Blowback: 9/11 Justification?

Forums: Iraq, War, Afghanistan, Blowback
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Here, JTT. Let's chit chat about your favori-- only topic.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Are you saying that the USA deserved to be attacked?

No, I'm saying that the USA deserves to be held accountable for the numerous war crimes that it has engaged in over the last hundred years.

You're fleeing. I'm asking you a direct question. Tell me exactly in your own words what you think the CIA's report on blowback means. Enough foreplay. Did it mean that our inevitable attack (9/11) would be justified?

JTT wrote:

That's the way civilized countries like Cuba, Nicaragua and Vietnam, for example, handles things. They don't launch immoral and illegal invasions based on a pack of lies.

So the actions of other countries is now in bounds? You have seemed very offended in the past about the notion that the methods of other countries be examined.

Where is the speak of inevitable blowback against the English and the Dutch for their dividing of Africa? How much of the turmoil and war in Africa comes from the long standing exploitation by the European nations? I guess Japan is due for some blowback too from China, Korea, and damn near all of southeast Asia from their invasion of Shanghai etc.

Direct question: At what point is blowback (retribution) justified JTT?

JTT wrote:

I'm saying that officials of the USA should be held to the same measure that German and Japanese officials were held for their actions during and before WWII.

Who is arguing otherwise? Tell me what you do that others do not. Specifically.

JTT wrote:

I have been saying what you have been all too silent about, and it's becoming apparent that you have been actively seeking to divert attention from.

Get over yourself. You don't define activism nor do you grace A2K/the world with some sort of bestowed wisdom on how the world actually is behind some veil.

On matters of silence, you overestimate your own volume and underestimate your diversions.

JTT wrote:

I have been saying what Law Professor Marjorie Cohn has said,

Quote:

Obama's Af-Pak War Is Illegal
Monday 21 December 2009
by: Marjorie Cohn, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

...

Although the US invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans saw it as a justifiable response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The cover of Time magazine called it "The Right War." Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war but escalating the war in Afghanistan. But a majority of Americans now oppose that war as well.

The UN Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan.

"Operation Enduring Freedom" was not legitimate self-defense under the charter because the 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after 9/11, or President Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN General Assembly.

Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists, even though bin Laden did not claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks until 2004. After Bush demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden to the United States, the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan said his government wanted proof that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks before deciding whether to extradite him, according to The Washington Post. That proof was not forthcoming; the Tali

The Taliban did not deliver bin Laden, and Bush began bombing Afghanistan.

Bush's rationale for attacking Afghanistan was spurious. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and the US gave him safe haven. If the new Iranian government had demanded that the US turn over the Shah and we refused, would it have been lawful for Iran to invade the United States? Of course not.

http://www.truth-out.org/1221094

Save it for someone that thinks we should have gone to either war. You have a firm grip on the propaganda used to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, but you seem to miss the propaganda parallel used to justify attacking the USA.

You seem hell bent on proving that the USA would inevitably be attacked. I won't disagree. Tell me then, dear mystic, what did you think should have happened after the attack? Specifically.

A
R
Tell me where we would be today Oct 21, 2010.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 6,696 • Replies: 78

I will stick around to watch this thread go nowhere =)

2 Replies

@failures art,

No, Art, let's not chit chat. Let's talk brass tacks.

Quote:

You're fleeing. I'm asking you a direct question.

And I answered it. Have you even a fleeting conception of the meaning of "no"?

Quote:

So the actions of other countries is now in bounds? You have seemed very offended in the past about the notion that the methods of other countries be examined.

Always have been. It's always been my position that all war crimes be dealt with. You've somehow twisted in your mind my expressed disgust with the rank hypocrisy of the USA as meaning that others should be forgiven their war crimes.

Quote:

Where is the speak of inevitable blowback against the English and the Dutch for their dividing of Africa? How much of the turmoil and war in Africa comes from the long standing exploitation by the European nations? I guess Japan is due for some blowback too from China, Korea, and damn near all of southeast Asia from their invasion of Shanghai etc.

The CIA didn't express that for other countries but it not something that should really surprise anyone. The difference is that the US put that capability,pretty dumb eh?, into the hands of some people who decided to take them up on it.

Quote:

Who is arguing otherwise?

No one is arguing for it. People avoid any such mention of it like the plague. People can't even put USA and war crime or terrorism in the same sentence.

