The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

chai2 wrote:

I wonder if olga started an account as a man, and said those same words, if "he" would have been called shrill.

He has dismissed arguments from males with the "shrill" characterization as well. It's an incredibly forceful intellectual argument, I can see why he is fond of it.

I'd criticize anti-American right-wing-nuts too, I just haven't seen any of them around here.

Tactics like that belong to a PITA demonstration. It's a fabrication, painting a picture far from the truth, ignoring the alternatives. Someone opposing isolationism should realize the complexities involved. Supporting stability always involves supporting unsavory characters sooner or later. We get accused because we weigh the balance according to the world economy, so suddenly it's a selfish end.

Such a remarkable generalization, killing is wrong, no argument there, but I must assume you're not talking about ww11 casualties, perhaps the civil war?
I shouldn't be a smart ass, but the point is, lets be specific here after all Britain begged us to enter ww11 and kill people.

This isn't what I said, I said America has felt great responsibility, which is true, after ww11 America, and the world, were horrified by what had happened. Today's policies have developed from that stand point.

I don't support where these policies have gone, but I am not going to pretend the rest of the free world bears no responsibility for the path we went down.

I really dislike this tactic of generalization, it's simply an emotional appeal and fails to serve diplomacy.

I have never been a supporter of the war in Iraq, it never should have happened. IMO it was a knee jerk emotional reaction by an incompetent administration. The Texas swagger should have been the first clue, and has no place in world politics.

True, I would however say, that we citizens of America are some of the most caring the world has ever known, most of us would like nothing better than to see all the world enjoy our standard of living.

Alas, we are also very human and the thinkers among us realize full well the realities of life on this planet.
I am grateful for the comforts and securities I enjoy, but I won't be made to feel guilty for it.

You are quick to play the war crime card, the Taliban had associated itself with Al-Qaeda, who by the way openly attacked American citizens on American soil, you ride with horse thieves you hang with horse thieves.
What the Taliban chooses to do at this point remains to be seen, maybe they should reconsider their associations.

How is that related to the hundreds of thousands of people America has killed in the last decade?

I wonder if he's used harpy for men?

You are quick to play the war crime card, the Taliban had associated itself with Al-Qaeda, who by the way openly attacked American citizens on American soil, you ride with horse thieves you hang with horse thieves.
What the Taliban chooses to do at this point remains to be seen, maybe they should reconsider their associations.

You are quick to play the war crime card,

Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War
The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was every bit as illegal as the invasion of Iraq. Why, then, do so many Americans see it as justifiable?

By Marjorie Cohn

The U.N. 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. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the Sept. 11 attacks and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; and the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information. In addition, it urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.

The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the charter because the attacks on Sept. 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after Sept. 11, or 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 U.N. General Assembly.

Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe haven in the United States. The people in Latin American countries whose dictators were trained in torture techniques at the School of the Americas could likewise have attacked the torture training facility in Fort Benning, Ga., under that specious rationale. Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan is not the answer and will only lead to the deaths of more of our troops and Afghans.

http://www.alternet.org/world/93473/afghanistan:_the_other_illegal_war/

What the Taliban chooses to do at this point remains to be seen, maybe they should reconsider their associations.

America’s Terrorist Training Camp
October 30, 2001

What’s the difference between Al Qaeda and Fort Benning?

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 30th October 2001

“If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents,” George Bush announced on the day he began bombing Afghanistan, “they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.” I’m glad he said “any government”, as there’s one which, though it has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent attention.

For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at Al-Qaeda’s door.

The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or WHISC. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush’s government.

http://www.monbiot.com/2001/10/30/americas-terrorist-training-camp/

Quote:

How is that related to the hundreds of thousands of people America has killed in the last decade?

Iraqi deaths due to the US invasion

1,455,590

Unfortunately your typically shrill, hyperindignant response has nothing at all to do with my complaint. I don't question your right to be such a screeching harpie, I simply wish you would Take it somewhere else !

George, consider this:
What are something like Australian 1550 - 2000 Australian troops doing in Afghanistan, considering that we at not even a NATA member?

And considering that ordinary Australians have no beef what-so-ever with Afghanistan?

Do you think those troops would be there if the Australian government wasn't supporting US policy in Afghanistan, despite many Australians considering the war (which I consider an extended period of occupation) in that country is "unwinnable"?)

How dare you suggest that citizens of those countries which have supported misguided US policies in Afghanistan & Iraq somehow have less right to comment on "the war on terror" than Americans do.
Or anyone else, from any other country for that matter.

Sometimes JTT, I think that your real motivation is to disuade people from the "truth".

Wayne it's just not true that America invariably wants to promote "stability". The prevailing theme in American foreign policy is the same as that of nearly any other country: to promote their own interests (economic, geopolitical, etc) and yes sometimes stability is in America's interest and makes for nasty bedfellows, but that is certainly not always the case, and we are willing to rock-the-boat.

For example, do you think things like the Bay of Pigs Invasion was an attempt to promote "stability" or to rewrite the geopolitical map? What about invading Iraq? Do you think it's for "stability" or the stated goals of having additional military "footprints" and the projection of American power in the "New American Century".

Let's just put it this way, reasonable people can differ on whether or not that is actually the case, but I posit that the notion that America's war is really peace is delusional and self-serving propaganda.

This is not to say that there is no such thing as a just war, and not to say that America hasn't fought its legitimate share of them, but I think the storied history America has in the just wars it fought sometimes serve to blind Americans to the unjust wars. In the run-up to Iraq French opposition to the war was predictably assailed with the usual refrain of their cheese-eating, surrender-monkey existence owing exclusively to the heroics of the US of A (and by the way the only time your wives had a "real man" was when our guys were on leave, true story!).

I was talking about the reaction to 9/11. America has killed hundreds of thousands of people since them as a reaction. I believe that invading Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process is a bad thing, not the necessary evils of promotion of stability, just plain wrong and on a magnitude that dwarfs 9/11.

I don't see the "New American Century" policies as having their genesis in WW2, though I suppose all things can trace backwards, I see it as being a reaction to the end of the Cold War, where the enormous militarization is being justified despite the loss of the bogey-man that it was built for, and with the understanding that the next one might be different

Then don't! I don't feel the slightest bit guilty for being an American and don't see why anyone else should, just like I don't see any reason for you to be proud of it, or just like how I don't see why people should value their compatriots more than others.

You just happened to be born in between those lines in the sand. If that isn't arbitrary I don't know what is.

I was speaking about this thread on that day.

Do you object to the commemoration of the day in and of itself?

Because I think that, in big tragedies, that a national recognition of the tragedy can be a very healing thing.

Or do you object to it Only when it is used as propaganda for hate mongering, reinforcement of patriotic hysteria and such?