God Bless America

crbkstiles,

i’m open to dissenting view points, just as i’m sure others are…

if you’re really against american policy so much, why don’t you let us know a little more about you? nationality, religion, what you do, etc…

that way it might be easier for us to understand you, because its really hard without some background info on beliefs, the setting and facts

lurker

V, when someone says that America “reaped what it sowed”, that shows sympathy for the plight of the terrorists. It’s just short of saying America deserved it, and I can’t imagine wishing this on anyone, no matter the circumstances.

That brings me to Afghanistan. The above article is well-written, and it is important to heavily contemplate these things, as the anger stirs. Americans want resolution, but in the ignorance of many, no distinction has been made between the perpetrators of these haneous crimes and the communities in which they live. This is, indeed, a sad thing.

But I have more faith in our government, that these are things that ARE being contemplated. That is precisely why this is being called a “new kind of war”. It’s not a war against a country or a people, but against the network of terrorists, and their support system. It’s extremely probable that the Taliban will be targeted if it doesn’t lend it’s support to cracking down on Bin Laden and the network of terrorists taking haven in that country. What course of action ought to be taken then? Indeed, bombing them “back to the stone age” seems more barbaric than an action of resolve.

But it poses a very serious question. Do some imply that America should take no action at all? Would it be better for America to apologize for it’s twisted foreign policy throught the last decade? Would it be better simply to make peace with these governments?

The threat of terrorism won’t go away under such circumstances. Why? Because, as I mentioned above, this is not merely a war against the United States, but a war against the west. Even the above article acknowledges that fact. It says Bin Laden wants “a world war between Islam and the West”. The obvious answer here is to take out these terrorists, and their support systems. That is precisely what the American government is advocating. As far as I know, no U.S. officials have advocated bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age. I sincerely hope they won’t, as I believe we have the technology and the means to single out those responsible, and that those alone can be made to pay retribution.

I see that, yet again, I’ve had votes against me on this board. I suspect it’s because I don’t share the popular view that America deserved what it got, or at least “reaped what it sowed”. That’s because I wouldn’t wish this act on anyone, regardless of circumstances. You see, I believe in compassion and humanity. While I acknowledge these acts as likened to those of war, and the need to hit terrorism where it counts, I also acknowledge the innocence of millions within their communities. Never have I advocated the destruction of these innocents, and I apologize if I have been misconstrued as such.

My argument has merely been in defense of my country. That nothing we did as a nation caused us to deserve such murderous acts. My argument has also been that this is not a war against America’s foreign policy, but a Jihad against the west. America may be blamed by some as lending a hand in creating this extremist faction, but let me remind you that fighting between factions in the middle east, between extreme, moderate and lax Islams, has persisted for centuries.

Arab-Americans are being unfairly targeted by a minority of American ignorants. It’s awful, but thankfully most Americans today are more enlightened than those in the times of World War II, and there is far less domestic threat against Arab-Americans than against Asians in World War II. Still, a threat does exist. I believe that our law enforcement authorities will do the right thing, however, and they will take charge of these situations.

My Grandmother is German-American. She immigrated from Germany in the early 1950’s, shortly after World War II. She has shared with me memories of taking cover during American bombing campaigns while walking to school. She saw horrendous acts conducted on her family by our allies, when her country (East Germany) was taken control of by the Russians. Her life and her family were completely ravaged by the allies. But today she’s married to an American. And she knows that some things are intevitable. Some things are needed to change life for everyone for the better. It takes time and patience. But those who live today will tell you it was worth it. They’ll also tell you they don’t want to see another war. Because they know how terrible it is.

Let us pray for our leaders. That they will be guided by wisdom, not anger. That they will be representatives of love, not hate. That they will fairly make the distinction between those that are good, vs those that are evil. That they will have the wherewithall to single out and destroy the threat of terrorism. Let us pray that this generation will not have to endure the attrocities of WWII. God Bless you all.

Hello all,

Firstly, this is an interesting debate.

What i am curious about though - can someone please give me an exact definition of what “terrorism” is.

Depending on the definition, I’m sure that the US has engaged in acts of terrorism before in its past as well so, according to the media, will the US be at war with itself?

By the way, although I detest the loss of inncoent lives, I am also of the opinion that the US is just “reaping what it has sown”.

quote:
"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
            -FBI definition of terrorism

Name one act of terrorism on behalf of the U.S. government. I challenge you.

