US Attack

But this is just the clerics, isn't it? This doesn't reflect the ideals of all the arabs does it?

 

no not all the arabs, there are alot who want peace as well, I'm talking about the ones who are taking the ideology too far, definetly the terrorists the masterminds behind it. Sorry if I said something like that before, must have been thinkin faster that writing. Religion is defenetly a powerful weapon in the hands of these fools.
They are using it as a motor aswell

 

Everybody wants to rule the world

Okay, I've skimmed through the majority of posts in this section and have decided to add my own views on the matter. I'm not saying that I am undisputably right - just that this is another way to look at it.

1. The Arabs want to rule the World

According to both the Lucifer Principle and Darwinism EVERY nation/religion has been genetically programmed to try to achieve domination. Darwin's theory suggests (at the most basic level) that we want our genes to not only continue but to also spread. This means eliminating the competition. The Lucifer principal suggests a similar thing but for different reasons (it all stems back to our days as bacteria). Throughout the whole of recorded history various groups of people have tried to convert/destroy other conflicting ideals. Even today every nation tries to work itself into a position where it can have a greater affect on the world. Most have realised that physical warfare is an unfeasable option. However, this doesn't stop them from using other tactics to achieve their goal (such as alliances, "peace keeping" forces, trade embargos etc.) The Arabs are just a little less subtle than the rest.

2. America deserved it

The US did not deserve what happened, but then again no-one ever deserves anything that usually happens to them. The attack was not a case of payback but more a case of making a point. If I was disillusioned with the political set-up of the world and was willing to go to any lengths to make it clear that I was "unhappy", then I too would probably target the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. At the end of the day the main reason it was America that was attacked rather than England or anywhere else is because the most symbolic buildings for capitalism and the Western way of life reside in the US and they do so because the US is the top-dog in World affairs. If this was 1901 then the attack would have been on the Houses of Parliament and the London Stock Exchange.

3. American's are biased towards the US and everyone else hates the US.

Of course American's are biased towards the US! If I had spent my entire life being born and bred in America then I would love America too. Americans are taught to believe that the US is the greatest country in the world. Similarly, the Palestinians are taught to believe in their country, the Islams in their religion etc. People learn to love what they are used to and unfortunately this does lead to ignorance because not only do we become blind to our faults but we also disagree with contrasting ideals. I've been brought up to believe in the English way of life and as a result can find countless things wrong with the American one. For example the English (as a whole) are brought up to believe that patriotism is a ridiculous notion. You stick a flag up in one of our school classrooms and if a pupil hasn't burnt it within an hour the teacher will. Americans (as a whole) are brought up to believe in patriotism and find the idea of NOT loving your country absurd.

4. Osam Bin Laden did it

Maybe. But it's ultimately irrelevant whether he did it or not. Bin Laden's been in Americas top 10 wanted since 1999 and before the attack had reached the giddy heights of number 1. Someone has to be punished for Tuesday's attack and he's as good a person as any. I know the NSA is incredibly powerful but the speed at which they are gathering evidence against him is ridiculous. The attack must have taken at least a year to plan yet they knew nothing about it. 3 days later and they can say with near certainty that it was him. I think it's just as likely that they don't have a clue who did it. The public won't stand for that however so it has to be pinned on someone (and quickly). He's guilty of many other crimes against humanity and he could have done it - why bother looking any harder?

5. George Bush is going to do something silly

I don't know what the general concensus in America is but the rest of the World are seriously worried about your new leader. Its one thing to love your country, its another thing to only briefly acknowledge that anything actually exists outside your borders. (By the way, did you know that George Bush was involved in a cocaine scandal during his 20s?) We were all hoping that his 4 years in office would go by with no major occurences and then he could be replaced by someone a bit more worldly but hey. s**t happens!

 

Once again, it would be good to clearify, not all Arabs, alot of them have saught refuge in the States as well other countries. I believe most just simply want to love, learn, live like anyone else.
Also, here in the States it's taught that only villains seek world domination or to force someone into someone else's beliefs.
Unfortunately, however, here in the States, there are some that can't just simply live and let live.

