Indeed. But if it happens again then it wouldn't be an unprecedented situation. That's what I mean about treading "blindly into it again".

And don't assume that this was "full scale". Don't think the terrorists couldn't pull something bigger off in the future. This might be small compared to what they're capable of. The biggest failure of the US security agencies was to ignore warnings and to not appreciate the scale of the threat. If you think this is the thick end of their aresenal you might be sorely dissapointed. And the US can't afford to find out.

yes... but atleast you'll have a solid reason for all the intelligence failures at the FBI with that particular perspective.

------------------
http://www.ecrannoir.fr/stars/actric...es/dalle02.jpg

Hence the War on Terrorism.

And we could all sit here and argue all day about whether the security agencies should have known. And, yes, there were failures. But, I don't really think anyone would have put all those threats together and said "hey, they're gonna hijack our planes, fly them into buildings, and kill thousands of people on 9/11". Actions were planned in July for October...but, October turned out to be too late.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Slunk: YOU are exactly what ALL governments want. People thinking they know the answer and doing absolutely nothing about it. Despite your views, you're always the easiest type of person to manipulate.

I love it when people try and think outside their social status.

------------------
www.mw-dnb.com

You always bring this up, as if discussing politics on a messageboard is somehow negative. The best thing you can do in these situations is spread awareness, cause people to think and question what they're being told... hopefully things will propagate, people will start to educate themselves a little, and a more informed generation will begin to involve themselves in issues they've previously ignored. The average person can't force massive change to take place (except by force...) but sparking an interest in other people's minds is definitely worthwhile.

Right, but what do we have if everyone is aware? People who are educated on the subject but remain passive? That's downright depressing... people being aware (in their opinion) of wrong doing but doing nothing? That's as convenient as possible for an opinionated person looking to justify not acting.

1 person of action is far more powerfull than 1000 persons of thought. Boycott American products, protest your government if they support them, etc etc. As of right now worldwide leaders say "our people arent happy with the US... but obviously they aren't that unhappy because all they're doing is talking"

i need sleep now


------------------
www.mw-dnb.com

Right, exactly... but not everyone's strengths lie in protesting. There are thousands of people in the world who would make great leaders, who would be able to realize a solution to the situation, but may not currently be aware of it - which is why we need to let people know there's more to the world than they're really told... I guess what I'm really trying to say, is that protesting is one thing, but protesting in numbers is something else entirely. I'm nowhere near organized enough to collate information, produce literature etc., but some people definitely are. Sure thought without action is useless, but raising awareness is the first step.

what the fuck? its pretty easy to sit over there and whine about the US....you think someone thought to have making plans to use a radioactive bomb on citizens should be set free?

sometimes i wish we hadnt helped europe out 60 years ago, ungratefull fucking bastards you turn out to be

padilla is being held officially as an "enemy combatant"; they can hold his ass as long as they fucking want

good thread by the way

BlueStar: very impressive

Do you actually feel sorry for the Taliban, one of the most despicable regimes in recent memory? Aside from the fact that they provided refuge and support for al Quaeda (and don't pretend that you don't know that) they were incredibly oppressive
relegating half of the population of Afghanistan to virtual slavery. We did the world a great service by ending the Taliban's reign.


------------------
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mledrew/kid.jpg

I hope you know a strong man who can lend you a hand lowering my casket.

when did i say that? when did i imply that?
you shouldn't jump to conclusions so easily

you DIDN'T help europe, you helped yourselves - as always...

the second world war started in september 1939, for the record

oh and grow up

I think what he was saying, was that the whole 'War on Terrorism' (and the 9/11 tragedy) became this vehicle for the US to pursue their own interests abroad, even more agressively. Sure the Taliban were a despicable regime - but that wasn't the reason they were deposed. It was a happy side-effect.

no, i don't feel sorry for the taliban

but i do wonder if the afghan regime was so terrible why did the US not act earlier in deposing it?

perhaps it was not politically expedient to do so..oh yes, that's it

you beat me by several seconds, but thankyou...that is exactly what i meant http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

When the U.S. set out on its "war on terrorism", the U.S. stated that it was out to get the terrorists and any nations that harbor them, provide support for them, etc., etc. The Taliban was providing a "safe harbor" for Al-Qaida (side note: how the hell do you actually spell Al-Qaida...it seems like every media outfit is spelling it differently...this is how it is spelled at msnbc.com).



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

oh, that must not have been the us that went to europe to help them fight my bad, yeah thousands of americans didnt die on european soil jeez how the fuck can i be so stupid.

ill grow up, fuck it...just let all of the suspect terrorists go they have rights you know!

here ill grow up again.."fuck the usa, they are evil!!! i know more than anyone about what the USA wants because i am so young and intelligent. i know exactly what goes on behind the scenes. i know that the usa is a bully and they bring me down man!!"


and just for the record...what did britain do when the germans made war on their soil? did they fight back rigth away or did they have an investigation just to make sure they were fighting the right bad guys?

what would britain do today if 3 planes crashed into heavy populated civilian areas? would they fight back? would they ask for help form the US? would they do nothing?

what would any country do in this situation?

1)The Taliban regime was a fairly recent thing.

