Nice of you to provide an abstract to your opinion piece.
> Do we want to keep pretending that we were
> attacked because of some cultural hatred? Let's
> face reality for a minute. For the past decade,
> our government has been sticking it's nose all
> over the middle east.
Decade? You have as little a grasp on time as
you do reality. American involvement with the
middle east began in the late 1940s when we
helped execute the UN order which created Israel.
Both the US and the Soviet Union supported local
regimes during the cold war. To say the United
States was a target purely because of its
involvement in the area is to turn a blind eye
to why the former Soviet Union hasn't suffered
similar attacks.
Most likely reason, the export of Western values
of the United States among them free elections,
free press, and universal suffrage.
> We have bombed and killed innocent civilians in
> Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, among other
> countries. We have supported corrupt
> governments, we have trained terrorists, we
> have starved innocent civilians through
> blockades. The reason we were attacked is
> simple, our foreign policy has been one of
> government sponsored terrorism.
Iraq was a war of that country's government's
choosing, and that government has killed a
hundred times more of its citizens on purpose than
we ever had by accident. Likewise with the civil
wars in the Sudan and Afghanistan.
The only condition on the UN blockade of
Iraq was inspection of stations believed to
be used in the manufacture of chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons. That Sadaam
would rather starve his own people is blood
on our hands?
Also, when the United States goes to war
with these countries it is by will of
the citizens through the democratic process
not by the choice of a radical fringe group.
> We have made enemies in the middle east, it is
> ridiculous to think we could do this without
> one day paying for it.
We've been paying for it for years, this is not
the first terrorist attack on United Stats armed
forces or soil.
> I am in no way supporting what was done, it was
> a horrible horrible act and those responsible
> should be found and punished. But to pretend
> that this was a total surprise, an unprovoked
> incident, and that we are someone morally
> justified for all out government's actions is
> ignorant.
No, you are not supporting the act, but you are
supporting the views of governments who sponsor
and house these terrorists. Too vengeful to use
diplomatic means to settle their points of
contention they sponsor terrorists. Do you
realize the international outcry if Klan members
were supported by the US government to set off
bombs in foreign capitals?
That is a sadly accurate analogy to the state
sponsored terrorism of the Middle East. A group
of zealots that in no why represent the widely
held views of their people perpetuating violence
with the assistance of their government.
In this light can you tell me how attacking these
groups that do us harm and the governments that
support them is not justified?
> Our government has refused to learn from it's
> past actions, and I would hope that this
> incident would finally sink home the point.
> However, it looks like they have again
> completely missed the point and will continue
> to spread the cycle of terrorism and violence.
And you suppose what? We do nothing? Bow to
their demands?
An example has to be made of Bin Laden's group and
the government which allowed them to use their
country as a base. What happens after that is
the question.
If there can be a diplomatic consensus between
the US, EU, and Arabic States that leads to an
end of state sponsored terrorism including
attacks against Israel then the Western countries
could reciprocate making concessions of their own
including the replacement of US troops with a pan
Arab alliance to contain Iraq, US pressure on
Israel to get it back to the negotiations table,
and monetary aid from the IMF to improve the
local quality of life.
I seriously doubt it could work, mainly due to
the continuing animosity in the area.
> Colin Powell condemed whoever did this,
> denouncing anyone who thought that they could
> prove a political point through bombs and the
> killing of innocent civilians. He seems to have
> completely missed the irony of this, that this
> is exactly what our government has been doing
> for decades.
Let me see, there was one security guard in a
Sudanese pharmaceutical plant which may/may not
have been producing chemical weapons. That
was after Bin Laden associates bombed two
US embassies. Other than that would you mind
providing a list? Or is this vague BS like the
rest of your post?
Slashdot Mirror
>What a pile of rubbish.
Nice of you to provide an abstract to your opinion piece.
> Do we want to keep pretending that we were
> attacked because of some cultural hatred? Let's
> face reality for a minute. For the past decade,
> our government has been sticking it's nose all
> over the middle east.
Decade? You have as little a grasp on time as
you do reality. American involvement with the
middle east began in the late 1940s when we
helped execute the UN order which created Israel.
Both the US and the Soviet Union supported local
regimes during the cold war. To say the United
States was a target purely because of its
involvement in the area is to turn a blind eye
to why the former Soviet Union hasn't suffered
similar attacks.
Most likely reason, the export of Western values
of the United States among them free elections,
free press, and universal suffrage.
> We have bombed and killed innocent civilians in
> Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, among other
> countries. We have supported corrupt
> governments, we have trained terrorists, we
> have starved innocent civilians through
> blockades. The reason we were attacked is
> simple, our foreign policy has been one of
> government sponsored terrorism.
Iraq was a war of that country's government's
choosing, and that government has killed a
hundred times more of its citizens on purpose than
we ever had by accident. Likewise with the civil
wars in the Sudan and Afghanistan.
The only condition on the UN blockade of
Iraq was inspection of stations believed to
be used in the manufacture of chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons. That Sadaam
would rather starve his own people is blood
on our hands?
Also, when the United States goes to war
with these countries it is by will of
the citizens through the democratic process
not by the choice of a radical fringe group.
> We have made enemies in the middle east, it is
> ridiculous to think we could do this without
> one day paying for it.
We've been paying for it for years, this is not
the first terrorist attack on United Stats armed
forces or soil.
> I am in no way supporting what was done, it was
> a horrible horrible act and those responsible
> should be found and punished. But to pretend
> that this was a total surprise, an unprovoked
> incident, and that we are someone morally
> justified for all out government's actions is
> ignorant.
No, you are not supporting the act, but you are
supporting the views of governments who sponsor
and house these terrorists. Too vengeful to use
diplomatic means to settle their points of
contention they sponsor terrorists. Do you
realize the international outcry if Klan members
were supported by the US government to set off
bombs in foreign capitals?
That is a sadly accurate analogy to the state
sponsored terrorism of the Middle East. A group
of zealots that in no why represent the widely
held views of their people perpetuating violence
with the assistance of their government.
In this light can you tell me how attacking these
groups that do us harm and the governments that
support them is not justified?
> Our government has refused to learn from it's
> past actions, and I would hope that this
> incident would finally sink home the point.
> However, it looks like they have again
> completely missed the point and will continue
> to spread the cycle of terrorism and violence.
And you suppose what? We do nothing? Bow to
their demands?
An example has to be made of Bin Laden's group and
the government which allowed them to use their
country as a base. What happens after that is
the question.
If there can be a diplomatic consensus between
the US, EU, and Arabic States that leads to an
end of state sponsored terrorism including
attacks against Israel then the Western countries
could reciprocate making concessions of their own
including the replacement of US troops with a pan
Arab alliance to contain Iraq, US pressure on
Israel to get it back to the negotiations table,
and monetary aid from the IMF to improve the
local quality of life.
I seriously doubt it could work, mainly due to
the continuing animosity in the area.
> Colin Powell condemed whoever did this,
> denouncing anyone who thought that they could
> prove a political point through bombs and the
> killing of innocent civilians. He seems to have
> completely missed the irony of this, that this
> is exactly what our government has been doing
> for decades.
Let me see, there was one security guard in a
Sudanese pharmaceutical plant which may/may not
have been producing chemical weapons. That
was after Bin Laden associates bombed two
US embassies. Other than that would you mind
providing a list? Or is this vague BS like the
rest of your post?
Serious how did this moron get modded up to 4?
What? Is there no paranoid loony setting for the moderators?
And why is a post that uses outakes from the national review a troll while a document from a left-wing think tank news?