6 short years ago...

[Oznogrd]

I feel much more outraged that the American gov't KNEW it was going to happen and LET it happen than I do sympathy for those who died. Nonetheless, I do feel sympathy for them and their families, just to a lesser degree than the outrage.

The lives of the victims of 9/11 weren't of higher value than the lives of the people who - for example - died during the genocide in Rwanda. What makes those who died on 9/11 so special that they're constantly remembered while others aren't?

Seriously? It's because the people who died in 9/11 were (relatively) wealthy, affluent Americans, not poor, uneducated Africans. Not saying it's justified, just saying how it is.

God i knew the conspiracies were gonna bust out soon..i gotta agree with jae here, this is supposed to be a memorial thread...we dont need the conspiracies and the arguments...im not saying i disagree, but this isnt the place for them. I have my own opinions and Riot, if you enlisted purely due to hate and seeking revenge be sure it doesnt cloud your judgement once you're there, thats all i ask.

[benji]

Yeah, that's definitely the way to go

Yeah, do not root out rogue states and dismantle violent ideologies, just let them be. You do not take care of diseases, you let them fester. Storm brewing? Just ignore it, it might not hit your house after all.

[el badman]

Yeah, do not root out rogue states and dismantle violent ideologies, just let them be.

Damn, you're right, that seems to be working out so well, and everyone's loving your country for taking matters into its own hands so efficiently...Oh well, as long as you're good and they're all evil, no reason to be paranoid, you will prevail!
Anyway, as previously mentioned, not the right thread for that I guess.

[benji]

Good job justifying "ignoring the problem" as the proper stance against violent ideologies by saying "people don't like America" or lamenting the efficiency of a handful of efforts. I mean, ignoring the problem/giving into demands worked so well with Hitler.

I never said they were evil and the West is good. You may want to see the end of the West, convert to Islam and live under a Caliphate, but I do not. Therefore, I am in favor of doing something about violent ideologies and not submitting to their demands.

When I responded to your pro-terrorism/anti-Westernism philosophy in that other thread I said:

Bet you hated the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the toppling of Hitler too.

9/11, Bali, Madrid, London, these should have been the final straw for the West. But we still have people who would rather score political points against Bush or America than defend their way of life and crush the plague from the East.

When there's a serial killer loose, or crime is rampart, or old men talk to young kids online, or people smoke or eat fatty foods people scream for something to be done. When someone threatens to destroy the West, drop nukes on neighbors or re-establish a Caliphate they respond "Yeah, well, America/Bush sucks. We should just ignore it."

There is nothing wrong with discussing things, related to the topic, in this thread. Is it really getting in the way of people spamming "RIP" selfishly?

[Ty-Land]

"Remembering" 9/11. Reflecting only on that day. Holding memorials and rememberances. Calling it a "tragedy", these all serve to trivilize the events, make them seem "natural" like hurricanes or tsunamis. We ignore WTC93, Bojinka, The Embassies, USS Cole, we've moved on from those. We ignore events after, Bali, Madrid, London, they were elsewhere.

Condolences and "RIP" are trivial. Vengence is not.

We are a society paralyzed by "tragedy" and so we stayed silent. The anniversaries of 9/11 should not be packed with rememberences and memorials if we want them to mean something. They should be packed with hellfire over Waziristan.

I agree with this to an extent, but I don't consider vengence to be the right word. I don't see revenge as being a solution, especially in the form of violence.

9/11 is an unusual terrorist attack in terms of the attackers being outsiders. Meaning, they weren't homegrown terrorists, they had come from abroad to do a specific task. If you look at the major terrorist attacks since then they have all been homegrown attackers, people who had been caught up in the ideology and due to being outcasts had turned to violence to further their political beliefs.

In this regard a focus on military responses to terrorism needs to be negated. To prevent homegrown terrorists (from whatever religious background), which is at present a bigger threat to western societies than external attacks, we need to limit the process of people becoming terrorists. From various sources of research undertaken in the last 5 years most of these homegrown terrorists are second generation immigrants from middle class families that feel disenfranchised with society due to some causating event (key example is Joakin Noah's step-cousin was was a bomber in the London bombings). This threat calls for prevention from the root of the cause, stopping them from feeling so isolated and agitated, which would stop them turning to religion and violence (n.b. turning to religion is one of the last steps in the process, they are often feeling outcast and angry much earlier than this).

