Skip to comments.Did the U.S. Contribute in ANY Possible Way to Islamists' Attitudes Prior to 9/11?
Posted on 05/16/2007 1:25:01 PM PDT by dcwusmc
This is a question which requires a lot of thought and introspection. I realize and understand that many of you are pure knee-jerk, but try. Did the United States and the Federal Government in ANY way contribute to 9/11? Were our policies in the mid-east in any possible way factors which allowed a nutjob like Osama Bin Awful to recruit moonbats who were and are willing to die to kill "infidels," whether in the U.S. or overseas? If you say "no,' I ask for clear evidence to back you up. If you say "yes," then to what DEGREE did our policies contribute to 9/11 and subsequent attacks and attempted attacks? Which policies and why?
This is in no way to excuse what happened, of course. But to many of you here, it seems we were pure as the driven snow and 9/11 happened out of thin air and is totally inexplicable in terms of our own government's past actions and policies. Since the roots of it go back to Clinton and beyond (I would say at least to Jimmy the Peanut, myself, perhaps sooner), this does NOT constitute Bush-bashing, as some others are wont to claim (again, a kneejerk reaction).
It is my considered opinion that MANY of our presidents have thought so highly of themselves that they could consider that THEY, alone, held all the answers to all the factionalism and all the troubles in the Middle East. That they could, by virtue of their own personalities and whatever, overcome CENTURIES of fighting, infighting, atrocities and counter-atrocities by all these Arabs and Persians and even the Jews. (It seems that throughout history, MOST societies have scapegoated the Jews for all their ills.) Add the witches' brew of Mohammedanism to an already-backwards culture and we have semi-literate people with hair-triggers who WANT to believe the worst about outsiders, Jew OR Gentile. Then give them even the least bit of fact to bite on and a nutcase like Osama can wind up with scores of thousands of wanna-bee martyrs. And WE fell into that trap. When we took sides in their fratricidal civil wars. Even when we abandoned an "ally" and then allowed him into our country for medical treatment... one group took things one way, another took things THEIR way and now it seems we have the three main sects of that false religion after us.
Let me clarify now that I am a fervent supporter of Israel and the Jewish People, God's Chosen. However, I am NOT a supporter of GOVERNMENT AID to Israel. Besides the very questionable constitutionality of it, the aid comes with, in my opinion, way too many strings which inhibit Israel from mounting a proper defense of herself when needed. Also it gives American presidents, who are already too full of themselves, an arrogance that THEY ALONE can surmount the hatreds and ill wills that drive the Muslim countries to want to see Israel eradicated and all the Jews of the world exterminated.
The main problem as I see it is that if we refuse to look beyond our own prejudices and biases to the FACTS, we will LOSE our country and our culture. If we choose to blindly follow dangerous or misguided or even evil policies and policy makers, we will wind up with NOTHING of the once-free nation handed off to us by the Founders. I even sometimes do it, then I have to actually THINK for myself. Mostly I come down on the side that says that the people who attacked us and who continue to act like a plague upon the land should be wiped slick from the earth. However, I often strongly question the MEANS for doing that... and I question the WILL of the Bushites to WIN the war on terrorists and their sponsoring countries. I also have trouble with the name of this: The Global War on Terror. Terrorism is a TACTIC used by those who are too cowardly to come up against an opposing force on an even footing. It is also SPONSORED by certain nations who would see us done ill, but who want to keep their own hands "clean." Thus, there can be NO "war on terror," and it is the semantics which get in the way of WINNING, because there is no way to determine when or if you HAVE won. This is why I, along with others (including a presidential candidate who shall remain nameless), am convinced that we should have had a declaration by the Congress that specifically stated that a state of war exists between the United States and al-Qaeda, the Taliban and any nation which supports or harbors them. That way we would have mobilized our national resources, went on an actual WAR-footing and committed our country and our people and our resources to WINNING this thing instead of having it now to be used as a political football by the Left and the chickenhawks on the right.
So, in hindsight, COULD we have taken a different path years back that would NOT NECESSARILY have led to 9/11? Or are we as pure as the driven snow and those nutballs just up and decided to attack us because they could get away with it?
We existed. We continued to insist that Israel exist as well. Sometimes that’s all it takes.
They’re still pissed over the USS Constitution beating the Barbary Pirates.
They’re still pissed over the USS Constitution beating the Barbary Pirates.
When we blame America for being America, we've already lost.
At the time of the 9/11 attack, we were spending something like $100 million in Afghanistan trying to improve the life of the people there.
The Dems made Bush jump through hoops to start the war in Iraq. What make this guy think they would authorize full mobilization? Just hindsight at its worst.
What is Islam based on?
Mohammed went into “trances” and fits (like epileptic fits) when he was given the “word of God” and would shout out what he was told. These would be written down by his followers. This is the makeup of the Koran.