Amen

Hypothetical prediction:
1.Terrorists successful annihilate America.
2.There's a few years of silence.
3.Attacks start up again on the next biggest super power.
4. World says "Ok, that does it, we've had enough".
5. Genocide takes place.
6. World experiences many following years of peace.

That's nice for everyone else, but not for us here in the States, there would be no resurrection of the US, everyone that made up the US would be long gone. The US wants to make sure that step 1 never takes place.
Not to mention, no one wants to see things get to the point of genocide.

Agreed, it's nice to proud of a concept, but flag waving here in the States gets to the point of arrogance at times. It would almost seems that the majority of the population here are under the impression that we are the only country that wishes for peace and freedom.

Laden deserves a chance to turn his boat around so-to-speak. It would be unfair to punish someone who took no part in this. I believe the US wants the guilty parties only.
However, it's my personal opinion that there's a chance, not so long from now, that the US might be hit with weapons of mass destruction. I would hope that any terrorists found housing such weapons can be caught and dealt with as well, before they are used.

Spouts of war and anger from polticians over here realy scared the piss out of me. Bush so far seems to be keeping a level head, but here in the States it is believed that our presidents are just figureheads and that there are very rich men outside the government calling the shots. It was taught to me by my parents that past wars the US has taken part in were senseless and just design for making a quick buck. I think if Bush were as stupid as I originaly assumed also, bad things would already started happening. The initial response to this catastrophe was fear and anger and the desire to hurt someone realy bad, even now in other forums, I hear a good number of American posters crying out 'let's blow something up!'. Even at the begining of this thread I was irrate and irrational, but time is passing, there has been no retaliation. Civilized dealings are being made with the Middle East as well, from what the news says, the Middle East is being amiable and civil back. I don't think they appreciate terrorism any more than we do, and would assume that the majority of folks in other countries are kind hearted and also wish for peaceful resolve. As goofy as our president is, I have faith that he can see the big picture and will stay rational during a time that many others are crying out for vengance.

 

I think Bin Laden deserves to be taken down regardless of if he was involved in this as well. After all, we know he's responsable for the embassy bombings, most likely involved with the attack on the USS Cole(he's said he was involved, he's also said he wasn't), and we know he was involved in several foiled plots to bomb millenium celebrations.

The man must be taken down.

 

If he's a potential threat, then agreed, he should be at least captured and retained. I don't keep up to date on world events, the only madman that I was aware of was Saddam, then they start flashing pictures of Laden up on the news.
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that US intelligence should have uncovered the WTC plot long before it took place, I agree and that scares me. It seems others feel that this was a little boo-boo that managed to slip through and now everyone can rest assured and sit back easy to coffee and sitcoms once again. I fear that that WTC was just step one in a bigger plot.

 

sure he has to be taken down, but not at the account of the recent US attacks, it would be too easy, to goverment would point out the man responsible, like they always do and say See he is the one and now we kill him all of you good folks of america can go home and be safe. Bullshit, it happens all the time, There is always alot more people involved and more masterminds. They have to find the REAL person responsible and bring him to justice.

 

Welcome to the forum, audiocatalyst!

Those are some interesting points you bring up, and I'd like to respond to them (my, aren't I sounding formal.)

1. I'm not sure about Arabs wanting to rule the world, though I realize this is just your explanation of geo-politics. At its most basic level, well, your views are pretty close to mine. On a related note, most Middle Eastern terrorists' aims are not world domination, but to free the holy land from outside influence, ie get the Jews out of Jeruselum.

2. Yep. If your going to make a "statement", you go for the big dog. And as much as many people apparently don't want to admit, but the US is the top nation in the world. I won't argue "greatest", that's a completely arbitrary term that can neither be proven nor disproven. However, when it comes to the combination of economic prosperity, military might, projection of power, political and personal freedoms, well, no one else comes to mind. We ain't perfect, and I'm sure anyone can argue about any one of those points, but overall, the US is number one. That is why people come to us for help, and why they attack us. (Opposing arguments welcomed.)