According to the FBI definition - how about what the US did in Iraq?

Several countries in South America (in order to change governments and policies)…

Vietnam…

Libya (Gaddafi)…

etc

Here is an interesting email I received…it may prove interesting for many to read…


Death, Downtown

Dear friends,

I was supposed to fly today on the 4:30 PM American Airlines flight from LAX to JFK. But tonight I find myself stuck in L.A. with an incredible range of emotions over what has happened on the island where I work and live in New York City.

My wife and I spent the first hours of the day – after being awakened by phone calls from our parents at 6:40am PT – trying to contact our daughter at school in New York and our friend JoAnn who works near the World Trade Center.

I called JoAnn at her office. As someone picked up, the first tower
imploded, and the person answering the phone screamed and ran out, leaving me no clue as to whether or not she or JoAnn would live.

It was a sick, horrible, frightening day.

On December 27, 1985 I found myself caught in the middle of a terrorist
incident at the Vienna airport – which left 30 people dead, both there and at the Rome airport. (The machine-gunning of passengers in each city was timed to occur at the same moment.)

I do not feel like discussing that event tonight because it still brings up too much despair and confusion as to how and why I got to live… a fluke, a mistake, a few feet on the tarmac, and I am still here, there but for the grace of…

Safe. Secure. I’m an American, living in America. I like my illusions. I walk through a metal detector, I put my carry-ons through an x-ray machine, and I know all will be well.

Here’s a short list of my experiences lately with airport security:

  • At the Newark Airport, the plane is late at boarding everyone. The
    counter can’t find my seat. So I am told to just “go ahead and get on” – without a ticket!

  • At Detroit Metro Airport, I don’t want to put the lunch I just bought at the deli through the x-ray machine so, as I pass through the metal
    detector, I hand the sack to the guard through the space between the
    detector and the x-ray machine. I tell him “It’s just a sandwich.” He
    believes me and doesn’t bother to check. The sack has gone through neither security device.

  • At LaGuardia in New York, I check a piece of luggage, but decide to catch a later plane. The first plane leaves without me, but with my bag – no one knowing what is in it.

  • Back in Detroit, I take my time getting off the commuter plane. By the time I have come down its stairs, the bus that takes the passengers to the terminal has left – without me. I am alone on the tarmac, free to wander wherever I want. So I do. Eventually, I flag down a pick-up truck and an airplane mechanic gives me a ride the rest of the way to the terminal.

  • I have brought knives, razors; and once, my traveling companion brought a hammer and chisel. No one stopped us.

Of course, I have gotten away with all of this because the airlines
consider my safety SO important, they pay rent-a-cops $5.75 an hour to make sure the bad guys don’t get on my plane. That is what my life is worth – less than the cost of an oil change.

Too harsh, you say? Well, chew on this: a first-year pilot on American
Eagle (the commuter arm of American Airlines) receives around $15,000 a
year in annual pay.

That’s right – $15,000 for the person who has your life in his hands.
Until recently, Continental Express paid a little over $13,000 a year.
There was one guy, an American Eagle pilot, who had four kids so he went down to the welfare office and applied for food stamps – and he was eligible!

Someone on welfare is flying my plane? Is this for real? Yes, it is.

So spare me the talk about all the precautions the airlines and the FAA is taking. They, like all businesses, are concerned about one thing – the bottom line and the profit margin.

Four teams of 3-5 people were all able to penetrate airport security on the same morning at 3 different airports and pull off this heinous act? My only response is – that’s all?

Well, the pundits are in full diarrhea mode, gushing on about the
“terrorist threat” and today’s scariest dude on planet earth – Osama bin Laden. Hey, who knows, maybe he did it. But, something just doesn’t add up.

Am I being asked to believe that this guy who sleeps in a tent in a desert has been training pilots to fly our most modern, sophisticated jumbo jets with such pinpoint accuracy that they are able to hit these three targets without anyone wondering why these planes were so far off path?

Or am I being asked to believe that there were four religious/political
fanatics who JUST HAPPENED to be skilled airline pilots who JUST HAPPENED to want to kill themselves today?

Maybe you can find one jumbo jet pilot willing to die for the cause – but FOUR? Ok, maybe you can – I don’t know.

What I do know is that all day long I have heard everything about this bin Laden guy except this one fact – WE created the monster known as Osama bin Laden!

Where did he go to terrorist school? At the CIA!