They, like you,

Quote:

"Even open-minded people will often find themselves unable to take seriously the likes of [Noam] Chomsky, [Edward] Herman, [Howard] Zinn and [Susan] George on first encountering their work; it just does not seem possible that we could be so mistaken in what we believe. The individual may assume that these writers must be somehow joking, wildly over-stating the case, paranoid, or have some sort of axe to grind. We may actually become angry with them for telling us these terrible things about our society and insist that this simply 'can't be true'. It takes real effort to keep reading, to resist the reassuring messages of the mass media and be prepared to consider the evidence again."

David Edwards - Burning All Illusions

Quote:

Get over yourself. You don't define activism nor do you grace A2K/the world with some sort of bestowed wisdom on how the world actually is behind some veil.

I never said I did, nor do I want to. It's telling how you attempt to divert by suggesting that it's me who's saying this. I post people who have studied this, who know of the unrelenting depravity of the US governments in their dealings with other countries.

You post nothing but your own misguided diversions. There are several million dead from US illegal actions, these actions are ongoing and there hasn't been a soul held accountable. As I've mentioned, many are getting pensions, your tax dollars supporting war criminals.

Note in your first posting on these important issues, just how adequately you've faced up to them, how honestly you've addressed the actual issues and let me remind you, the issue is the huge number of war crimes committed by the USA.

Quote:

Save it for someone that thinks we should have gone to either war. You have a firm grip on the propaganda used to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, but you seem to miss the propaganda parallel used to justify attacking the USA.

What manner of gibberish is this? I don't write for FA. Get over yourself.

Quote:

You seem hell bent on proving that the USA would inevitably be attacked. I won't disagree. Tell me then, dear mystic, what did you think should have happened after the attack? Specifically.

Gee, that's a tough one.

Don't lie.

Abide by the rule of law.

1 Reply

@manored,

manored wrote:

I will stick around to watch this thread go nowhere =)

That makes one of us... No sale.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

No, Art, let's not chit chat. Let's talk brass tacks.

Quote:
You're fleeing. I'm asking you a direct question.

And I answered it. Have you even a fleeting conception of the meaning of "no"?

You said "the USA deserves to be held accountable" for its numerous war crimes. Stop talking around this. The rationale the attackers used on 9/11 sounds awfully similar to your notion of holding the USA "accountable."

Here you are lecturing on propaganda...

JTT wrote:

Quote:
So the actions of other countries is now in bounds? You have seemed very offended in the past about the notion that the methods of other countries be examined.

Always have been. It's always been my position that all war crimes be dealt with. You've somehow twisted in your mind my expressed disgust with the rank hypocrisy of the USA as meaning that others should be forgiven their war crimes.

How interesting and hypocritical. Here you call other's "silence" on the USA shameful and a mere "diversion," but virtuous JTT would never ever dream of having to defend why he's not talking about X, Y, and Z countries and their war crimes. Rolling Eyes

It's only "silence" apparently if it's someone else, and the things we aren't talking about are the USA's actions.

I don't think you believe that other countries get a free pass, but then again, I'm not applying your tunnel vision here either.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Where is the speak of inevitable blowback against the English and the Dutch for their dividing of Africa? How much of the turmoil and war in Africa comes from the long standing exploitation by the European nations? I guess Japan is due for some blowback too from China, Korea, and damn near all of southeast Asia from their invasion of Shanghai etc.

The CIA didn't express that for other countries but it not something that should really surprise anyone. The difference is that the US put that capability,pretty dumb eh?, into the hands of some people who decided to take them up on it.

The CIA didn't express it, and that means something to you? Interesting. So you believe the CIA is a reliable source of some information, but in other cases they are a propaganda machine I'm sure. It's interesting, that's all. You seem so dead set on a very specific narrative, that you'll cite your most loathed phantom if it serves you.

Beyond that, you're only further contradicting your claim that you believe the USA didn't deserve it with your pretty-dumb-huh nyuk nyuk about the USA helping enable the very group that attacked the USA. You're obviously not comfortable expressing what you actually believe.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Who is arguing otherwise?

No one is arguing for it. People avoid any such mention of it like the plague. People can't even put USA and war crime or terrorism in the same sentence.

Sure they can, and do. The fact that you are met with annoyance when go out of your way to insert "USA terrorism war crime" into completely unrelated conversations (like in a food thread) is hardly people avoiding it like the plague.

JTT wrote:

They, like you,

Quote:
"Even open-minded people will often find themselves unable to take seriously the likes of [Noam] Chomsky, [Edward] Herman, [Howard] Zinn and [Susan] George on first encountering their work; it just does not seem possible that we could be so mistaken in what we believe. The individual may assume that these writers must be somehow joking, wildly over-stating the case, paranoid, or have some sort of axe to grind. We may actually become angry with them for telling us these terrible things about our society and insist that this simply 'can't be true'. It takes real effort to keep reading, to resist the reassuring messages of the mass media and be prepared to consider the evidence again."