3. Excellent point. Didn't know that about the English.

4. Most of us over here that I know and have seen on the news are not making assumptions until we have more information. As to the evidence being gathered: before the attack, our assets were spread about looking into countless areas, spread too thin, if you will. Now, all assets are being utilized to hunt for evidence. From what I understand of police investigations (and that is what is going on now), once you have a place to start, it gets a lot easier. And it seems that the terrorists disguised themselves just enough to get in, but did not cover their tracks, giving investigators good leads. Plus, if cell phone transcripts have the victims describing the attackers as Arabic, and passenger lists give names of bin Ladan associates, that does tend to incriminate him, doesn't it? Note I don't say its overwhelming evidence, but it does point the finger his way.

This does bring up an interesting point--in the US we have a system of law that recognizes that someone is "innocent until proven guilty." Do we attack a person or an organization that we have evidence supporting that they were involved, but cannot absolutely prove unless we get them in a court? And how do we take them to court without sending in armed forces to arrest them, who will of course be resisted?

5. So far from what I've seen, Bush hasn't done anything rash. Ah, the "Bush cocaine scandal." Written by an author that used unnamed sources that claimed that Bush had been arrested for cocaine use and hid the facts. The author committed suicide after being discredited for making that story up. Use your own judgement, if you will, but one of the nice things about the US is the old "innocent until proven guilty" thing. No record of it.

 

Sigh. Saw this in the newspaper this morning.

" 'Arafat is our Osama bin Laden'," Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told US Secretary of State Colin Powell....Israeli officials have concluded they can now act as forcefully as they wish in crushing the armed Palestinian uprising, without having to worry about international calls for restraint. They believe that any tolerance for political violence has dissipated.....were pleased to find that they were able to launch their deepest and deadliest incursions yet into Palestinian territory....without a single complaint from Washington."

And thats the thanks I get for being the lone voice defending them. Don't they realize the opportunity for a peaceful end to the conflict? What, the destruction and devastation wasn't enough? What do they need, a nuke going off in Tel Aviv?

Admittedly, these quotes are from the hawks in the government, and many, such as former Prime Minister Perez are calling for an end to the violence.

But I still feel like banging my head against the wall.

 

Geesh, looking around different forums I'm finding Arabs posting their points of view and they have very good arguments as well.
I'm realy friggin confused and scared, I haven't touched Arcanum in three days.
It's been said on one hand that the Jews are battiling terrorists seeking world domination supressing what would be an otherwise all out attack on the world,on the other the other hand it is said that most Arabs are only looking for a place they can call home and only want peace and are being horribly mistreated, both sides have such strong arguments that I think America should have kept their hands to themselves from the start and let the chips fall where they may, however it would look realy bad if we pulled away now.

 

Wookie7
I really have no pleasure in being right this time but I have to write this. What did I tell you?

BTW Wookie7 you often mentioned US selling guns to both Jews and Arabs. When I wrote about US aiding Arabs I meant especially constant political support and annual no-return (or return-free, don't know which is correct) 3 billion dollars aid US gives to Israel. I learned about this fact when some psycho got into Synagoge or Jewish school (can't remember right now) - anyway some Jews were injured maybe even killed. Shortly afterwards Clinton said that in addition to those 3 billion US will give one more billion of dollars to Israel.

 

I never claimed we didn't give aid to Israel.

Main thing I've been doing is defending the underdog. I've seen lots of posts harshly criticizing the US and Israel, with no background information being given on the subject. Concurrently, many were very sympathetic towards the Palestinian cause.

To me, this seemed unbalanced. I've tried to show the view from the other side.

The gist of the matter is that the Middle Eastern problem is a mess. The conflict encompasses religion, race, economics, political power, and pure population pressure. There is no easy solution.