Don’t take my word for it – I saw a piece on MSNBC last year that laid it all out. When the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, the CIA trained him and his buddies in how to commits acts of terrorism against the Soviet forces. It worked! The Soviets turned and ran. Bin Laden was grateful for what we taught him and thought it might be fun to use those same techniques against us.

We abhor terrorism – unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing.

We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the
1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me.
Thirty thousand murdered civilians and who the hell even remembers!

We fund a lot of oppressive regimes that have killed a lot of innocent
people, and we never let the human suffering THAT causes to interrupt our day one single bit.

We have orphaned so many children, tens of thousands around the world, with our taxpayer-funded terrorism (in Chile, in Vietnam, in Gaza, in Salvador) that I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised when those orphans grow up and are a little whacked in the head from the horror we have helped cause.

Yet, our recent domestic terrorism bombings have not been conducted by a guy from the desert but rather by our own citizens: a couple of ex-military guys who hated the federal government.

From the first minutes of today’s events, I never heard that possibility suggested. Why is that?

Maybe it’s because the A-rabs are much better foils. A key ingredient in getting Americans whipped into a frenzy against a new enemy is the
all-important race card. It’s much easier to get us to hate when the object of our hatred doesn’t look like us.

Congressmen and Senators spent the day calling for more money for the
military; one Senator on CNN even said he didn’t want to hear any more talk about more money for education or health care – we should have only one priority: our self-defense.

Will we ever get to the point that we realize we will be more secure when the rest of the world isn’t living in poverty so we can have nice running shoes?

In just 8 months, Bush gets the whole world back to hating us again. He
withdraws from the Kyoto agreement, walks us out of the Durban conference on racism, insists on restarting the arms race – you name it, and Baby Bush has blown it all.

The Senators and Congressmen tonight broke out in a spontaneous version of “God Bless America.” They’re not a bad group of singers!

Yes, God, please do bless us.

Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California – these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!

Why kill them? Why kill anyone? Such insanity…

Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our
contribution to the unsafe world we live in.

It doesn’t have to be like this…

Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com

Here goes the debate.

Certainly, there are shady areas in America’s past. There are times when corruption and lawlessness besieged the American government, or at least parts of the American government. But certain acts defined as terrorism in the above article are really borderline, and more opinion is expressed void of supporting evidence and facts. Why the obvious omission? Because the facts would change the angle of these opinions.

quote:
We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians.

This group of “terrorists” was known as the “freedom fighters”, who were funded and trained by the U.S. government. The objective was to overthrow the dictator (Daniel Ortega) government to allow freedom for Nicaragua’s citizens. The Soviets backed the opposing faction (Sandinistas), and there was obviously a political motivation for our involvement, as well. But the objective was not to kill innocents, and when it was discovered innocents were being killed by this group, there was no rejoicing. It was a huge embarassment, and little or no media attention was given to it. Sure, those that hate our country could stretch the interpretation as American terrorism. But these acts were neither committed by Americans, nor in the name of Americans. I concede it’s a very thin line, but the objective was not terrorism. It was to aid in a war against an oppressive government. Furthermore, the killing of innocencts was not condoned by the U.S. government. (Note: 8,000 were killed, not 30,000.)

quote[quote] We have orphaned so many children, tens of thousands around the world, with our taxpayer-funded terrorism (in Chile, in Vietnam, in Gaza, in Salvador) [/quote]

Again, I see an obvious lack of supporting evidence. Are casualties of retaliations, air strikes and war considered terrorism? Not according to the FBI definition.

quote[quote] When the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, the CIA trained him and his buddies in how to commit acts of terrorism against the Soviet forces. [/quote]

Osama Bin Laden was waging a war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. We had an obvious political interest there, given the status of relations between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R… Once again, we funded and trained fighters to battle against the Soviets. Osama was trained by the CIA in the use of many different attack strategies. But terrorism is not defined as “violence”.

In these examples given, there was a war being fought. Attrocities against civilians are inexcusable, and not supported by the U.S. government. The fact that they occured courtesy of the very groups we were supporting is sad, but yet inconclusive. The U.S. government has, at times, made embarassing mistakes. But laws that have been broken within the government, were done so by factions within the government, not by the government itself. Even the Iran-Contra affair was done to the obliviousness of the other branches of government. It is questionable whether Reagan had a hand in it or not, but it was never proven. It remains a question that one can merely draw their own conclusions based upon what little evidence there is.