David Edwards - Burning All Illusions

For someone preaching that people should think for themselves and reject propaganda, you certainly like to quote others in place of making your own arguments.

I've got no problem with Chompsky et al. However, this whole line of "even open-minded people" is only meant to manipulate the reader. The writer, nor you gets to define who is and isn't open-minded nor do you get to project reasons why others my come to different conclusions or reject Chompsky et al ("must be somehow joking, wildly over-stating the case, paranoid, or have some sort of axe to grind").

You've fortified your beliefs with the idea that any other vantage point is polluted with propaganda. Good insulation to keep your beliefs cozy.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Get over yourself. You don't define activism nor do you grace A2K/the world with some sort of bestowed wisdom on how the world actually is behind some veil.

I never said I did, nor do I want to. It's telling how you attempt to divert by suggesting that it's me who's saying this. I post people who have studied this, who know of the unrelenting depravity of the US governments in their dealings with other countries.

Expand that to the depravity of government and you've got your yellow belt.

JTT wrote:

You post nothing but your own misguided diversions. There are several million dead from US illegal actions, these actions are ongoing and there hasn't been a soul held accountable. As I've mentioned, many are getting pensions, your tax dollars supporting war criminals.

There are several million dead, and no doubt the USA is a contributor, but until you acknowledge the other players, it's you handing out the free passes. Do you think that all the innocent people who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq died at American hands?

You seem only interested in talking about some of those who are guilty.

As for the dollars lining the pockets, they aren't all tax dollars Sherlock, and we don't have line item luxury in our taxes. People being about to con their way into the federal purse is no measure of the citizen's desire to give it away.

JTT wrote:

Note in your first posting on these important issues, just how adequately you've faced up to them, how honestly you've addressed the actual issues and let me remind you, the issue is the huge number of war crimes committed by the USA.

The actual issues eh? I thought you understood you weren't bestowed with some sort of special wisdom. What makes you believe you know the actual issues?

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Save it for someone that thinks we should have gone to either war. You have a firm grip on the propaganda used to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, but you seem to miss the propaganda parallel used to justify attacking the USA.

What manner of gibberish is this? I don't write for FA. Get over yourself.

What? You weren't aware you were doing this?

JTT wrote:

Quote:
You seem hell bent on proving that the USA would inevitably be attacked. I won't disagree. Tell me then, dear mystic, what did you think should have happened after the attack? Specifically.

Gee, that's a tough one.

Don't lie.

Abide by the rule of law.

So after the attack, your suggestion would have been "don't lie" and "abide by the law." Aside from this being the farthest thing from the specifics I requested, it doesn't address what you'd have done about the situation. You don't seem to go near where we'd be today in your scenario other that the tacit implication that wherever it would be would be better.

Let's say you're right. Tell me how things would be different today, specifically. Being that you read all the experts on these matters, I guess you should be able to tell me this part pretty easily.

I asked you: Where would we be today? You didn't answer.
I asked you: When is blowback justified? You didn't answer.

Where's the brass tacks you promised?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@manored,

manored wrote:

I will stick around to watch this thread go nowhere =)

Stick around if you wish, but I'm just tired of hearing JTT whine about how his posts are ignored and how this is evidence of everyone else's complacency. Part of his shtick is associating himself with these issues and getting doped up on the righteous indignation that he craves and perpetuates by inserting these rants in unrelated discussions. As long as he does that, he can fool himself into thinking that people are ignoring the issue, and dismiss that people are ignoring him.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

You said "the USA deserves to be held accountable" for its numerous war crimes.

That's exactly what I've said, numerous times. Don't you?

Quote:

The rationale the attackers used on 9/11 sounds awfully similar to your notion of holding the USA "accountable."

So now you're fluent in all the languages of those from the Middle East and Afghanistan. You only heard the propaganda line fed to you by your media and your government.

Quote:

How interesting and hypocritical. Here you call other's "silence" on the USA shameful and a mere "diversion," but virtuous JTT would never ever dream of having to defend why he's not talking about X, Y, and Z countries and their war crimes.

I haven't seen you in the grammar/language section. Wonder why?

Others' silence and diversions come in direct relation to specific information provided that shows the USA responsible for numerous war crimes/crimes against humanity.

The hypocrisy certainly doesn't lie with me. Start a thread and list others' war crimes, maybe we can do a comparative study.