For those terrorists to far through the process, and the remaining external threats to Western states there is a necessary requirement for armed responses. But the concept that bombs and bullets are going to end the threat of terrorism is naive, with Iraq and Afghanistan being the true cases in point. Both those theatres of war have become training grounds for Middle East (and beyond) terrorist groups. Military repsonses to terrorism aren't solving the problem. This is shown clearly by one fact: since the 'War on Terror' began terrorist attacks in the world as a whole have increased dramatically, and each individual attack has become more fatal.

It is important to understand that al-Qaeda poses a similar threat that Communism/Fascism did. It is a foreign concept that is difficult to understand from a Western perspective; it is a different way of life. The moderate Muslims don't support the al-Qaeda message, but they do get pushed closer to the cause every day way in Iraq continues. Most muslims want to live normal lives like ours, where thay can be happy and follow their religious beliefs. Most don't want to live under a Caliphate, have Shari'ah law as the only law of the state, oppress Women and destroy the West. We need to empower these people by promoting what the US, UK, Australia etc. is doing is going to help there cause, but also do things that make them doubt our intentions or turn them towards fundamentalism.

Yeah, do not root out rogue states and dismantle violent ideologies, just let them be. You do not take care of diseases, you let them fester. Storm brewing? Just ignore it, it might not hit your house after all.

The way al-Qaeda and other 'new' terrorist 'organisations' work make it incredibly difficult to confront this problem in terms of 'states' The fact that it is practically given there is terrorist cells established (but not yet caught) in Australia and Britain does no justify the need for us to be invaded. I know you mean the states that are helping terrorists, but maybe they need aid and guidance rather than military intervention to oust the terrorists there.

I do agree with the dismantling of the violent ideology. Violent and militant fundamentalist groups need to be opposed everywhere. Be it the tamil tigers, KKK, Hez'bilah, The New Stern Gang, al Qaeda or the Blackshirts. I think over time there relevance will disappear (like the various left wing terrorist groups in Italy/Germany in the 70's + 80s), but until then we need to promote and encourage better alternatives. The problem is these ideologies are so diametrically opposed to western values and the fact that these beliefs are so entrenched means there is no grounds to negotiate or compromise (though probably both options wouldn't be acceptable either way). But it also means theres no grounds for creating a dialect between opposing parties in there all or nothing approach to everything. That is scary. I was watching an interview yesterday between a moderate secular Muslim and a fundamentalist Muslim in Britain. They were arguing over their own religious principles, because one said that non-believers were accpepted and tolerated and shared similar values that transcended religion. The other states that all non believers were kufa, which means they are essentially heretics and that muslims should feel no guilt in killing them. How do you do with differences like that? And this is from opposing views in the one religion.

I think the most important thing when discussing this topic is not to oversimplify the issue or presume solution X is going to solve something. This whole environment of terrorism is the outcome of nearly a centuries worth of events in the Middle East and beyond. It is incredibly complex in terms of religion, politics and history. There is two sides of the story, and those 2 (or more) perceptions of what is happening and why and incredibly different.

But anyway, back on topic a bit: RIP victims of 9/11. But further, RIP all the forgotten victims of all terrorist attacks since then, especially those who are overlooked in Iraq who are the victims of suicide and car bombs caused by the war and the growing sectarian violence as a result of it.

[el badman]

You may want to see the end of the West, convert to Islam and live under a Caliphate, but I do not.

Sure that's exactly what I said. Way to oversimplify things once again...
So someone who strongly disagrees with everything the US have been doing about terrorism for the last few years is necessarily an Islam lover who adheres to anything the Koran says?

When I responded to your pro-terrorism/anti-Westernism philosophy

Again, that's exactly what I said
Not that I'm expecting anything better from you...I'm either with you or against you, right?

