[macintologist]

Simple answer: the men who conspired to carry it out.

Since most if not all of them are dead, why is the "war on terror" going to last decades, according to top administration officials?

[MinM]

I shudder to think that are people who view international relations so simplistically, but I will try to answer your question briefly.

The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks did not act in a vacuum, but were rather part of a larger problem that has been ignored for quite some time, and will exist for many years to come. The intricacies of this problem and the factors that led to its creation and maintenance could fill many volumes, but suffice it to say, it has the potential to spread if left unchecked.

[Chuckit]

It's fortunate that while the issue is not simple, it can be solved simply by waging war on third-world dictators.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by MinM

I shudder to think that are people who view international relations so simplistically, but I will try to answer your question briefly.

The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks did not act in a vacuum, but were rather part of a larger problem that has been ignored for quite some time, and will exist for many years to come. The intricacies of this problem and the factors that led to its creation and maintenance could fill many volumes, but suffice it to say, it has the potential to spread if left unchecked.

The man who masterminded the 9/11 attacks was captured in 2003. The 9/11 chapter has been closed for some time now.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by macintologist

The man who masterminded the 9/11 attacks was captured in 2003. The 9/11 chapter has been closed for some time now.

We got Usama Bin Laden? That's great news. How come nobody publicized it?

[analogika]

They're waiting until just before the upcoming elections.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by analogika

They're waiting until just before the upcoming elections.

what is sad is that some on the left actually believes that.

:sigh:

[Millennium]

They may not have acted in a vacuum, but they chose in a vacuum: no one forced them to choose violence, and they could just as easily have not chosen it. This fact is what places the responsibility squarely and solely on their shoulders: the rest is commentary.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

what is sad is that some on the left actually believes that.

:sigh:

What's sad is that some people believe the constant feed of horseshit they're being fed by Preznint Bozo. And yours is an incredibly ironic remark considering all you've been led to believe by the Bozomeister, including the invasion of Iraq having anything to do with the war on terror.

While it's unlikely they have him and will whip him out before the elections, it wouldn't surprise me if it did happen. The whole WoT has been politicized to death (I wish), most distinctly exemplified by Bush's CONSTANT braying on about "they're comin' to gitcha, they're out there and they're a-comin' ta gitcha. Look under yer bed, they could be there, them terrorists are comin' ta gitcha." Up to and including as he made his way to the 9/11 observances today.

He's always claiming his main objective is to "protect the 'merican people", and I'm sure the constant reminders to be afraid help support that, in some people's minds.

Some people are not hungry for substance from their leader because they've literally forgotten what it's like to actually get some. And all that's left to you is to color in his childish, scribbly outlines with all sorts of random colors.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

what is sad is that some on the left actually believes that.

:sigh:

I think parading bin Laden around to win votes would be beyond the pale and for most sheeple in America but you can't deny that the Bushies haven't used the GWOT for political purposes (and yes, I'll concede the same is true for Dems - using the failures of the Bush led GWOT for political purposes).

[NYCFarmboy]

well on trotting OBL out before a election I thought that was supposed to happen 2 years ago?

[analogika]

They luckily had Saddam holed up in some little cave in the ground for that purpose.

[ironknee]

no no no

the bush folks will NOT EVER go after bin laden.

reason is they need a boogyman out there to make us feel insecure...and bush is there to say we can make you safe.

as long as he is out there, americans will let bush take away their rights

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Simple answer: the men who conspired to carry it out.

Since most if not all of them are dead, why is the "war on terror" going to last decades, according to top administration officials?

Simpler than that.



Muslims.

Islam is what is needed to be removed. It's way to dangerous of a hateful, oppressive way of life to be allowed in todays progressive world.

The world has no room for it's hate and tyranny, worshiping some false god and false "prophet".

[jckalen]

Muslims... Islam is what is needed to be removed. It's way to dangerous of a hateful, oppressive way of life to be allowed in todays progressive world.

