|
The War on Terror Fallacy (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Massive84 |
The war on terror started after 9-11. The US invaded Afghanistan because they blamed them for harbouring terrorists and the Al-Qaida organization.
The irony is, that those terrorists that were involved in 9-11 were US citizens. Every preparation that was done, was made inside the US. So how did Afghanistan harbour anyone?
The only thing that actually came from Afghanistan was the ideaology that the US beeing the arch enemy of the Islam and this is something that exists for many years (since the Isreal vs Palastina conflict).
But that is something can can be found in any arabic/moslim nation or the internet.
So what did the US do? Instead of fighting this ideaology, they threw bombs, killed many innocent people and made things worse.
So for me the entire war is one big bull. And i think in the upcoming years we might see the consquences. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Massive84
The irony is, that those terrorists that were involved in 9-11 were US citizens. Every preparation that was done, was made inside the US. So how did Afghanistan harbour anyone? |
The terrorists were here on student visas. They were not citizens. |
|
|
| Massive84 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
The terrorists were here on student visas. They were not citizens. |
But they did get their flying lessons in the US right? At least thats what i saw/read |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Massive84
The war on terror started after 9-11. The US invaded Afghanistan because they blamed them for harbouring terrorists and the Al-Qaida organization. |
the war was declared in and around 1993, but it wasn't declared by us. the declaration was reiterated in an almost official capacity in 1998 following Bin Laden's fatwa urging violence against American's and American assets.
| quote: | | The irony is, that those terrorists that were involved in 9-11 were US citizens. Every preparation that was done, was made inside the US. So how did Afghanistan harbour anyone? |
those were Saudi, UAE and Yemeni nationals here on student visas. ALL of the up to 27 suspected hijackers and potential hijackers had gone to Afghanistan enrolled in the Al Queera training camps that were harbored and protected by the Taliban government.
youre right though, they did come here to learn how to fly. probably because the Taliban made it illegal for anyone to learn how to fly:rolleyes:
| quote: | The only thing that actually came from Afghanistan was the ideaology that the US beeing the arch enemy of the Islam and this is something that exists for many years (since the Isreal vs Palastina conflict).
But that is something can can be found in any arabic/moslim nation or the internet. |
the only thing that came from Afghanistan was the Al Queera base (<--redundant) and the Taliban government harboring them. Al Queera launched many attacks from their haven in Afghanistan including the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. you were probably just a kid back then but they killed hundreds in those terror attacks alone.
| quote: | | So what did the US do? Instead of fighting this ideaology, they threw bombs, killed many innocent people and made things worse. |
who said we're not fighting the ideology? we fighting this war on so many fronts it's almost impossible to count, but be assured one thing whatever it is we're doing it's working.
| quote: | | So for me the entire war is one big bull. |
i'm sure you find a lot of things are big bull. that doesn't make it less real.
| quote: | | And i think in the upcoming years we might see the consquences. |
funny, did you say the same 6 years ago?
as a matter of fact, don't you think all the attacks we recieved prior to going into Afghanistan in 2002 make your logic completely illegitimate compared to the rest of the world? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
Q5 - what was the bush admin's reasoning for hamstringing the moderate political figures in iran with bush's "axis of evil" comment, especially given the amount of aid iran provided with the invasion of afghanistan? Why did the administration rebuff peace olive braches from the iranian government?
Do you think the administration and its actions/rhetoric should accept any blame for the hardliners now in power in iran?
You can learn more HERE (yes, ive been going all frontline silly recently). |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Q5 - what was the bush admin's reasoning for hamstringing the moderate political figures in iran with bush's "axis of evil" comment, especially given the amount of aid iran provided with the invasion of afghanistan? Why did the administration rebuff peace olive braches from the iranian government? |
Because for the Bush administration and its sympathisers, diplomacy is nothing more than capitulation. They'd rather perpetuate hostilities than accept any solution - no matter how mutually beneficial it might be - that may require them to cede an inch of their moral high-ground. Talking is the first step to compromise, afterall, and we can't be having any of that now can we? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Q5 - what was the bush admin's reasoning for hamstringing the moderate political figures in iran with bush's "axis of evil" comment, especially given the amount of aid iran provided with the invasion of afghanistan? Why did the administration rebuff peace olive braches from the iranian government? |
first, "moderates" in Iran have no legitimate power. they never will. second, what "peace" exactly would come at the hand of the Mullahs?
