ritual killings of someone's life,

What is this supposed to be? I really don't know what it it's supposed to mean.

[Brista]

but to spend another 10 sentences in saying I should have written a longer reply was a bit overdone brista)

Not longer but better

Looks from here like a strategy that worked, nice post ;)

[Rhydderch Hael]

. . . that when an enemy steals a march on us, through his own cleverness and imagination, our unpreparedness, or a combination of both, so many monday morning quarterbacks search for scapegoats -- see post Pearl Harbor. ...

"...the transition from peace to war comes hard for civilians, but for professional soldiers there is no excuse. If I had been caught with my planes on the ground, as were the Air Corps commanders in the Phillipines and in Hawaii, I could never again have looked my fellow officers squarely in the eye."

The lightness with which this cardinal military sin was excused by the American high command when committed by Regular Army officers has always seemed to me one of the more shocking aspects of the war. Americans have been prone to excuse the failings of their military leaders partly because of the glow of final victory and partly because they still lack all the facts from which to form an honest and accurate appraisal— facts that have been carefully withheld from the public under the guise of censorship allegedly neccessary to military security. It is high time the American people made it their business to find out why the men they paid for twenty years to provide the national defense were so pitifully unprepared for the catastrophe that nearly engulfed us all. The penalty for the failure to do so will be a new and even more disasterous Pearl Harbor. ..."

One of those Monday-morning quarterbacks. Still playing the game that Sunday had brought to the fore, the one he had been playing since the previous Saturday. Claire Chennault, of the American Volunteer Group of the Chinese Nationalist Air Force.

I certainly don't accept that the attacks of September 11 was the product of an American conspiracy. Rightly so, because such ideas are a bunch of crock. But I never agreed well to the concept advertised of late (and advertised yet still) that the United States armed forces make for a nifty form of vocational school first— defenders of the nation second. The turnover of the ranks have been high for past decades. Turnovers in assignments, turnovers of service. A good majority of the force is well-trained but very new to the game.

There should be little or no distinction, in mentality at the least, between an army at peace and an army at war. "Always be courteous, but never friendly" so goes the adage of a professional soldier. Our armed forces got friendly when it advertised itself as a quick way to teach you skills, ready to move off to a civilian vocation once you served a single enlistment term. We bled because of that.

[Occhidiangela]

Behind the veneer of "college education" is a remarkable core of professionals. The focus on competence can be traced back to the all volunteer army initiative of the 70's and 80's.

Yes, we have a lot of waste in the services due to the jobs program. The level of professionalism, at least what I have seen in 2 plus decades, is noteworthy.

Also, if you wanted the military to prevent 9-11, you'd have to build a significantly larger Spec Ops branch, permissive RoE in uncomventional ops, a bigger CIA dirty tricks department, and a whole bunch more on alert fighters.

America did not want to pay that price, particularly the one to roam its own skies in the hope of shooting down a hijacked airliner. What politician could have sold that as a valid expense, he or she would have been pilloried for pork barrel spending.

Not sure what military you are disparaging in re readiness.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

All right, with a little less vitriol. How about biting into the cake, friend Gekko, and not just licking off the icing. You chucked out a soundbyte that lacks substance. You can do far better than that.

However. How does the 9/11 attack justify the american military dropping hundreds of bombs on Iraq? It doesn't, but it has been, and is being, used as such justification.

Used as justification by whom?

Where do you come up with that conclusion? That comment is not an original thought. Who did you steal or borrow that half truth from?

A few thoughts that cover the topic in modest depth.

1. I watched the pre "Operation Iraqi Freedom" information campaign unfold over a series of months. Its aim was to generate support for the posturing, threat of, and if necessary attack on, Iraq. The decision that Saddam had to go was a Risk based course of action intended to rid the Mid East for once and for all of Saddam Hussein's regime as an impediment to Persian Gulf Security. There were of course a number of other factors involved, not all of which have seen the light of day, if my guesses are correct.