America’s government is different than most democratic governments, in that it’s powers are divided in to three branches (for those of you that need a refresher course on U.S. government). The reason for this was to prevent one person or group from having full control. The government is most certainly not “corruption-proof”. But it is “dictator-proof”. America’s government and citizens do not support terrorism. Government reform is definately needed. Questionable activities have occurred through many different administrations. But the people choose their representatives. No majority would ever support terrorism, nor elect someone who was known to support terrorism.

Osama Bin Laden funds terrorists for the purpose of committing terrorism against Americans, and no distinction is made between military and civilian. He’s not a government, and cannot legally declare war against anyone. And even if he were legally waging a war, cowardly acts of violence against innocents is still terrorism.

This is good opportunity for the U.S. government to show the world it is not at his level. Indeed, retribution must be paid. While we cannot change the U.S. foreign policy of the past, we can change it in the future.

One last comment. Bush didn’t cause the world to hate us in 8 months. That statement alone causes the author of the above article to lose all credibility. These same people hated America just as much 8 years ago as they do now. If you don’t believe me, just ask Osama Bin Laden. The finger pointing must stop now. Now is the time to stand united against terrorism, and against violence directed at innocents. Analyzing the weaknesses of the U.S. government over the last 200 years will accomplish nothing. Every government has it’s weaknesses. But America today is strong and united. I believe that they will do the right thing.

terrorism by the us,

the War Against Iraq war was legally sanctioned by the UN, maybe you’re forgetting that nearly every country supported the war

Libya was in retalliation to terrorists attacks

US did not act as a terrorist in Vietnam. However, it was a war on nightmarish poportions.

Several Countries in South America… Are you talking about the war on drugs, its too general

The US has not reaped what it has sown. The US has tried for peace in the Mid East.

Major proof: Look at what is happening in the West Bank today. With the destablizing of the US, Israel is on the attack. We have been working for restraint on both sides and now there is little that can be done.

Look at the Taiwan straight, war could have happened at any time. But the US has said there must be a peaceful solution.

Yes, there are mistakes. But I think its good that you know of these events and can decide for yourself on their meaning. If the US wasn’t so open and tolerant on how people use information, you would have never had a chance to even make your own conclusions. Not the way it is in some countries, which is especially true for the Mid East.

I think the discussion is becoming too focussed on bin Laden. Surely, the point is a much wider one. The Bush administration, through Colin Powell, has said that they will use other countries attitude towards all terrorism as “a benchmark for relations.” Thus, we can expect the US to strike against anyone who harbours any terrorist groups. It matters not to the Bush administration whether the US can prove that bin Laden matserminded this attack, only that they can show he conceived, planned, financed, supported, or ordered any attack.

I rather think that the terrorist groups who have denied responsibility, such as Hezbollah, (in hope of avoiding reprisals perhaps) have missed this point.

The US has been quite plainly spoken about this - it is not reprisals that they seek, it is defence of their soil and their civilisation, and indeed, defence any civilized country in the world, muslim or non-muslim.

In the eyes of the US, and probably the vast majority of nations in the UN, Bin Laden, whether or not he actually carried out this attack, and so long as the US can prove to other state’s satisfaction that he is guilty of some terrorist crime, will simply be a good place to start.

This is the pay rate for various security officers as quoted by Charlotte/Douglas International Airport:

quote:
Airport Law Enforcement officer Job #028000/3605/57681 - Hiring range: $30,652 Yearly
quote:
Police Officer Job #028003/3102/40140 - Hiring rate: HS Diploma/GED $29,769 - Associates Degree $31,258 - Bachelor's Degree $32,821 to $53,461 Yearly

Link: http://www.ci.charlotte.nc.us/cihr/current.pdf

Not minimum wage after all, eh?

What about American Eagle commuter wages. The author is close. First year pilots get paid $20,000 annually, and pre-requisite hiring standards are quite high. But why are pilots still willing to take the job at such a low wage? Answer: experience. After flying with AE for 14-15 years, the pilots make $100,000 annually, and are also eligible for even higher paying pilot positions. There’s even a current shortage of pilots in the industry, and wages are higher than ever! Check out this link:
http://www.avweb.com/articles/cashingin/

As you can see, the article is full of lies and exagerrations. You’d be wise to take that one out with the morning trash. I love debunking myth and false propaganda!