 

I never meant there is. And it's not that I'd like everything to turn 180degrees so that Palestinians would be powerful and Israel weak. I just don't like it when I hear Israel official stating that killing Jews is bad while at the same time firing rockets, which kill Palestinian civils unasociated with terrorists, and this is good. I'd like everything to calm down and to see them cooperating - which is as probable as me winning a million dollars. Unfortunately there are many aspects to that conflict - which you mentioned. I don't think there is a single person on this planet who is objective about this conflict and knows all about it ie. who was first, what claims each side has, who aided each side, why and when, and many more. Worse still there are fanatics on both sides who probably can't even imagine making concessions.

I just thought it might be so hard for me to understand this conflict as I'm a catholic and this is one of the less rigoristic faiths when it comes to upbringing and relation to other cultures. And most of all I don't have to think everyday whether or not some psycho will kill people I know or myself just because he has things seriously screwed in his head.

 

Sharon's goal is wiping out the Palestinians, plain and simple.

Back in the early 1990s(or late 1980s), he was kicked out of the Israeli military for "indirectly" causing the slaughter of Palestinian civilians.

So, the Palestinians really, really hate the guy, and vice versa.

This recent uprising in the Middle East is directly the result of the actions of Sharon. He picked an Islamic Holy Day, and took 100 troops in riot gear up to Temple Mount and denied Muslim worshippers access to this sacred site.

Naturally, they got ticked off, and started yelling and throwing rocks, so he had the troops open fire on the Palestinians. They used rubber bullets at first, then switched to conventional bullets. Several Palestinians died that day, and many more were wounded.

Now Sharon is the prime minister there. He has unlimited authority over the Israeli military, so he's using it to wipe out the Palestinians.

The really sad thing is how biased our media is towards Israel. We're always hearing about Palestinian suicide bombers blowing up restaurants, or shops, but they rarely mention how many Palestinian homes are bulldozed, how many rockets are fired in to civilian areas by Israel, how many tank advances Israel has made, and so on.

Oh, and Wookie7, Palestine was a British protectorate prior to the Israel Charter in 1947. However, the Palestinians there weren't very happy with the British rule there. They held an uprising in 1936 because the British were setting aside plots of land for Jewish settlers on their land.

The UN charter for Israel was put on the table by the United States and the United Kingdom. The weapons they used in their little independence war at the start were British WW2 weapons that were left there for them, but over the course of the war, the United States gave them weapons as well.

 

You know the crazy part about when Palestine was a British protectorate? Both Palestinians and Jews fought against the British in guerrilla attacks. Separately, of course.

I agree Sharon is part of the problem. Moreover, I believe the Israeli parliamentary system is part of the problem. In order to gain enough of a majority to become the ruling party, all the parties have to court the small minority parties. Some of the key small parties happen to be an ultra-conservative, that demand hardline policies towards all Muslims (no Muslims allowed into country, that sort of thing). If the demands of these small parties are not met, they pull out of the governing faction and the government falls. Its one of the weaknesses of the Parliamentary system--tiny parties can hold the ruling government hostage. Just another of the many problems to overcome before a lasting peace can be implemented.

Personally, I fear that a real peace will not happen until a massive and horrifyingly violent event occurs. It will either cause a religious war of genocide, with no quarter for either side, or shock all sides into peace. I had hoped that what happened this week would be the catalyst for peace in the Middle East, but Sharon's actions so far dishearten me. But there is still time, and I will continue to hope and pray for sanity to break out.

 

Not sure if these are more silly questions that I'm asking, but have to get it out, it helps to talk this garbage out of your system.

1.in regards to the Middle East, Where it stands now, what would be best for the US to do? Stop supporting either side? Support both sides financialy, equaly, but no weapons?

2,Is this 'war on terrorism' going to prove any more effective than our ongoing 'war on drugs'?

3.Is this war on ALL terrorists? Aren't there terrorists in some parts of the world that don't bother with the western world? Wouldn't going after such terrorists just be America playing world cop again and rack up some more unecessary negative attention?

4. Would it be wise for the US leaders to get advice from the rest of the world before acting? I think we realy, realy need it.