Quote:

The Taliban movement was formed in Kandahar in 1994 by Islamic students who take a radical approach to interpreting Islam. The Taliban captured Kabul in September 1996 from Mujaheedin regime. The government of Burhan-ul Din Rabani ousted. The Taliban government in Kabul has been recognized only by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Republic. The Taliban regime strongly have been supported by Pakistani military regime. Anti-Taliban factions still hold about 15 percent of the country in the northern parts of Afghanistan. The United Nations and other international communities condemn the Taliban regime because of its violation of human rights, particularly restrictions of women from outside work and freedom. On October 10, 1999, the United State government declare political and economical sanction against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan because of holding and supporting Saudi billionaire Ben Laden. October 25, 1999, Taliban offer talks between Afghanistan and the US Government including the future of Osma bin Laden. October 28, 1999. Saudi Millionaire declared his desire to leave Afghanistan November, 5, 1999: Bin Laden likely stay in Afghanistan

2)The Taliban was not ever the "official" government of Afghanistan.

3)The U.S. cannot just go charging in unprovoked. There is a "system" for creating change. There has been a fight against the Taliban from the very beginning. Non-profit organizations and other organizations and groups were doing what they could (i.e. lobbying Congress and the UN, etc., etc., etc.). Things don't get done overnight. And the U.S. and UN were doing things (i.e. sanctions, etc., etc.)



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Come to the U.S. for help (financial and military) and then do the same thing we're doing.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

here's an analogy for you: it should illustrate my point...

if the IRA bombed a target in mainland britain (as they have done many times before) does the UK government then go and carry out a sustained military attack on Northern Ireland/Eire (where many terrorists are thought to live)

NO, because that would be stupid and would kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people...

and here's another for you. suppose a US citizen was accused of committing an act of terrorism on Iraqi soil. assuming that the US government didn't hand over the suspect, as i'm SURE they wouldn't, would you be happy if the Iraqi military starting attacking mainland america?

cos it's an EVIL regime right?

do you think the average arab thinks their government is evil? or do you think that they think the US government is evil instead? it's an entirely subjective word; you're just as suspectible to propaganda as everyone else....arab or otherwise

since when did economic sanctions depose of an 'evil' regime?!

the fact is as soon as 9/11 came and went, the US didn't up the sanctions, it started bombing stuff; big time.

It's all about scope. The U.S. has been the victim of terrorist attacks before (i.e. bombings of U.S. embassies, etc., etc.). The attacks of 9/11 were different. I admit, I'm no history buff when it comes to terrorist attacks. But, I cannot think of any terrorist attack in recent history that compares to that of 9/11.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

so what you're actually saying is that bombing an innocent country and its people is justified because lots of people were killed on 9/11? that's absurd...

if 9/11 had went badly from the al qaeda prespective and only 5 people were killed, should there not have been US military retaliation? that's equally absurd, the crime was the same...

Sanctions are a step. An accepted and common step taken by the U.S. and other UN nations. Disposing of a regime involves a series of steps.

No shit. Of course the U.S. started bombing. A terrorist attack of that enormity on U.S. soil is not something that warrants more sanctions. That's just ridiculous.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

No. There still would have been a military action (just like the actions taken by the U.S. during previous terrorist attacks), but it would not have been as large.

Ummm...and the U.S. and the people who died on 9/11 were not innocent????????



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

the point i'm trying to make is that the US made a hald-assed pointless attempt to get rid of the taliban before 9/11.

it only made any effort to get rid of it AFTER 9/11- yet all the time it was evil

this is a form of hypocrisy

Bin Laden and Al-Qaida attacked the U.S. (one of the worst attacks in U.S. history). Bin Laden and Al-Qaida were operating out of Afghanistan. Afghanistan and the Taliban regime were harboring and supporting Bin Laden and Al-Qaida. Thus, Afghanistan was not an innocent country!


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

No. It was a form of obeying international law. The U.S., nor any other member of the UN, could attack Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power without provocation.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

It's an Arabic name, so there isn't an official spelling with Roman characters...

The point is, you're just reiterating the official line. Yes, that was the reason they gave for invading Afganistan. But if the US has such a strong opinion on terrorism, why send military aid to the contras in Nicaragua? Why allow Indonesia to decimate the population of East Timor? Why bomb Serbian cities and kill thousands of civilians? The US basically does whatever the hell it likes, ignores the rules when it suits them, acts in favor of its own interests and puts a shiny facade on it for the media. Besides, if you look at the techniques used in terrorism, they very easily apply to counter-terrorism. Are the Chechnyans evil terrorists fighting Russia, or are they genuinely trying to attain freedom for their country? When the Kurds were being terrorized in Turkey, can that be considered Counter-Terrorism because the government was responsible? These things are never clear-cut, yet every country in the world with political unrest is jumping on the bandwagon - "Hey yeah, me too! War on Terrorism! If you're not with us, you're against us! Who wants to come crush some dissidents?!"

so you're admitting to a direct relationship between number of people killed and size of retaliation; you're digging a hole for yourself here cos that sure as hell sounds like revenge, not justice...

no, they WERE innocent, but two wrongs doesn't make a right

in all seriousness, and i know you know this BlueStar, international law is a crock of shit; no enforcement mechanism, no internationally recognized supreme court, etc

as i think someone mentioned earlier, the US takes every opportunity to disobey international law


oh and while i'm on my soapbox the whole idea of "precedant" is just a bullshit conservative copout