Your sound byte nonsense does not do the process justice. (For the moment, I would prefer to let lie the "once you've done that, what then" question that needed a better answer than any of us got in public media, although some did ask. They seem to have been ignored.)

The 9-11 attacks were a direct trigger to Operation Anaconda and Operation Enduring Freedom, the war in AFGHANISTAN.

The Iraq war is an attempt to resolve Persian Gulf Security vis a vis Iraq, a Gordian knot that had been constricting since the cease fire of 1991. Iraq is a subset of a larger matter we can call Mid East Security. The series of events that led to "Iraq once again has iron raindrops rain down from above" was the continuation of already extent regional security tensions.

The primary policy reasons given were: WMD, Support to international terrorists, failure to comply with the 1991 cease fire and subsequent UN one way sanctions, outlaw nation, illegal arms trade, Ansar Al Islam host, etc ad nauseum. A few other reasons could be inferred, but I have not confirmed: Change the balance of oil flow away from Saudi Arabia. Stop cutting Turkey's throat for supporting us in levying sanctions, support which cost them a lot of lost oil revenue via the pipeline deal, Iraq to the Mediterranean ports. Change the calculus of the anti Israel bloc in the Mid East.

Now, aid and connection to some organized terror cells was a matter of fact, Ansar Al Islam and a few others, one to AQ seems to have been inferred. Some spin meisters continually juxtaposed the 9-11 and Iraq subjects on TV and in print. It took a fool or an idiot, however, to make the leap of illogic that results in "Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, we are attacking him because of 9-11." Not quite. The US attacked him for a host of other reasons, and used the momentum of the emotional power of the 9-11 event as a catalyst to generate public support.

The rhetoric early on was: "How is it right for America to take on a posture of Pre emptive War?" An interesting question, worthy of consideration. Questions aside, the die has been cast.

One security assumption in re Saddam was: if left alone, he would find someone, AQ or others, no matter, to do the dirty work, most likely with a fig leaf and a few degrees of separation. The fact that Iraq is part of a very tangled international security structure in the Persian Gulf region seems once again lost on the average person, to include you.

Why? Is it becuse you dont' look any deeper than one or two sound bytes? INstability in the Persian Gulf negatively impacts the global economy, see the Iran and Iraq war and its impact on oil prices and shipping insurance levels.

War is a political act, one that requires harnessing emotion to get public support, particularly in a free society. (See Chris Hedges' writings on how myth is used.) The success of the Afghanistan campaign -- against which there were protests, even though there was clear and unambiguous state sponsorship of terror there for years -- and some of the information gleaned from the Gitmo Boys, set up a new series of "if-then" probabilities in geopolitical forecasting.

It has taken the sound byte crowd, whom you have parroted, very little time to craft their own version of why Iraq was attacked. Noise. May I ask, in a related question, what credibility "No blood for oil" has as a slogan when it was used as a sound byte regarding BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq? Two very different operations, both in kind and in motivation?

Read this next bit carefully.

I have yet to see a policy statement that tied the 9-11 events as the reason for attacking Iraq, yet that is what your statement implies. What the administration did was harness the emotional energy of the 9-11, "I'm a victim," fear, and a "somebody has gotta pay" attitude and ask the following questions:

"Do you want to trust Saddam Hussein, who does not like us at all, NOT to provide WMD's and-or support to a terrorist organization (of which there are many, AQ being only one) who would then use such tools against us in a manner LIKE 9-11?

Do you want to wait until the next attack? He is likely to provide tools, is there a reason to believe he won't?"


Do you see the difference in what you said and what was being sold to the public? What was presented was fear, uncertainty, and a known arsehole who was already documented as

having worked on WMD programs, and using them, in contravention of his own treaty obligations
having supoprted terror some terror groups, to include paying a wereguild to suicide bombers in Israel
was an outlaw nation already
was a tyrant along the lines of Joe Stalin Light in Iraq
Who was sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the Mid East and who thus had, or has, money to support terror organs. His access to capital is a key enabler to his ability to act.