[Riot]

So far you've offered no alternative to the War on Terror, el badman.

[Gundy]

So what if terrorists continue to attack the US? Do we just sit there and take it? Do we ask them pretty please don't do it again? I disagree with the path the war has taken and I think we should have pulled out a while ago but I completely agree that it was right to declare war in the first place.

[benji]

Because I do not want to restate each point first...the world suffers from quotes.

This threat calls for prevention from the root of the cause, stopping them from feeling so isolated and agitated, which would stop them turning to religion and violence (n.b. turning to religion is one of the last steps in the process, they are often feeling outcast and angry much earlier than this).

And how do you do that? You can't stop someone from feeling "isolated", so you destroy their sources of support.

But the concept that bombs and bullets are going to end the threat of terrorism is naive, with Iraq and Afghanistan being the true cases in point. Both those theatres of war have become training grounds for Middle East (and beyond) terrorist groups.

They are flocking to strike at our most powerful, instead of our weakest. I prefer that.

Military repsonses to terrorism aren't solving the problem.

They aren't the only thing happening...as you well know...

This is shown clearly by one fact: since the 'War on Terror' began terrorist attacks in the world as a whole have increased dramatically, and each individual attack has become more fatal.

In a hot war, the enemy does more to try and kill you. That's why they pour so many resources into Iraq. If we leave dishonorably, they win.

It is important to understand that al-Qaeda poses a similar threat that Communism/Fascism did. It is a foreign concept that is difficult to understand from a Western perspective

Um, Communism and Fascism were both Western spawned political philosophies. And much of Islamist thought comes from Western educated Muslims.

And. Neither one fell from being nice to them. War ended them.

The moderate Muslims don't support the al-Qaeda message, but they do get pushed closer to the cause every day way in Iraq continues.

Or, they realize they don't like it when Muslims kill other Muslims for not being extreme enough, and start working with Allied forces to clean up their local areas. Like they have been doing in various locations.

We need to empower these people

And removing their authoritarian states probably helped.

I know you mean the states that are helping terrorists, but maybe they need aid and guidance rather than military intervention to oust the terrorists there.

Right, all that billions of aid that's been given since the 60s sure has turned everyone over there into our best buddies. Destroy the support network, militarily and financially, and the swamp begins to drain.

So someone who strongly disagrees with everything the US have been doing about terrorism for the last few years is necessarily an Islam lover who adheres to anything the Koran says?

No, I'm saying there are consequences for your actions. Always.

You don't give the impression you just disagree, you give the impression you think nothing should be done at all. Especially militarily.

Not that I'm expecting anything better from you...I'm either with you or against you, right?

Right. Just like the world either stood against the hordes of Fascism, or joined them willingly or unwillingly. Are you against the Islamists? All right. You may disagree with how WE are dismantling their ideology. (And everyone seems to think I support absolutely every minute detail either, I don't. I support the concept of draining the swamps. Through absolutely any means necessary.) But you have to agree it must be dismantled, or you effectively support its existance.

Since you refuse to provide any alternative plan, since you say we should just ignore it, since you spend all your time attacking those who actually do something, since you claim to be afraid of those defending you, since you hint you think America is worse than Islamist terrorism, in my mind that makes your "support" of the West quite questionable.

I know your real point. You are trying to score political points attacking a target that will never attack you back. You feel guilty for everything you have, so you have to turn to attacking the society that has given you everything. The West is great, and you do everything you can to point out it's flaws endlessly to make yourself seem superior. You're the same as all the Useful Fools of the past.

I think we should have pulled out a while ago but I completely agree that it was right to declare war in the first place.

Then you're pretty much just as bad as the guys above. You do not leave your allies without support. We did it to Iraq once, and we are forever shamed for it. We will never live down the betrayals of Indochina and Eastern Europe.

[Ty-Land]

First of all Benji, just want to say (for a change) we actually agree on a lot here. In many ways I was trying to support your argument and providing additional context and ideas.

This threat calls for prevention from the root of the cause, stopping them from feeling so isolated and agitated, which would stop them turning to religion and violence (n.b. turning to religion is one of the last steps in the process, they are often feeling outcast and angry much earlier than this).