Maybe we could do a study of how the US involves itself in demanding that others be held accountable but defiantly resists being held accountable itself, all the while being engaged in even more terrorist activities. Is this not hypocrisy? Is it not hypocrisy that you defend this?

Might I remind you, FA, that the USA is involved in two illegal invasions right at this moment, the USA is guilty of at the moment war crimes/crimes against humanity.

You're doing it again; diverting attention away from the most egregious actions happening on the planet.

Quote:

The CIA didn't express it, and that means something to you? Interesting. So you believe the CIA is a reliable source of some information, but in other cases they are a propaganda machine I'm sure.

You have doubts that the CIA is a propaganda machine. You are much dumber than you appear.

Why would the CIA warn of blowback against the Dutch and the English? It's hardly their purview.

Quote:

It's interesting, that's all. You seem so dead set on a very specific narrative, that you'll cite your most loathed phantom if it serves you.

Like former heads of the CIA, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, ... .

Quote:

Beyond that, you're only further contradicting your claim that you believe the USA didn't deserve it with your pretty-dumb-huh nyuk nyuk about the USA helping enable the very group that attacked the USA. You're obviously not comfortable expressing what you actually believe.

You're joking, right and really reaching. If you thought about it for a minute, I'm sure that you would have been able to come up with something more inane.

Quote:

For someone preaching that people should think for themselves and reject propaganda, you certainly like to quote others in place of making your own arguments.

So now I don't use enough of my own arguments. Could you make up your mind?

Quote:

I've got no problem with Chompsky[sic] et al. However, this whole line of "even open-minded people" is only meant to manipulate the reader. The writer, nor you gets to define who is and isn't open-minded nor do you get to project reasons why others my come to different conclusions or reject Chompsky[sic] et al ("must be somehow joking, wildly over-stating the case, paranoid, or have some sort of axe to grind").

I think I've sorted that jumble out. That isn't meant to manipulate the reader. It's a fact, pure and simple that Americans are loathe to read and hear about what their government does.

Why do you think it's so well hidden? Why do you think that the US media went out of their way to protect Reagan, to hide all the felonies and war crimes that he and his cronies were committing.

The USA gets fed pablum and the people slurp it down with relish. The crimes that Watergate was supposed to have solved have only gotten worse. Reagan and Bush and then Bush Jr have made Nixon look like a saint.

The ones to suffer are not Americans, slurping up 40% of the world's resources, it's the innocents from countries that the USA steals these resources from.

Quote:

Do you think that all the innocent people who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq died at American hands?

Do you think either of these illegal invasions would have happened without the USA leading the charge? I have no problem with any and all of those responsible spending their remaining days in a prison cell but don't try to downplay who was the major instigator for these, must I remind you again, horrendous war crimes.

Quote:

I asked you: Where would we be today? You didn't answer.

The question is not where would "we" be today, because it ain't about you. The questions that you really should be asking yourself and others are:

Where would the people of Iraq and Afghanistan be today? How many would still be able to taste life?

How many would be with their loved ones?

How many would be enjoying their homes instead of looking at a pile of rubble?

How many kids wouldn't be born deformed from the WMDs, depleted uranium used by the US?

How many fewer cases of cancer would there be had the US shown the least bit of humanity and not used WMDs? [all the while hypocritically castigating others for their use]

How many kids would be in schools that were the pride of the ME until the US started in with their crimes against humanity?

How many people would have all their arms and legs had their been no war crimes?

How many people wouldn't have been burned alive with fuel air bombs or phosphorus bombs?

Quote:

I asked you: When is blowback justified? You didn't answer.

I've asked you and others many hundreds of questions and you've all sat silent or come up with the most dismal excuses to defend US criminal actions.

And you're doing it again!

I've answered this question a number of times and if you lack the reading skills to grasp that, there's not much I can do.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

but I'm just tired of hearing JTT whine about how his posts are ignored and how this is evidence of everyone else's complacency.

Stop making things up, FA. I'm not tired of people ignoring my posts. I'm tired of the enormous harm that the USA has done to the innocents of the world. I'm tired of the relentless bullshit line that it's being done to help the oppressed.

I'm tired of the constant back patting that large numbers of ignorant people engage in.

I'm tired of the politicians ending every soundbite with "this great country" or "God Bless America". Why would god bless a prolific terrorist nation, a nation that excels at crimes against humanity?

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
You said "the USA deserves to be held accountable" for its numerous war crimes.

That's exactly what I've said, numerous times. Don't you?

To what end JTT? You seem uncomfortable getting into specifics. How far does holding the USA accountable go? Wheres the line?

JTT wrote:

Quote:
The rationale the attackers used on 9/11 sounds awfully similar to your notion of holding the USA "accountable."