To repeat, the line taken and the rationalization used was: Are you willing to let anyone, funded by him or not, come and hit us like that while doing nothing in the meantime? (note the loaded 'doing nothing' question.) Are you willing to take that risk? Are you willing to cede the initiative against any and all aggressors? Are you willing to trust an outlaw NOT to help people hurt you?

What is implied in The War Against Terror ;) policy statement is that we start with him, since he is already on our sh** list, and since we are certain that his contravention of the Cease Fire and UN Inspecitons, etc, shows he cannot be trusted AND is dangerous to the entire region, and thus to the global economy. Remember "It's about the economy, stupid?" ON a certain level, "it's about the global economy, stupid." (Too sound byte ish, that line.)

The follow on thought should now be "who is next?" Does anyone need to be next?

Is that what America reallly wants to sign up for?

I honestly don't know. I have my own misgivings. I have commented elsewhere on this forum about my discomfort in implementing democracy at the point of a bayonet, the ability of Iraq to remain on nation, and the "why now?" question that has only one answer that I can come up with, which is internal not external in implication.

War in Afghanistan was all about 9-11. The appeal made in the case of Iraq was very different. The attempt to enforce the will of the UN security council by force of arms as a united group was an attempt, one that failed, to rally the international community and put some Spine into the UN in re the sanctions and Mid East security. That failure will hurt the UN for a while, as will Kofi's gutless call to evacuate the UN assitance HQ in Baghdad after a car bomb killed a few blue hatters. Showing fear and cowardice, and lack of resolution to tough guys is no way to win hearts and minds, nor to establish authority or credibility.

I find it ironic that this morning, September 11, 2004, I am discussing this topic with you. Unlike many today, I am not heading off to any "worship the victim" whinging Remembrance Ceremony. I do not subscribe to beliefs of the Cult of the Victim.

I am, by preference, a subscriber to the code of the Warrior.

Occhi

[EyeOfHorus]

As to success:

Example 1. Defeating a terrorist organization can be done via violence, I offer you again the Bader Meinhof gang. However, it was done via police and paramilitary techniques.

The bader meinhof group is good example of why the terrorist groups can fail and that has less to do with using violence (though it is needed) than with real reasons why terrorists can fail. As long as the feeding ground remains you will never defeat a terrorist group permanently.
The feeding ground of the Bader Meinhof group( radical leftists) disappeared largely in 80's. The remaining members were one after the other apprehended or killed and that was the end of it.
Thinking you can defeat Islamic terrorists by only using force is a little but simplistic. You kill one and two other will step into the place. Not until you remove the reasons Islamic extremism exists you can start to realy eliminate the terrorist groups (they are already beyond the pale and will probably never listen te reason anymore).
What you should do to cut of the feeding ground? I'm no expert in this field but is suspect it has something to do with endemic corrupt autocratic regimes, a large inferiority complex and 'perceived 'unfair' policies against 'Islamic people'. Rather complex and difficult to deal with.
I dont see in the current American policies much idea how to deal with this.
Sure, Saddam Hoessein was a corrupt evil bastard but by occupying Iraq you only increase the feeding ground. Afghanistan was usefull, but has the number of terrorists dwindled? I dont see the Bush adminstration putting serious pressure on the governments of Saoudi Arabia, Egypt or whatever to consider serious reforms. I dont see them making large sums of money available to help these governements to solve their social and econimic problems. Doubts if this would work are surely in place, but using only violence will surely fail.
Instead we see a huge increase in the defense budget. Upgrading and improving all kinds of high tech stuff to guard your security is expensive and could be usefull (i have my doubts but ok). But such a huge increase? Terrorists usally dont have large armies to fight with and trying to occupy every country that has a 'rotten bastard' at his head and dislikes America is not feasible. The only thing this administration accomplishes is weakening the fundamentals of the american economy by creating a huge deficit which is very hard to recoup in the years to come because of demographical reasons. So what is the use?
Dont misundertand me, violence has its place. To contain or reduce the threat of terrorist and in the end to eilliminate them. But in the defeat of terrorism it is only secondary. I dont think the Bush administration grasps this. Regards,

[Occhidiangela]

Thinking you can defeat Islamic terrorists by only using force is a little but simplistic. You kill one and two other will step into the place. Not until you remove the reasons Islamic extremism exists you can start to realy eliminate the terrorist groups (they are already beyond the pale and will probably never listen te reason anymore).