And how do you do that? You can't stop someone from feeling "isolated", so you destroy their sources of support.

I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestion of destroying their support structures. My argument concerns people becoming isolated in the first place. The psychological information coming out regarding terrorist suggest that it is this departure from mainstream society that is the key event leading them towards a path of terrorist activity. For those who are already to deep into the so called 'process' need to have their sources of support eradicated. It is those who could potentially become terrorists (which is essentially all of us) that need some kind of social recognition. For instance, in Sydney local Police are going out of there way to form bonds with the local muslim community, especially the younger members of society. They have organised pool (billiards) nights where they play together. This is merely an example, but making sure young Muslims don't become excluded from the community (in their mind) is essential to preventing terrorism.

But the concept that bombs and bullets are going to end the threat of terrorism is naive, with Iraq and Afghanistan being the true cases in point. Both those theatres of war have become training grounds for Middle East (and beyond) terrorist groups.

They are flocking to strike at our most powerful, instead of our weakest. I prefer that.

I agree. The problem is, instead of reducing terrorism it is creating an environment where they can learn first hand. While this may mean civilians are safer, a benefit of course, it also means our troops are at risk and it jeopardises the chances of peace in the region.

Military repsonses to terrorism aren't solving the problem.

They aren't the only thing happening...as you well know...

Of course. I think the effectiveness of the British police of late have shown how much improvement has been made at domestic level to prevent attacks just before they occur and catch the perpetrators. Also, as we both, the increased funding in intelligence at home and abroad is a major part of what's going on.

This is shown clearly by one fact: since the 'War on Terror' began terrorist attacks in the world as a whole have increased dramatically, and each individual attack has become more fatal.

In a hot war, the enemy does more to try and kill you. That's why they pour so many resources into Iraq. If we leave dishonorably, they win.

Can't argue with any of that.

It is important to understand that al-Qaeda poses a similar threat that Communism/Fascism did. It is a foreign concept that is difficult to understand from a Western perspective

Um, Communism and Fascism were both Western spawned political philosophies. And much of Islamist thought comes from Western educated Muslims.

Sorry, I don't understand this response. My argument was that al-Qaeda has taking on board similar systems of fear and propaganda to spread the ideology, especially those of Soviet Russia.

And. Neither one fell from being nice to them. War ended them.

War ended both. I mean war was part of the Cold War struggle, but it was part of a much greater picture. I wouldn't attribute the demise of Soviet Russia to war exclusively, but that is a different topic and an unecessary tangent.

The moderate Muslims don't support the al-Qaeda message, but they do get pushed closer to the cause every day way in Iraq continues.

Or, they realize they don't like it when Muslims kill other Muslims for not being extreme enough, and start working with Allied forces to clean up their local areas. Like they have been doing in various locations.

Most Muslims don't like the killing of innocents, regardless of whether they are of the same beliefs or not. It is not like they are that different from us, they hold very similar values to Western cultures. It is the extremists and fundamentalist that fail to feel guilt when killing innocent people.

We need to empower these people

And removing their authoritarian states probably helped.

Agreed. But I don't think that this always require a military intervention to overthrow these regimes.

I know you mean the states that are helping terrorists, but maybe they need aid and guidance rather than military intervention to oust the terrorists there.

Right, all that billions of aid that's been given since the 60s sure has turned everyone over there into our best buddies. Destroy the support network, militarily and financially, and the swamp begins to drain.

Agreed, previous billions of aid don't seem to have been significantly valuable at present. But I think the money has to flow in alongside the destruction of support networks. And, crucially, the west needs to advertise the fact that X amount of money is being spent on Y (essentials most likely, such as sewerage, schools, hospitals, houses, employment). They money given since the 50s (Baghdad Pact era onwards) will be essential pointless if it is not followed up now. If the everyday civilian in Iraq/Afghanistan and beyond can't become aware that the U.S and allies has put so much money into programs to rebuild the nation then there is little point. These people need to be aware that we aren't always the bad guys, and as a result it will weaken the argument of the terrorist organisation trying to recruit people on these grounds.