this point is really here nor there but we've been labeled as the "Great Satan" from as far back as 1979 by the Mullahs. they teach it to children in kindergarten. i really don't think labels are as important to the Mullahs as much as they are to myopic Western anti-war, anti-American sentimentalists looking for an excuse to appologize for Iran
| quote: | | Do you think the administration and its actions/rhetoric should accept any blame for the hardliners now in power in iran? |
the Mullah's have been doing whatever it is they've been doing long before the current administration, if i am understanding you correctly.
| quote: | | You can learn more HERE (yes, ive been going all frontline silly recently). |
ok i'll watch it. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
first, "moderates" in Iran have no legitimate power. they never will. |
possibly, but wouldn't you agree that the US' saber-rattling pretty much undercuts any and all moderate positions?
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
second, what "peace" exactly would come at the hand of the Mullahs? |
well, peace in iraq in 2003 and beyond, possibly preventing the huge schism that erupted after the mosque bombing?
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
this point is really here nor there but we've been labeled as the "Great Satan" from as far back as 1979 by the Mullahs. they teach it to children in kindergarten. i really don't think labels are as important to the Mullahs as much as they are to myopic Western anti-war, anti-American sentimentalists looking for an excuse to appologize for Iran |
absolutely, there's definitely strong anti US sentiment, some of it hardly unwarranted though. but, excuse my extreme naivete, what does the US have to lose by simply talking?
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
ok i'll watch it. |
cool. whilst it might seem that i go after you on a regular basis i appreciate your responses quite a lot :) but that report in particular painted an awful picture of what could have been... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Because for the Bush administration and its sympathisers, diplomacy is nothing more than capitulation. They'd rather perpetuate hostilities than accept any solution - no matter how mutually beneficial it might be - that may require them to cede an inch of their moral high-ground. Talking is the first step to compromise, afterall, and we can't be having any of that now can we? |
...or how about they just stop enriching Uranium and sponsoring terror? oh wait thats too much to ask of Iran and their sympathisers:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
...or how about they just stop enriching Uranium and sponsoring terror? oh wait thats too much to ask of Iran and their sympathisers:rolleyes: |
I agree. It would be great if we could get them to stop enriching uranium and sponsoring Hezbollah, but then that's my point: what's the best way to acheive that? By the means of legitimate, multilateral diplomacy, or by the means of disengagement and conspicuous brinksmanship? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
possibly, but wouldn't you agree that the US' saber-rattling pretty much undercuts any and all moderate positions? |
the Frontline episode stated it clearly Iran has ambitions that reach much further throughout the region than just within it's own borders. they've been that way well before 2003 and it's hardly a moderate position.
but to answer you larger question calling them part of an "Axis of Evil" i think their "staying out of the way" during Enduring Freedom was more a response out of necessity negating any percieved associated guilt with 9/11 in addition to their disdain for Sunni extremists.
the Frontline episode said it was an edict from the hardliners to curb anti-americanism for however short-lived it was.
everything we've ever done in the ME after 1979 has been percieved by the Mullahs and other fundamentalists as being "drunk with power" including Enduring Freedom. putting a halt on anti-americanism for a couple weeks doesn't really count for much.
| quote: | | well, peace in iraq in 2003 and beyond, possibly preventing the huge schism that erupted after the mosque bombing? |
are you saying that Iran would have never meddled in Iraq if it wasn't for Bush's rhetoric?
the Al-Askari Mosque bombing was carried out by Al-Queera as a guerilla tactic. it worked because of the importance of the mosque among it's sect not because of Iran's influence in the region.
| quote: | | what does the US have to lose by simply talking? |
about what? Iran's meddling in Iraq? we talk about that. it's the nuclear issue we don't have direct talks about. they talk to the IAEA and the UN. they talk to the EU3. in a way Rnegade is right, to go a step further and have direct talks with them, to have a US President sitting down with Ahmedinijad (because we can't talk to the real powers in Iran) de-legitimizes our position instantly.
i'll try to explain my position on that a little more tomorrow but i'm at work about to leave. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I agree. It would be great if we could get them to stop enriching uranium and sponsoring Hezbollah, but then that's my point: what's the best way to acheive that? By the means of legitimate, multilateral diplomacy, or by the means of disengagement and conspicuous brinksmanship? |
disengagement and conspicuous brinksmanship, followed by diplomacy.
it's Iran. what they want and what we're asking has no evidence of any reconciliation
....and why is the current multi-lateral diplomacy ilegitimate? |
|
|
|
|