You have just put your finger, I think unintentionally, on the matter. This is a conflict like the Cold War in that a power block, well funded Islamicists, wish to change the way the world works while the US and some of its allies wish to move forward with human social development, not backwards. Others sit and watch.

Your assumption that there will be 2 more rise up for each killed is unproven, and in fact smacks of having read a great deal of Arab propaganda. On the other hand, I have good reason to believe that Iran has an interest in ensuring the US stays focused on Iraq so that less of a heat lamp will shine on them. Hence, active recruiting and support for the fighters in Iraq is in their interest.

Your comments also appear to assume a monolithic influence by the Islamacists. There are more than two camps of thought in the Islamic world, and your drawing a conclusion like that is like asserting that Manchester United has won the game when up 1 - 0 over Newcastle with 42 minutes to play. This is a work in progress.

Killing off certain elements is necessary, but a great deal of effort must be spend via non violent means. On that we will absolutely agree. However, the population pressure, that would be manageable with intelligent birth control, will not cease anytime soon due to imbedded societal norms in many Muslim lands.

You suggest that the non violent methods are not happening in your post, which shows a very narrow view of what is actually going on politically. The political, economic, and informational avenues have been engaged for some time, and since at least 1991 in the Gulf region, actually, for quite a while before that.

What you should do to cut of the feeding ground?

How do you stop people from hating, for blaming others for their condition? I don't know.

I'm no expert in this field but is suspect it has something to do with endemic corrupt autocratic regimes, a large inferiority complex and 'perceived 'unfair' policies against 'Islamic people'. Rather complex and difficult to deal with. I dont see in the current American policies much idea how to deal with this.

I think you are spot on, the perception being fed by the global media and selected propaganda machines. As to the American policy, how well versed are you in it?

Sure, Saddam Hoessein was a corrupt evil bastard but by occupying Iraq you only increase the feeding ground.

That goes to the heart of the matter. The longer we are there fighting, the more folks will think "he was a sonofabitch, but he was OUR sonofabitch."


Afghanistan was usefull, but has the number of terrorists dwindled? I dont see the Bush adminstration putting serious pressure on the governments of Saoudi Arabia, Egypt or whatever to consider serious reforms.

You don't see it, therefore it does not exist? I am uncertain myself as to the details.

I dont see them making large sums of money available to help these governements to solve their social and econimic problems.

The 2-3 billion per year is aid to Egypt, part of the Camp David accords, you consider chicken feed?

Doubts if this would work are surely in place, but using only violence will surely fail.

Suggest you do some more homework, a great deal more than violence is going on. You may be victim of soda straw media coverage.

Instead we see a huge increase in the defense budget. Upgrading and improving all kinds of high tech stuff to guard your security is expensive and could be usefull (i have my doubts but ok). But such a huge increase? Terrorists usally dont have large armies to fight with and trying to occupy every country that has a 'rotten bastard' at his head and dislikes America is not feasible. The only thing this administration accomplishes is weakening the fundamentals of the american economy by creating a huge deficit which is very hard to recoup in the years to come because of demographical reasons. So what is the use?

Mixed concepts, will address a couple of them. I thought that the decision to go to war, and then to press on with the tax cut was a significant mistake. The Defense establishment is reforming, which is an expensive and long term process. Things like Comanche went under, a 13 billion dollar program. Cut and done. You will see, I am certain, in the next few years a significant draw down of active forces.