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi puts it best in the online version of The Afghan Daily:

“The US is a strong and powerful country, but would it be bravery to attack Afghanistan, a country already destroyed, without roads or factories and where people move around on donkeys or in horse-drawn carts. Would that solve the problem?”

cbrstikelesbian,

Do you really believe that the US was fighting for “freedom” in Nicaragua? Man, you’ll believe anything if it’s red white and blue! Anyway, now that the Sandinistas are in power, do you have any idea how much better off Nicaragua is? Some small countries are, believe it or not, better off with communism - the people CHOSE and FOUGHT for this government. They had free elections, UNO observed it. But now that the rich powerful Somozas aren’t in power, U.S. companies don’t make as much money off Nicaragua as they used to. But as for the Nicaraguan people, they’re better off.

Geeeeeeeeeeez, duuuuuuuuuuude. I think you’re just joking. Like this French girl I met once who was a business school student and didn’t know what Honduras was. Our country’s only interest in Nicaragua was $$$. $$$. $$$.

I never said I believed our intentions were merly to provide freedom there, though it was among intentions. I believe our motivations were politically based, more than anything else. Our interests, however, were by no means financial, as the losses that would have been sustained were obvious. Why would we diliberately and knowingly throw a country in to economic turmoil if our interests were financial?

Unfortunately, my friend, you are severely disillusioned about about those ruled by oppressive governments. The only reason they are “better off” with these governments is because it is what they are used to and comfortable with. Over time, however, that changes. It always improves and stabalizes, but the beginnings are always rough for countries that convert from a totalitarian form of government to a democratic one. Nicaragua’s economy has since surged, and now has the strongest economy since 1977. It’s GDP has surged, in recent years, and it’s growth has surpassed most other Latin American countries.

Link: http://www.countrywatch.com/files/126/cw_topic.asp?vCOUNTRY=126&TP=ECO

The United States’ mistake is getting involved, militarily, in situations in which we have little or nothing to gain financially, socially or economically. It’s better to let the progression of one government to the next occur slowly and naturally, as it tends to cause less economic, social and political strife, though these things cannot be avoided completely. A fine example is the former Soviet Union, which, though it has suffered many problems, fared a lot better than China would were it’s Communist government suddenly crushed.

BTW: Believe me, I know what Honduras is.

crbkstiles - how do you call overthrowing a democratically elcted government advancing freedom? You really need some history lessons. Anyway using the FBI definition of terrorism you provided:

“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
-FBI definition of terrorism

the USA regularly conducts terrorism, it just calls it war or airstrikes or whatever.

I want to make one important point. I think there are two aspects to this thing. First there was a truly tragic loss of innocent life (and I don’t cre of they were soldiers, civilians Christians, Muslims, Anericans or whatever - they were PEOPLE). Secondly there is an anger-fuelled American government response which seems to be leading to some form of war against Afghanistan. What I’m seeing is that any criticism of the American response or American foreign policy is being equated with insensitivity to the terrorists’ victims or with support of the terrorists. Can we please separate these tow issues a bit?

So Bush says you’re either with us (the US) or the terrorists. This is ridiculous - you’re for terrorism or you’re for war. No thanks, I’m for peace.

Bush wants Bin Laden the ‘prime suspect’ “dead or alive”. When they arrested McVeigh, they gave him a trial didn’t they. They didn’t bomb Oklahoma to get to him abnd they actually had some evidenceof his guilt first. Those who opposed using the death penalty on him, weren’t accused of supporting terrorists.

Doesn’t Bin Laden strike you (in those CNN profiles etc) as the kind of guy who would proudly admit to this if he did it? I’m not saying I didn’t but come on, we’ve got ot be sure.

What is an atack on Afghanistan going to achieve? Hate breeds hate, violence breeds violence and war breeds war. Attacking is just going to help bring about exctly what the terrorists hoped for. It’ll fan the flames of more resistance to America and inspire more extremists and terrorists. You can’t win a war against a concept or a practice. Why don’t we just declare war on evil and eradicate evil form the world. Ooops Bush said that’s exactly what he wanted to do. I’m not trying to be flippant here. I just want to point out how ridiculous the situation is.

Let’s try for peace. You don’t get peace by waging war.