I think we agree on a lot more than we realise, but it is difficult to communicate the nuisances of these arguments over a forum. The way I write it can be read entirely differently from your perspective, and vice-versa. We agree on a couple of points though: 1) terrorism is bad 2) military responses are required in some circumstances 3) this problem is much bigger than the way is it depicted and finally 4) there's no real set solution to the problem yet. (Hope you do actually agree to these... that I'm not presuming to much from the responses)

[maceo24]

Good Post, Ty-Land, i had yet to see anyone bring up the fact that the regular "Joe Muslim" detests the actions of the extremist wing(s). Vengeance over a generic group of people, or area of land, would not be vangeance. It would be no different than extermination (read -Genocide-). Two wrongs never make a right.

The people responsible for this need to be brought to justice, no doubt. But the method that you go about doing such a thing should not bring you down to using the same tactics as the group you are after. What separates you from them in that scenario? Slaughter, whether justified or not, is still slaughter, and is absolutely unjustifiable.

[benji]

Yes, I did not understand your post last night. I blame emperical political research. (Also, I fast read posts, only re-reading lines that stand out to me.)

They have organised pool (billiards) nights where they play together.

Ugh, midnight basketball.

Sorry, I don't understand this response. My argument was that al-Qaeda has taking on board similar systems of fear and propaganda to spread the ideology, especially those of Soviet Russia.

Well, I read the lines together, as people in the West don't understand Islamism like they didn't understand Communism and Fascism. I was pointing out both of those were Western ideologies, and while their most famous states were the Soviets ("mixed") and China (Eastern) they are not alien concepts to the West and aspects were implimented here and plenty of proponents are still in Western culture. (I think Communism for example has a lot more favor today in the West, than in the Third World or the East. In terms of people wanting to give it a try. I'm also assuming I do not have to treat you like other posters and use the geopolitical spheres of West/East/Third instead of actual geographic locations.)

I also pointed out how much of the Islamism theory has spawned from Western-learned Muslims and that it takes a lot of it's underlying political concepts from Western ideologies just inserting Islam into it.

But I don't think that this always require a military intervention to overthrow these regimes.

I think, that in the case of Iraq, full military use was required. In Afghanistan there were established forces to do much of the legwork. As some people theorize there is in Iran. (I'm unsure as to the strength of the Iranian "Western" movement however.) Iraq was more about making a declarative statement, if we declared a new doctrine in which terror-states can not exist, we can't allow a regime we've been at war with for twelve years to stay in power. Especially Saddam's. It is just unfortunate that the failed post-war strategies until recently dissipated the strength of the statement.

this problem is much bigger than the way is it depicted

I think it depends on who is doing the depiction. There is some truth to those who call terrorism just a nuisance, like murders and bank robberies. Just that today, they have the possibility of nuking a city. Even so, they won't be possibily destroying the entire world directly, as in the last global war.

Breaking away from Ty-Land's post, and towards a more general directing at others.

The reason I believe we need to act, especially militarily today, is because if there is another 9/11, it will be far worse in the wake. Civil liberties will definately be curbed, not faux-curbed as with the PATRIOT Act. (95% of which is streamlining red tape on powers the government already granted itself decades ago for things like the "drug war" and anti-organized crime.) Military interventions will not be debated for over a year before carried out. (In that regard, it would be a return to the Clinton foreign policy...perhaps with another Clinton at the helm.) They will also come on any random whim, not when there is a serious pretty airtight case for it like Iraq.

We have to act now while we can still be rational about this.

[el badman]

You may disagree with how WE are dismantling their ideology.

Not sure how you are dismantling anything. It's quite the contrary, you and the ones you support have only antagonized an entire religion and various cultures that share a common faith, and as result new generations of extremists have emerged anywhere the US are considered to be the invaders (and in case you're not aware of that, Islam does not stop at a few countries in the Middle-East). How's that weakening their ideology? Don't you understand the concept of throwing oil on a fucking fire?