It was in the cards before 9-11, it will come to pass sooner or later. YOu seem to ignore, like most, that the US defense dollar funds global security, not just its own territorial needs. That puts spending on a completely different footing.

Thanks for the inputs.

Occhi

[Rhydderch Hael]

Behind the veneer of "college education" is a remarkable core of professionals.  The focus on competence can be traced back to the all volunteer army initiative of the 70's and 80's.

I note the word "core". If I was content with a cadre of experienced professionals, I wouldn't have complained. The broader infrastructure, however, is a different story. The one I've told.

Not sure what military you are disparaging in re readiness. 

This one:

America did not want to pay that price, ...

One nation's conscience may be put at ease when their warriors are— friendly. That makes it stand as the very antithesis of tyranny and despotism that America sees as it philosophical enemy in the world. But it didn't get the actual job done, though, and the reality of that hit home.


Mind you, like Chennault said, it would fall on part of the American people to bring about inquiry and change of their armed forces' policies and overall perspective. So, fault isn't to be laid upon the military— the misstep in national defense was the symptom. It would have to take all of America to exact a remedy. That didn't happen, so a "new and even more disasterous Pearl Harbor" did occur.

There is a problem in that. The military alone could not have changed that. Everyone had to have gotten on the ball with some rather hefty comprehensiveness that our complacency sadly supplied very little of.

[Guest]

There is a video that I rented a while ago called 'The Truth and Lies about 9/11.' Maybe it's the same video that Dozer linked to? I don't know I'm on 56k now so I can't d/l it. Although I don't entirely agree with everything in there, it does bring up some suspicious facts. The creator of the video has put up a challenge that makes it so if anybody finds any fact in the video false, he will give them some money ($1,000? $10,000?) The claim has never been made.

In my opinion, America kind of deserved 9/11. We've been killing lots of people in other countries a lot, and undeserved in most situations (IMO). Obviously those particular people who died in 9/11 didn't deserve it, but did all of those civilians we killed in Vietnam and Desert Storm deserve death? I thought that we should have just taken the attacks in stride, and tighten our defenses.

I realize that this opinion is very extreme, and I hope people don't say Im' trying to flame or troll or something. That is my honest opinion.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I hope people don't say Im' trying to flame or troll or something.

Posted on Sep 11 2004, 08:26 AM

In my opinion, America kind of deserved 9/11. We've been killing lots of people in other countries a lot, and undeserved in most situations (IMO). Obviously those particular people who died in 9/11 didn't deserve it, but did all of those civilians we killed in Vietnam and Desert Storm deserve death? I thought that we should have just taken the attacks in stride, and tighten our defenses.

Yeah, not a troll. Sure.

[Zippyy]

In my opinion, America kind of deserved 9/11. We've been killing lots of people in other countries a lot, and undeserved in most situations (IMO).

Civilian deaths are an awful reality, and their tragedies only seem to increase the fervor with which further murders are carried out.

However, to suggest that any civilian deaths were deserved is sadistic. Try explaining yourself to a relative or friend of one of the victims of 9/11. Or to a mother in Afghanistan or Iraq whose entire family was killed by a stray bomb. Watch someone you care about suffer and die and tell me that anyone, anyone deserves that.

[Guest]

If it was me who was a relative or friend of somebody who died in 9/11, my opinion would be totally different. Since I'm an objective outsider however, my stance remains cold and rational.

[Chaerophon]

Simly put, you are an idiot.

SELF-EDITED

[EyeOfHorus]

Your assumption that there will be 2 more rise up for each killed is unproven, and in fact smacks of having read a great deal of Arab propaganda

i know. i realised this as soon as i reread my post. It is not as simple as that. But the paradox is that killing an enemy will reduce the number of enemies is often proven to be a wrong assumption in these kind of conflicts.

Your comments also appear to assume a monolithic influence by the Islamacists

??, I dont know exactly what you mean by this. The Islamic world is quite fractured. This is true for both the moderates as the extremists. There is no simple label or policy that fits for all these groups.