When Mohammed was just walking and talking and acting like “normal”, his words and deeds were written down by his followers and this went into the Hadith. Now, acting “normal” for Mohammed was taking 12+ wives (including a 6 year old), taking slaves (including sex slaves), executing infidels, conducting raids for treasure, etc.
Now, this is where it gets complicated.
A large part of the words he spoke in trances were “taken back” by Mohammed. He determined them to be the work of the devil (thus they are called the “Satanic Verses” and these are the same verses that Mr. Salman Rushdie got in trouble for writing about).
Now, how Mohammed determined which verses were from God and which were from Satan I do not know.
Also, there were literally dozens of widely different versions of the Koran and Hadith floating around for several hundred years after Mohammed death until a Fatwah was decreed to destroy all but one version. Now, even Mohammed could not remember what he was told by God and forgot it (those are his words as written in the Hadith) so I do not know how the powers in charge decided which was the correct version.
Also according to the Hadith, Mohammed turned people into monkeys, you can determine a child’s sex depending on whether the male or female has an orgasm first (that advice came directly from the Angel Gabriel), dogs and cats are evil and should be killed, that the devil lives in your nose at night (and how to get rid of him in the morning), chess is forbidden, muslims have one intestine while infidels have seven, dont pray looking up or your eyes will be snatched away, that one wing of a fly is poison but the other is the cure, that drinking camel urine is good for you and I could go on.
And that Mohammed himself didn’t even know if he was going to heaven. If even Mohammed doesn’t know, what chance does the average muslim have?
And for some non-PC info, Mohammed was described as a white man.
Now, if you can bear it, to compare to the Gospels of New Testament.
Jesus was someone who lived a very humble life and was killed for basically saying he was a King and Son of God (blasphemy) by the powers in charge (Roman and Jewish). The government wanted Jesus destroyed and wanted his growing movement destroyed (as it threatened their power). If, after 3 days, the followers of Jesus proclaimed he has risen from the dead, (just as he predicted), and is truly our Savior, the High Officials would have wanted to destroy such a “myth.” They could have easily done this by producing the dead body of Jesus and saying “Your Messiah is still dead and so is your movement” or producing many eye witnesses of the dead Jesus. But they couldn’t.
The letters that make up the New Testament were written by the eye witnesses of the events of Jesus. They were written in just one generation when many other eye witnesses were still alive. They were written without collusion from other Apostles. Even if any of the Apostles wanted to “add” to the “myth” of Jesus, they would have done so in a very disjointed and easily detectable fashion. Yet, the main Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that describe the life of Jesus are amazingly in harmony with one another and the small differences are consistent with what we would see today if four people witnessed a major event and wrote about the event apart from each other. The Gospels can be traced back to their sources and are basically unchanged from their originals.
The Bible is the most investigated historical document in the history of the world. It has been investigated by scientists, philosophers and archeologists using technology undreamed of when the Bible was written. It is been desperately tried to be “disproved” for over 2000 years, yet, the Bible still stands as the truth.
The stories of Jesus still make sense to us today. It may be because they are true, it may be because they are based in love or it may be because they were written to tell the people of the Word of God.
PS - To sum it up. OBL is being a good muslim. He sleeps like a baby every night knowing deep inside he is doing allah’s work - just as all good muslims before him have done.
If Ron Paul says it it must be true, right?
Sounds like a Ward Churchill question.
I say yes but I don’t have the time for a detailed response at this moment.
>>>Did the United States and the Federal Government in ANY way contribute to 9/11?
Yes and no.
Look to rogues with financial agendas.
My Enemy’s Enemy by George Crile
Our approach to the Middle East was flawed, and had been flawed for decades. We took a wrong turn and had we behaved differently, I suspect that 9/11 could have been avoided.
Where we went wrong: Jimmy Carter failed to support the Shah of Iran, we allowed Khomenini to come to power in the Iranian Revolution, and we showed enormous weakness during the ensuing hostage crisis.
We lost our best friend in the region
We gained an implacable enemy
We showed that we were push-overs.
A similar mistake was made in Mogadishu under Clinton.
Had the US responded forcefully and refused to backdown, our enemies would not have gathered the strength to attack us on 9/11. Of course, if Reid and the Democrats can get us to surrender in Iraq, we can expect more of the same in the not so distant future.
Read “Krakatoa” and check out the small section of how in 1883, passive muslums were traveling to Meca and coming back militants.
That’s a possibility... I can’t totally discount it. But I have a strong hunch that there’s more to it. Perhaps it’s that there’s a perception of weakness on our part. I know the planning for this started in the ‘90s, during the clown’s watch. But it COULD have been called off had that perception changed after 2000. Why wasn’t it?
Someone once said that muslims are found only in two places: at your throat or under your heel. There may be more than a germ of truth in that.
At least that’s what Charlie Wilson wanted us to think.
They call us Zionist Crusaders..............must still be pissed about those.
Ron?.. Ron Paul?,,,Is that you?