So now you're fluent in all the languages of those from the Middle East and Afghanistan. You only heard the propaganda line fed to you by your media and your government.

So when Osama releases his videos stating AQ's exact motive for 9/11, it's still the USA's propaganda... Gotcha...

Like I said, I don't think you understand blowback as well as you believe you do. The concept is inherently built on the idea of retribution. You yourself parrot the line that the USA had this coming, and yet you get flimsy when you are faced with your own argument applied in reverse.

This seems to evade you.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
How interesting and hypocritical. Here you call other's "silence" on the USA shameful and a mere "diversion," but virtuous JTT would never ever dream of having to defend why he's not talking about X, Y, and Z countries and their war crimes.

I haven't seen you in the grammar/language section. Wonder why?

Others' silence and diversions come in direct relation to specific information provided that shows the USA responsible for numerous war crimes/crimes against humanity.

It's always about other's silence with you.

JTT wrote:

The hypocrisy certainly doesn't lie with me. Start a thread and list others' war crimes, maybe we can do a comparative study.

You're playing all the wrong games JTT. You want some sort of moral footrace to compare country by country. This is stupid.

War crimes and third world exploitation are topics bigger than the USA. Open your aperture.

JTT wrote:

Maybe we could do a study of how the US involves itself in demanding that others be held accountable but defiantly resists being held accountable itself, all the while being engaged in even more terrorist activities. Is this not hypocrisy? Is it not hypocrisy that you defend this?

Who is defending it? Not I. I'm just calling you out on your tunnel vision. I lose no face in the USA's government being shamed for it's actions. None at all. You act like Americans are conspiring to save face. No Joe would sick their own ass out for Donald Rumsfeld, and you know it.

JTT wrote:

Might I remind you, FA, that the USA is involved in two illegal invasions right at this moment, the USA is guilty of at the moment war crimes/crimes against humanity.

Yeah. So what do you do about it? You talk a big game is what you do, but you don't really do anything special.

JTT wrote:

You're doing it again; diverting attention away from the most egregious actions happening on the planet.

Diverting away from what? What is the response from me that is not diverting? I don't think either invasion was legal and I know about the terrible war crimes committed in both countries. What do I have left to tell you? You're getting left behind. It's not diverting, we've simply been there and there is no disagreement on those points.

All you're good at is self-righteous ranting about what others should do.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
The CIA didn't express it, and that means something to you? Interesting. So you believe the CIA is a reliable source of some information, but in other cases they are a propaganda machine I'm sure.

You have doubts that the CIA is a propaganda machine. You are much dumber than you appear.

Why would the CIA warn of blowback against the Dutch and the English? It's hardly their purview.

Oh, I'm just trying to follow your logic here. One second the CIA is a good source, the next they are a propaganda machine. You want the benefit of both arguments? It's not for me to resolve.

As for the English and Dutch, you're blinders seem to prevent you from thinking outside of the USA. What I'm speaking to is the concept of blowback is universal. It's not defined by the USA.

JTT wrote:

Quote:

It's interesting, that's all. You seem so dead set on a very specific narrative, that you'll cite your most loathed phantom if it serves you.

Like former heads of the CIA, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, ... .

Since it suits you, yes. Tell me what Noam or Zinn would have done after 9/11.

It seems the thing you can't wrap your head around is that some response was going to be inevitable to 9/11 from the USA. Now, we can both agree that the invasions were wrong, but that's too easy. Tell me specifics. Tell me what the proper response should have been after the attacks?

I can't seem to get this through to you: Specifics.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Beyond that, you're only further contradicting your claim that you believe the USA didn't deserve it with your pretty-dumb-huh nyuk nyuk about the USA helping enable the very group that attacked the USA. You're obviously not comfortable expressing what you actually believe.

You're joking, right and really reaching. If you thought about it for a minute, I'm sure that you would have been able to come up with something more inane.

You aren't comfortable with it. I'm calling you out: You believe the attacks on the USA were justified. You can't sort that out with the concept of retribution though. Not my problem.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
For someone preaching that people should think for themselves and reject propaganda, you certainly like to quote others in place of making your own arguments.

So now I don't use enough of my own arguments. Could you make up your mind?

You'll reach for anything that backs up your narrative, that is my accusation, yes. I'm not sure what you find flipped about the statement.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
I've got no problem with Chompsky[sic] et al. However, this whole line of "even open-minded people" is only meant to manipulate the reader. The writer, nor you gets to define who is and isn't open-minded nor do you get to project reasons why others my come to different conclusions or reject Chompsky[sic] et al ("must be somehow joking, wildly over-stating the case, paranoid, or have some sort of axe to grind").