You suggest that the non violent methods are not happening in your post, which shows a very narrow view of what is actually going on politically. The political, economic, and informational avenues have been engaged for some time, and since at least 1991 in the Gulf region, actually, for quite a while before that.

Granted, before 9/11 there were some attempts to change things without violence ( for example the Oslo peace process). Success was very limited though.

The 2-3 billion per year is aid to Egypt, part of the Camp David accords, you consider chicken feed?

Actually my work brings me in close contact with students of these countries (also of Iran, Pakistan and other countries around the region). If i talk to them the situation in their respective countries has not improved (much)the last decade. The Egyptian case is good example of bad policy. A part of the US is targeted at economic and agricultural issues (about 1/4 if my memory serves me correctly). But to this aid are tied condtions about opening up markets, in principle OK as i favour this. But when you have an economy that is built on a corrupt system it will not work. The net effect is that Egypt has become more dependent on imports and a noticable part of the local economy / agriculture has been destroyed and the aid dispaears in the pockets of government officials/ organisations. Fortunately others sectors of the economy have done slightly better so all is not bad. But my statement about not giving structural aid stands, as badly conceived aid is often worse than no aid.

It was in the cards before 9-11, it will come to pass sooner or later. YOu seem to ignore, like most, that the US defense dollar funds global security, not just its own territorial needs. That puts spending on a completely different footing.

No iI'm not. I'm glad that America is the super power in the world and not lets say China. Though i have my criticism on the use of American power i respect the fact they sometimes at least try to do things. I only whish that sometimes the American administration would give a bit more thought about the cause and effect of their actions. If they do, its lost on me sometimes but that may be my limitation.

Regards,

[kandrathe]

I'm no expert in this field but is suspect it has something to do with endemic corrupt autocratic regimes, a large inferiority complex and 'perceived 'unfair' policies against 'Islamic people'. Rather complex and difficult to deal with.

You overlook the prevelance of Imam's distorting the Islamic faith and resurrecting of the notion of centuries old romantic Arab, that with a cultural acceptance of violence as a means for problem resolution makes terrorism by Islamic extremists all that more dangerous. If it had much to do with endemic corrupt autocratic regimes, then why do Islamic terrorists come from every nation, including the US and Britain. Many people are sympathetic to the plight of the down trodden in the middle east, but only when that sense of injustice is combined with the religious doctrine to support jihad at any cost does that sympathy turn to violent action. My view is that this struggle is one of ideologies, and you need to look at the Taliban to see their vision of society. No, thanks.

And, yet I agree that powerlessness, injustice and starving families motivate the desparate, but the hearts and minds of the majority are not persueded by blowing up a school full of children. Rather, it steels the opions of the majority against you. If you take South Africa as an example, changing a states fundamental structure without a civil war is very difficult, takes time and the right amount of influence. There was a time when communist dictatorships and collective farming seemed to be a growing popular movement, and now in many majority islamic nations we see an extreme minority pressing for a form of theocratic Islamofascism. What the US and other western nations are trying to offer these disaffected, is that they should give the Greco-Roman model a chance.

I dont think the Bush administration grasps this.

Well, then the Clinton administration didn't either, as most of the same people are in charge of the NSA, DIA, CIA and FBI. Most people have no clue as to what the linkages are between various states and terrorism. You don't hear much about Iran, but they probably have as much to do with harboring and aiding terrorists as do the Saudi's in funding it. Anyway, in some ways I wonder if we haven't moved into World War 4. I can only hope it continues to be fought one nation at a time. I wonder if Iraq is the US showing they learned their lesson in ignoring the early warning signs of WWI and WWII.

[kandrathe]

In my opinion, America kind of deserved 9/11.

You have proven yourself to be a clueless idiot. Happy September 11th. I only hope you get to witness something like this in your lifetime.

[gekko]

Used as justification by whom?