But you have to agree it must be dismantled, or you effectively support its existance.

Again, disagreeing with the way things have been handled so far, which you consider to be the right way to fight against terrorism, apparently means that I have a beard, a turban and a AK47...

Since you refuse to provide any alternative plan, since you say we should just ignore it, since you spend all your time attacking those who actually do something,

Yeah, I must admit that your plan of nuking any place that might possibly shelter terrorist cells definitely beats anything I could come up with...There was plenty of alternatives before getting into this, if only your government hadn't forgotten the meaning of diplomcy (and common sense), but now I'd readily admit that there's no miracle solution to the solution.

in my mind that makes your "support" of the West quite questionable.

You might want to check your calendar. You seem to be stuck 25-30 years ago. Not everything is necessarily related to West against East nowadays. We're all on a fucking globe together, but alarmingly paranoid people like you keep thinking it's a divided world because of culture and wealth difference, and because of that type of bullshit we're stuck in this giant mess.

You are trying to score political points attacking a target that will never attack you back. You feel guilty for everything you have, so you have to turn to attacking the society that has given you everything.

News to me.
Why the fuck should I feel guilty again? There's a difference between attacking an entire society and disagreeing with most decisions made by a stupid ass administration. Don't play the "biting the hand that feeds you" card with me, you don't know what the hell you're talking about here.

The West is great, and you do everything you can to point out it's flaws endlessly to make yourself seem superior. You're the same as all the Useful Fools of the past.

Again, West vs East, Good vs Evil, blah blah...You're certainly not so different from the people you are considering as your enemies. And you were the one calling me close-minded...

I think, that in the case of Iraq, full military use was required.

Even under a false pretense, and completely unprepared as to what the consequences could be?

The reason I believe we need to act, especially militarily today, is because if there is another 9/11, it will be far worse in the wake. Civil liberties will definately be curbed, not faux-curbed as with the PATRIOT Act.

So in other words, we should support whatever shit this administration is doing to prevent them from having to make even worse decisions? Hmm, that makes sense I guess.
Actually, there's an adress to the Nation that's starting as I'm typing this, that should be pretty laughable...

[Riot]

Yeah, I must admit that your plan of nuking any place that might possibly shelter terrorist cells definitely beats anything I could come up with...There was plenty of alternatives before getting into this, if only your government hadn't forgotten the meaning of diplomcy (and common sense), but now I'd readily admit that there's no miracle solution to the solution.

We haven't forgotten diplomcy. If we have forgotten it we would be in North Korea and Iran at the moment as well. However, how do you negogiate with terrorists? You can't give in to their demands, they are too extreme, so there is no alternative. You realize diplomcy isn't always the answer, right? I know a lot of liberals like to toss around that word but the reality of this situation is we have two sides who are so completely different and hate each other so much that even discussing some kind of cease fire would be out of the question. They aren't going to stop hating us. They don't want money. They don't want anything but the fall of American society. Do you really want us to negogiate with that?

By the way, I don't think any of us mentioned "nuking" anybody.

[TheMC5]

God, I love seeing Straussian thinking in action. Thanks Leo!

[Axel]

You need to let go of some of that hatred Riot.

You need to open your eyes to the way people in your own country, and those across the world view things.

The closed minded approach of the human race is so disheartening to me. I'm so glad I'm in Chapel Hill now, where people are much more accepting and take a broader perspective on things.

Let 9/11 go. The day is gone, the time has past. You can't hold onto it forever. In the 5 steps of grieving, the last is Acceptance. You have to be able to accept that there will always be evil in this world, and as long as you live, you will have to encounter it in some form. I can't believe you would let an incident 6 years ago drive you to revenge after all this time. So you enlist in the military and you shoot up a bunch of foreigners who are anti-american. Then what? Have you really accomplished your goal? Evil will still be rooted elsewhere, and you will never be able to stop it. There will always be people jealous of the United States because of its good fortune and prosperity. As long as we are a successful nation, there will be no changing that.

Go ahead and enlist in the military... but I'm sure you could find a much more productive way to channel your energy than what you are currently trying to do.