Bri

Unfortunately, I think it is you who needs a history lesson. How can a government which invokes martial law, revokes civil liberties and censors newspapers (freedom of speech) because they voice opposition be considered a democratic one? Simply because the election itself was democratic doesn’t imply that the government itself was also democratic. The fact of the matter is that an oppressive government was overthrown, not a Democratic one.

Link: http://www.ndi.org/globalp/civmil/programscm/nicaragua/nicaraguacm_1992_97.asp
http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/latin/hpoison.html

As for your comments:

quote[quote] What I'm seeing is that any criticism of the American response or American foreign policy is being equated with insensitivity to the terrorists' victims or with support of the terrorists.[/quote]

I have simply stated that anyone who believes America has “reaped what it has sown” sounds a lot as though they believe America deserved it. No one deserves this kind of action. It upsets me, as I’m sure it does other Americans, that such assertions would be made.

I certainly don’t equate those who criticize American policy or it’s response to the crisis as sympathizing with terrorists. But saying America asked for this is just going too far.

quote[quote] So Bush says you're either with us (the US) or the terrorists. This is ridiculous - you're for terrorism or you're for war. [/quote]

Wrong. No peace can be created out of this situation. A threat exists, and it will not go away. What other choice is there? Ignore it and hope for the best? It’s obvious that at least this brand of terrorizm needs to be erradicated. Then the U.S. should reshape and reform it’s foreign policy to prevent stirring anger within other countries.

I am all for a military response, but only if it is targeting the right individual or group(s).
Former Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrook said on CNN Monday night that America needed proof of bin Laden’s guilt, “even if it [the evidence] isn’t very good,” before military action was taken. This is disturbing to say the least. If a man’s guilt or innocence hangs in the balance in a capital offence trial, it would be unsettling to hear the prosecutors considers unsound evidence as proof. And, unfortunately, in this current real life situation, the US is both judge and jury against the suspect.
The US and its president are full of blood lust, and perhaps rightly. But bombing a country back to the stone age that is already mostly there, that defied the Russians for 10 years and who’s citizens may not be involved with some grand conspiracy of bin Laden’s is not only madness, it is fundamentally against the very principles that the US says it upholds – fairness, honesty, democracy and all the rest.

I really cannot believe some of the contributors to this forum. It seems that one of the most sickening things I’ve ever seen (planes impacting into skyscrapers, etc.) provides an opportunity for many to provide insights into how the US has brought this on themselves.

Firstly, there is a distinct lack of compassion. No terrorist act is justifiable, the targeting of innocent civilians is the most depicable act of “warfare” there is.

Secondly, zealots and murderers have declared war on the US by carrying out the most spectacular and brutal act of terrorism the world has known.

Those responsible deserveto be wiped out. The US is justified in bombing selected Taliban positions (and I believe Pakistani also, although Bush needs the dictator of Pakisan to get Bin Laden).

The American people are patriotic. Theyhave every right to be proud. It is no wonder that untold numbers risk their lives to break IN to the US. It is their prosperity, freedom, and contribution to the free world that paints them a target to Islamic Zealots.

Regardless of whether you justify the US’s support for Israel, middle-East terrorists will always target the US. If not them, it would be the UK, Germany… whatever.

I am not American, but my country has strongly identified itself on the side against terrorism. I share the values of Americans. I support their patriotism and strength and unity. Their resolve is truly inspirational.

I also think it is a good time to have a Republican in the Whitehouse. Terrorists and Taliban alike have every reason to be nervous.

Thank-you! Finally some reasonable posts that don’t insist on bashing somebody. I was beginning to think there wasn’t any support behind America and it’s resolve.

Wolf is right, however. We can’t go bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age, as it’s citizens have suffered too much already. The question is, can an effective “targeted” war be waged with an elite fighting force, and/or with the technological advances that have been made in recent history?

I, too, much prefer peace over warfare. But it is unreasonable to assume that peace is endless. In a perfect world, this would be possible. But it is not a perfect world, and until we are willing to accept that fact, we cannot truly better ourselves and the variables that surround us.

Alas, there is going to have to be some bloodshed. It isn’t pretty, but unless it’s done, there will still be bloodshed…only that of more innocents.