Apparently, you missed the failed attempts by the US to tie Al-Qaeda to Sadam. Oh wait, that must have been only more propaganda that you, but not the rest of us, were smart enough to realize was nonsense. The only reason this is till not being tried is people were aware enough and quick enough on the draw to recognize how ridiculous this link was.

Nowadays, the rhetoric used is a little more general. Citing the need to be prepared and the horrors of 9/11 has proven an effective way (relatively speaking -- obviously the war has not been the strong campaign point Bush had hoped it would be) to keep the public behind the war.

Is it specifially 'Sadam was behind 9/11, if we don't go in he'll do it again?' No. However, in harnessing the emotional response of americans to the outrageous attack, the administration has used the past as provocation to the armed response.

Was it the only justification used? No. Was it the primary justification used? No. Then why the heck did I mention it?

I mentioned it as direct reply to your question.

How does anti-American sentiment justify terrorism, murder, and bloodshed?

Anti-American sentiments don't justify terrorism. Anti-American sentiments are not used to justify terrorism. Anti-American sentiments are a good indication of when terrorism is going to occur. The justification (which I do not agree with -- the justification is in the eyes of the terrorists) is the actions and feelings that cause the anti-American sentiments. So while my question may not have been specific enough for your tastes, nor was your own.

gekko

[kandrathe]

Apparently, you missed the failed attempts by the US to tie Al-Qaeda to Sadam. Oh wait, that must have been only more propaganda that you, but not the rest of us, were smart enough to realize was nonsense. The only reason this is till not being tried is people were aware enough and quick enough on the draw to recognize how ridiculous this link was.

Yeah, as I responded to Thecla in a different thread, by people like me and the 9/11 commission. clicky

Just because we didn't see video of tanks storming a hacienda in Iraq with a big Al Queda sign doesn't mean that Iraqi intelligence (Group 999) had no contact or coordination with Al Queda members, and including the evidence of meeting with Bin Laden in Sudan, or that of Zarqawi (Ansar Al Islam) being in Iraq itself. Support comes in many forms, like commando training (Salman Pak) and document forgery, things that Iraqi Intelligence seems to have helped many terrorists with. I don't believe that many people even within Al Queda knew about the 9/11 plot. So no, Iraq had no part in planning 9/11 or even supporting it directly. The direct support was unintentional, in the "donations to Islamic causes" that were funneled into the funding, or the training received at flight schools. But, Saddam was a big supporter of terrorism against American interests and in destabilizing the middle east.

Here is an old article that explored why people in the US seemed to link 9-11 and Saddam.

The main reason for the endurance of the apparently groundless belief, experts in public opinion say, is a deep and enduring distrust of Hussein that makes him a likely suspect in anything related to Middle East violence. "It's very easy to picture Saddam as a demon," said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University and an expert on public opinion and war. "You get a general fuzz going around: People know they don't like al Qaeda, they are horrified by September 11th, they know this guy is a bad guy, and it's not hard to put those things together."

[Occhidiangela]

Reply to Rhydd:

One of the ironic twists of the all volunteer force is that there has been a perception that the professional military has distanced itself from the population. I'd say it is the other way around, but that is consistent with the patterns of behaviour of America since about . . . 1775.

The myth of the Minuteman is all very well and good, but it is just that: a myth. The citizen soldier is a citizen who bears arms, and the best one is a professional. We don't do mercs. The closest we have to a militia is the National Guard, whose obligations to the State Governors make for some interesting budgetary decisions. The push in the past 13 years to stress professionalization of the reserves and the Guard, as well as to strengthen the bonds to Active Force units has resulted in a lot of Guard and Reserve personnel being called away to the current conflict.

The professionalizing of the American military and reduced reliance on conscription has its pros and cons. The biggest con is the shrinking of the demographic from whom to draw recruits, the biggest con is the ability to avoid "Johnson's 100,000."

If your concern is that America as a whole is losing its warrior spirit, you may be on to something.

Occhi