Yes, because Americans essentially calling for religious genocide are SO much more noble.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

Muslims.

Islam is what is needed to be removed. It's way to dangerous of a hateful, oppressive way of life to be allowed in todays progressive world.

The world has no room for it's hate and tyranny, worshiping some false god and false "prophet".

It's amazing to me to read such openly racist bullsh¡t.

[Mark Larr]

Not racist.

Anti-islamic.

Big difference, but you already knew that.

[analogika]

No.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

Not racist.

Anti-islamic.

Big difference, but you already knew that.

I actually have heard a very similar argumentation before...

Hmmm... Anti-Israel, yet not anti-semetic. Yes that's it.

If people accept that one can be against an idea and not be racist, then being anti-islamic is not racist. It is against an ideology, like being against Israel is anti-Zionism. Not anti-semitism, therefore not racist.

I'd say being anti-islamic or anti-zionist is NOT being racist. It has nothing to do with racism. Tsk tsk people. Mark Larr's opinion is not politically correct in Europe, but then again anti-Israel sentiment is not politically correct in the US.

Either way, neither is racism.

V

[analogika]

Anti-Islamic is the equivalent of anti-Semitic.

That is, by his own words.

You can be anti-Ahmadinejad without being anti-Arab or anti-Islamic. You can be anti-Bush or anti-Republican without being anti-American. You can be anti-Israeli-policy without hating Jews.

But to be anti-Islamic is racism - not in the sense that Muslims are a "race", any more than being Jewish is a "race", but in the sense that it is unadulterated, bigoted prejudice against a billion people for reasons that are as arbitrary as skin color or birthplace or gender or - get this: religion.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by analogika

Anti-Islamic is the equivalent of anti-Semitic.

That is, by his own words.

You can be anti-Ahmadinejad without being anti-Arab or anti-Islamic. You can be anti-Bush or anti-Republican without being anti-American. You can be anti-Israeli-policy without hating Jews.

But to be anti-Islamic is racism - not in the sense that Muslims are a "race", any more than being Jewish is a "race", but in the sense that it is unadulterated, bigoted prejudice against a billion people for reasons that are as arbitrary as skin color or birthplace or gender or - get this: religion.

By his own words he just said 'islam needs to be removed'. This is not racism. I cannot accept that.

Communism has to be removed, is not a racist statement. Whether it has merits or not, whether one agrees with the statement or not... it is not racist.

It is talking against an ideology shared by a group of people who could well share another ideology. No death or extermination of the people is involved.

V

[analogika]

His own word was "anti-Islamic".

And calling for Islam to be eradicated because it is "too dangerous...to be allowed in todays progressive world" sounds ****ing close to an Endlösung, no matter which way you might wish to twist it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Have you ever noticed that liberals are the first to object to free speech?

[DBursey]

I'll very generally apportion my blame thus:

the Wahhabists for providing a joyless, austere ideology;
the Saudis for sheltering, funding and exporting said ideology;
the Madrassas for indoctrinating and radicalizing poor young muslims;
the Pakistanis for allowing the Madrassas in question and for their support of ...
the Taliban, for imposing a particularly brutal, stalinist flavour of wahhabism on long-suffering Afghanis, and for Taliban shelter and support of ...
Al Qaeda; for training and material support; for crowing responsibility for mass murder and for a nihilistic call to violent jihad.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by DBursey

I'll very generally apportion my blame thus:

the Wahhabists for providing a joyless, austere ideology;
the Saudis for sheltering, funding and exporting said ideology;
the Madrassas for indoctrinating and radicalizing poor young muslims;
the Pakistanis for allowing the Madrassas in question and for their support of ...
the Taliban, for imposing a particularly brutal, stalinist flavour of wahhabism on long-suffering Afghanis, and for Taliban shelter and support of ...
Al Qaeda; for training and material support; for crowing responsibility for mass murder and for a nihilistic call to violent jihad.

What else to say but

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by analogika

His own word was "anti-Islamic".