NFI is right, too. If it wasn’t the U.S., these terrorist actions would be waged against another western country. America’s foreign policy and other factors may have helped it become the first target, but this quote from the Taliban will clarify just how far-reaching the terrorist threat is:

quote:
...the USA and all imperialists in the world, Jews and Christians and their supporters are intending to destroy the Islamic order which has been established at the cost of your blood under this pretext... It will be the path for the destruction of the American White House, the path for the destruction of NATO, the path for the annihilation of all cadres... of America and its allies. -Mullah Mohammad Hassan Akhond, deputy chairman of the Taliban Council of Ministers

curbstiles, you are mistaken when you say that the statement: “the US has reaped what it has sown” means that the US deserved the attack. The statement is about cause and effect. The US has conducted foreign policy in such a way to cause extreme hate towards the US. If you want to speculate that extreme, murderous hate towards the US might have existed if we had never interfered in the Middle East to begin with, go ahead- but that position is much more tenuous than the ‘we did something to contribute to the hate’ one. I hear all this talk about Nicaragua, Libya, Vietnam…I don’t feel familiar enough with those cases to challenge you if you come at me with a lot of facts. Who knows what is exaggeration and what isn’t unless you have studied that topic extensively. I do know Taiwan better than the average American, having lived there for 6 years, being fluent in Mandarin, having worked in the Taiwan EPA, and being married to a Taiwanese. I’ve talked to at least 100 Taiwan people in depth about Taiwan and I do know that supporting Chiang Kai-Shek was a blunder. After the Japanese were kicked out of Taiwan, there were plenty of educated Taiwanese ready to step in and govern. But the US needed someone more predictable, someone who would be staunchly anti-communist. Did the US care about the human rights abuses that went on under Chiang Kai-Shek? Did it care about the white terror that the KMT carried out to silence all opposition? You can try to finesse me with all sorts of apoplogies for US foreign policy, you can admonish me to check my facts- but I have already gone to a hundred primary sources- from laborers to university professors. One of the above emails came from Michael Moore- I’m assuming the same guy who supported Nader. I supported Nader, too. But it got me Bush. The Green Party will be stronger next time- I’ll do more for it, anyway.

“America has reaped what it has sown”…

If that statement doesn’t stop short of saying America deserved the attacks, it at least says America asked for them. It at least says that these attacks were America’s fault. The truth of the matter is that it was nobody’s fault but the terrorists, and it really bothers me when people with such anti-American sentiments refuse to see past that.

America supported Chiang Kai-Shek. It was a blunder. Did the citizens of America understand what was going on to do anything about it? Of course not. Did they have access to the informational resources we have today? Not even close. Were people, in general, even as educated as they are today? Nope.

I think it’s safe to say that it’s a different world now than it was 50 years ago. A lot of people also forget that, while we all remember the horror that Hitler committed against the Jews and murdering 15 million people, we looked the other way while Stalin murdered 60 million of his people in the great purge. Why? Merely a strategic alliance. Hitler was more the immediate threat, militarily, and so we had to choose our sides.

The U.S. often made strategic alliances, and supported groups and armies that provided a strategic advantage for the U.S., irregardless of the problems that may have been generated for that people. We can argue all day as to whether or not the world would have been better off had the U.S. been more concerned about the welfare of these citizens vs. the containment of communism. But the fact of the matter, however, is that we were severely blinded in our efforts to fight communism, and people were at the mercy of the media when it came to matters of information regarding foreign policy. Today, things are different, believe it or not.

Somehow, we must step up and take responsiblity for the legacy of our past. Somehow, we must take responsiblity for foreign policy that was severly flawed, and caused countless to suffer.

But how can anyone argue that this attack was coming? How can anyone argue that an attack on thousands of innocent people who were just doing their jobs, persuing their dreams and happiness, was somehow justified? Perhaps it’s because there was no reason for it. It wasn’t a military target. It wasn’t even a strategic target. It was merely a very symbollic target, that ended up ending the lives of thousand of victims in the worst act of terrorism in history.

America has not “reaped what it has sown”, but has suffered at the hands of evil men with nothing more in their hearts but the desire to kill those that disagree with their radical ideology. Did you bother reading the interregation transcript of Bin Laden’s followers (involved in the 1993 bombing of the world trade center)? These people enjoy killing, and if it weren’t the U.S., it’d be another western country.

The burden of responsibility lies with these terrorists, and with these terrorists alone. Despite the mistakes the United States has made in it’s foreign policy throughout history, this is not a factor, here. I know that many of the anti-Americans that are bringing up every aspect of our sordid past are finding it hard to believe. It’s almost as if some people WANT these attacks to have been as a result of U.S. foreign policy. But the facts just don’t point that way. Sorry!