I think I've sorted that jumble out. That isn't meant to manipulate the reader. It's a fact, pure and simple that Americans are loathe to read and hear about what their government does.

Are you speaking as an American? What the hell do you know about what Americans loathe?

JTT wrote:

Why do you think it's so well hidden? Why do you think that the US media went out of their way to protect Reagan, to hide all the felonies and war crimes that he and his cronies were committing.

I'd say there is two things here.

1) Media outlet's motives are to make money not report what is truthful. This is not unique to the USA.

2) The 80's predated the internet. Media platforms and the ability to distribute information was not readily available to people so said media outlets were far more powerful. Media platforms are shattering, and individuals are grabbing a greater share of the media landscape. There is no real telling how the public would have been able to mobilize and communicate in the Reagan years had the tech outlet been there.

Admittedly, the latter comes with it's obvious drawbacks. I'd say that the effect has been largely positive, and it's not hard to think of the kinds of people who have been removed from their positions because of it. No it's not the trail and hanging you smack your lips about, but I doubt you'd prefer them still in their offices.

JTT wrote:

The USA gets fed pablum and the people slurp it down with relish. The crimes that Watergate was supposed to have solved have only gotten worse. Reagan and Bush and then Bush Jr have made Nixon look like a saint.

???

JTT wrote:

The ones to suffer are not Americans, slurping up 40% of the world's resources, it's the innocents from countries that the USA steals these resources from.

Yes, Americans are mass consumers. Who argued otherwise? I'm a fair trade advocate. What do you need to convince me of?

Your scrabble to guilt by American is desperate.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Do you think that all the innocent people who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq died at American hands?

Do you think either of these illegal invasions would have happened without the USA leading the charge?

Nope.

JTT wrote:

I have no problem with any and all of those responsible spending their remaining days in a prison cell but don't try to downplay who was the major instigator for these, must I remind you again, horrendous war crimes.

Again, I ask, what would have been the appropriate response after 9/11. I don't pretend to know the answer. I do accept that something was going to happen. Much like those who sought retribution against the USA, there would be people in the USA who would seek retribution. There was no absence in people willing to exploit that desire.

It's not rational, but then again, who said blowback and retribution were rational mindsets.

JTT wrote:

Quote:
I asked you: Where would we be today? You didn't answer.

The question is not where would "we" be today, because it ain't about you. The questions that you really should be asking yourself and others are:

Where would the people of Iraq and Afghanistan be today? How many would still be able to taste life?

How many would be with their loved ones?

How many would be enjoying their homes instead of looking at a pile of rubble?

How many kids wouldn't be born deformed from the WMDs, depleted uranium used by the US?

How many fewer cases of cancer would there be had the US shown the least bit of humanity and not used WMDs? [all the while hypocritically castigating others for their use]

How many kids would be in schools that were the pride of the ME until the US started in with their crimes against humanity?

How many people would have all their arms and legs had their been no war crimes?

How many people wouldn't have been burned alive with fuel air bombs or phosphorus bombs?

You're avoiding the question. I won't ask again. You don't have an answer.

JTT wrote:

Quote:

I asked you: When is blowback justified? You didn't answer.

I've asked you and others many hundreds of questions and you've all sat silent or come up with the most dismal excuses to defend US criminal actions.

And you're doing it again!

I've answered this question a number of times and if you lack the reading skills to grasp that, there's not much I can do.

You don't have an answer here either.

Like I said, you don't understand blowback as well as you claim. I remain unimpressed.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
but I'm just tired of hearing JTT whine about how his posts are ignored and how this is evidence of everyone else's complacency.

Stop making things up, FA. I'm not tired of people ignoring my posts. I'm tired of the enormous harm that the USA has done to the innocents of the world. I'm tired of the relentless bullshit line that it's being done to help the oppressed.

You're tired?

So what do you do? Personally. You talk.

I'm tired too. Tired of people all to skilled at blame, but with no ability at problem solving.

JTT wrote:

I'm tired of the constant back patting that large numbers of ignorant people engage in.

I'm tired of coffee shop activists.

JTT wrote:

I'm tired of the politicians ending every soundbite with "this great country" or "God Bless America". Why would god bless a prolific terrorist nation, a nation that excels at crimes against humanity?

So being an American makes a person a terrorist?

Now that is some grade A propaganda! Bravo!

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Your turn, Art.

1) Has the USA engaged in terrorist actions against other countries of the world in the last hundred years? If so, provide at least two examples.

2) Is the US/governments officials guilty of any war crimes in the last hundred years? If so, give at least two instances.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

You're tired?

So what do you do? Personally. You talk.

I'm tired too. Tired of people all too skilled at blame, but with no ability at problem solving.

What a fatuous comment! There's not much more a person can do than bring these crimes against humanity/ these terrorists actions to light and keep them there.

There's no much more that a person can do than bring them to the attention of an all too ignorant American public.

There's not much more that a person can do than call out those who perpetuate the myths that the US is a country of do good.

Thar's what Noam Chomsky does, that's what others who are concerned about the immoral actions of the US do.

What kind of problem solving is there in minimizing these actions, in trying to divert attention away from these actions, in attacking the messengers. Thats' really helpful.

Do you also have threads where you make excuses for gangsters?

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

You seem uncomfortable getting into specifics. How far does holding the USA accountable go? Wheres the line?

Not at all. I'm tired of your inability to digest what a person states. I've stated, way more than once, that the US and its criminal officials should be held accountable within the USA for their criminal actions and by the ICJ for their crimes against humanity.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

manored wrote:

I will stick around to watch this thread go nowhere =)

Stick around if you wish, but I'm just tired of hearing JTT whine about how his posts are ignored and how this is evidence of everyone else's complacency. Part of his shtick is associating himself with these issues and getting doped up on the righteous indignation that he craves and perpetuates by inserting these rants in unrelated discussions. As long as he does that, he can fool himself into thinking that people are ignoring the issue, and dismiss that people are ignoring him.

A
R
T

I have seen only one thread where he jumped in and started de-railing mercilessly. Well, he just started calling everyone hypocrite because we werent talking about and didnt want to talk about USA's war crimes but rather something quite petty. He doesnt seen to gets how forums work and what they are for. =)

If you are tired of JTT de-railing threads, I think the best and pretty much only solution is to ignore him. That, or ask moderation to do something about it. Direct confrontation never works, really. Then people feel anger towards each other their arguments wont get across no matter how good they are and it will be just hate being flung around.

JTT wrote:

Not at all. I'm tired of your inability to digest what a person states. I've stated, way more than once, that the US and its criminal officials should be held accountable within the USA for their criminal actions and by the ICJ for their crimes against humanity.

There isnt really a remotely fair tribunal for countries. There are some global organizations, but we all know they are heavily biased towards the powerful and influent. Some countries in the world have nuclear weapons while some others are forbidden of having then. Why?

Personally, I dont believe in justice. There is no system of justice than isnt ultimately biased towards someone. I believe in acceptable situations, instead. I dont think we can nor should create a world where everyone has the same salary. Some would call this just, but some would say the more competent would gain more. I vote for simply making sure the poorest of the lot gain enough to survive and be happy.

JTT wrote:

What a fatuous comment! There's not much more a person can do than bring these crimes against humanity/ these terrorists actions to light and keep them there.

There's no much more that a person can do than bring them to the attention of an all too ignorant American public.

Well, no. Posting in a forum is not the only way to do it, and even posting in a forum can be done in different ways.

Personally, I think that if you want people to listen to your message in forums, you should start doing it in different ways. For starters, people really hate it then someone suddenly shows up and starts posting stuff tottally unrelated to the topic at hand and trying to steer the discussion that way. And the more people hate you, the less likely they are to seriously consider your message.

2 Replies

@manored,

Manored is correct--the only way to deal with JTT is to ignore it. It has nothing worthwhile to contribute anyway, as far as i ever saw in the days when i did read its posts. Now i don't--no problem.

2 Replies

@manored,

Quote:

There isnt really a remotely fair tribunal for countries. There are some global organizations, but we all know they are heavily biased towards the powerful and influent. Some countries in the world have nuclear weapons while some others are forbidden of having then. Why?

Odd way to ignore someone, Manored, but welcome anyway.

That's no reason not to hold those guilty of clear breaches of international law accountable, Manored.

No one is "forbidden" to have nuclear weapons. It's only those with power who share them, illegally, with their "friends" for their own selfish ends.

Quote:

Personally, I dont believe in justice. There is no system of justice than isnt ultimately biased towards someone. I believe in acceptable situations, instead. I dont think we can nor should create a world where everyone has the same salary. Some would call this just, but some would say the more competent would gain more. I vote for simply making sure the poorest of the lot gain enough to survive and be happy.

Justice is all we can strive for. Look what has happened to the world with a country that feigns justice but really could care less about it.

Quote:

Well, no. Posting in a forum is not the only way to do it, and even posting in a forum can be done in different ways.

I didn't say that a forum was the only way. I said that keeping them in the light is the only way.

Quote:

Personally, I think that if you want people to listen to your message in forums, you should start doing it in different ways. For starters, people really hate it then someone suddenly shows up and starts posting stuff tottally unrelated to the topic at hand and trying to steer the discussion that way. And the more people hate you, the less likely they are to seriously consider your message.

I'll risk it. If you go to my responses, they have often been to counter someone who posts more of that relentless, unceasing US propaganda stream of bullshit.

You're off topic now, Manored. No big deal.

Good to hear your comments.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

How are you doing today, you whiny little chickenshit?

Just to let everyone know. When you read my posts [which you still do, Set is a liar too] you got smacked down so hard because of your appalling ignorance on language issues. You retreated to "ignore", then when it was pointed out what a childish response that was, you went to your latest, but equally chickenshit position.

But I must note, you actually do fool some people, Set.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Odd way to ignore someone, Manored, but welcome anyway.

Well I was talking with someone else in that part of the post. About you =)

JTT wrote:

That's no reason not to hold those guilty of clear breaches of international law accountable, Manored.

Well we need a fair tribunal for that to happen, and I think that the fact of that its not already happening is the proof of that we do not have one. And I dont think we will be having anytime soon.

JTT wrote:

No one is "forbidden" to have nuclear weapons. It's only those with power who share them, illegally, with their "friends" for their own selfish ends.

Well no country is trully forbidden of doing anything, there are only treaties that can be ignored, but there are international treaties against the research and production of nuclear weapons, and those countries that already had then came out in advantage.

JTT wrote:

Justice is all we can strive for. Look what has happened to the world with a country that feigns justice but really could care less about it.

That has always been happening with the world, its just that ever so often the villain changes. Before USA it was Europe.

Justice is subjective and so not something that can be attained. Even then you believe the world is just, there will be someone saying otherwise, and who is to say they are wrong?

However while I think the world will never be a fair place, I think its possible to make it a happy place, at least. So I prefer to focus on global satisfaction rather than global justice.

JTT wrote:

You're off topic now, Manored. No big deal.

But it was a smooth curve! =)

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Your turn, Art.

It's always somebody else's turn with you JTT. I'll play along.

JTT wrote:

1) Has the USA engaged in terrorist actions against other countries of the world in the last hundred years? If so, provide at least two examples.

Got water in your ears? Salt in you eyes? I've never had a qualm saying the USA has.

1) Vietnam - The intentional targeting of civilians to destabilize the region. This included the use of chemical and biologial agents.

2) Iraq - The targeting of water treatment facilities in 2003.

Now what? Why did you ask me this? I've not said the USA has not engaged in these kind of things. You're getting left behind.

JTT wrote:

2) Is the US/governments officials guilty of any war crimes in the last hundred years? If so, give at least two instances.

Again, yes.

1) Pakistan - Continued raids across a sovereign border with drones.

2) Guantanamo Bay - The use of illegal methods of interrogation.

See how easy it is to answer direct questions?

A
R
T

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
You're tired?

So what do you do? Personally. You talk.

I'm tired too. Tired of people all too skilled at blame, but with no ability at problem solving.

What a fatuous comment! There's not much more a person can do than bring these crimes against humanity/ these terrorists actions to light and keep them there.

Oh. You view yourself as someone who brings things to light. I guess you do this by hijacking threads online. Interesting strategy JTT. How's that working for you?

JTT wrote:

There's no much more that a person can do than bring them to the attention of an all too ignorant American public.

There's nothing special about the American public, and don't flatter yourself.

JTT wrote:

There's not much more that a person can do than call out those who perpetuate the myths that the US is a country of do good.

So talk talk talk online. Got it.

JTT wrote:

Thar's what Noam Chomsky does, that's what others who are concerned about the immoral actions of the US do.

So if someone expresses themselves differently that Chomsky (or you) they aren't "concerned about the immoral actions of the US?" Interesting. Sounds like you're trying to define activism. Hows that working for you?

JTT wrote:

What kind of problem solving is there in minimizing these actions, in trying to divert attention away from these actions, in attacking the messengers. Thats' really helpful.

You aren't a messenger, let alone the messenger. Again, get over yourself. You've not delivered any sort of information that has been revolutionary in the slightest.

JTT wrote:

Do you also have threads where you make excuses for gangsters?

Nope. However, you give a free pass to a bunch of gangsters by applying such a narrow field of view on global issues. As long as you are locked in on your US tunnel vision, you're a wal-- talking contradiction.

A
R
Talker

1 Reply

Blowback: 9/11 Justification?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know