And calling for Islam to be eradicated because it is "too dangerous...to be allowed in todays progressive world" sounds ****ing close to an Endlösung, no matter which way you might wish to twist it.

Hehe you Germans sure make a good safety valve

While certainly appreciated, it must be insanely difficult to feel the need to be the world's conciousness and guilt. Dang.

On topic:

The sentance: "xXxX needs to be eradicated because it is too dangerous", when xXxX is applied to an ideology *is not racist*. It is very far from 'Endlösnung'.. It speaks of the eradication of a destructive ideology - or perceived so, it doesn't matter..

Try replacing xXxX with:

- zionism
- communism
- fascism
- conservatism
- liberalism
- christianity
- judaeism
- islam
- nazism
- religion
etc..

It may be something.. but racism it is not. Prejudice? Bigotry? Xenophobia?

However, it has to be said that in a progressive world no-one's opinion should be silenced. No matter how stupid. You speak of a progressive world yet in some ways we're still so backwards.

I was ashamed to call myself European (and most concerned that such idiocy had taken place) when Austria arrested David Irwing and found him guilty for having a stupid *opinion*. That is scary in a progressive world, never mind what his opinions were.. but that he was arrested and convicted for having them!

I may not agree with his opinios, but I'd die defending his right to voice them. The state should never have the power to silence its citizens. Ever.

V

[analogika]

Originally Posted by DBursey

I'll very generally apportion my blame thus:

the Puritans for providing a joyless, austere ideology;
the Republicans for sheltering, funding and exporting said ideology;
the Sunday schools for indoctrinating and radicalizing poor young Christians;
the Americans for allowing the schools in question and for their support of ...
the IRA, for material support; for crowing responsibility for mass murder and for a nihilistic call to violent war.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Have you ever noticed that liberals are the first to object to free speech?

I'm beginning to notice that. I don't know if they do it intentionally or that they just don't think about it. Those on the left - they're not called liberals over here - are far more prone to direct cencorship and/or imprisonment of individuals because of their private opinions.

V

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Simple answer: the men who conspired to carry it out.

Since most if not all of them are dead, why is the "war on terror" going to last decades, according to top administration officials?

That this thread even got THIS far is proof that there is a grave miseducation that has rooted itself within roughly 50% of our society. I use the word miseducation only because I'm purposefully steering away from "mind-boggling ignorance" or "borderline insanity."

If you cannot recognize that there are thousands, if not millions of radical Muslims that would love to be involved in something similar to 9/11, then you and your type can NEVER be trusted with the security of this nation.

They're not attacking us because their hatred of us is a new thing. As much as it goes against modern liberal indoctrination, George W. Bush is not responsible for the extremist Muslim world hating America. The '93 World Trade Center bombing, the U.S.S. Cole, and the other incidents attributed to Al-Qaeda (below) are obivous proof that this is not a new phenomenon. It is much more likely that they are just now figuring out how to penetrate our seemingly porous defensive barrier (that is mostly imaginary).

From our dear friend, Wikipedia

The first militant attack that al-Qaeda allegedly carried out consisted of three bombings at hotels where American troops were staying in Aden, Yemen, on December 29, 1992. A Yemeni and an Austrian tourist died in one bombing.
There are disputed claims that al-Qaeda operatives assisted in the shooting down of U.S. helicopters and the killing of U.S. servicemen in Somalia in 1993. (see: Battle of Mogadishu)
Ramzi Yousef, who was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (though probably not an al-Qaeda member at the time), and Khalid Sheik Mohammed planned Operation Bojinka, a plot to destroy airplanes in mid-Pacific flight using explosives. An apartment fire in Manila, Philippines exposed the plan before it could be carried out. Yousef was arrested, but Mohammed evaded capture until 2003.
Al-Qaeda is often listed as a suspect in two bombings in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996: the bombing at a U.S. military facility in Riyadh in November 1995, which killed two people from India and five Americans, and the June 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, which killed American military personnel in Dhahran. However, these attacks are usually ascribed to Hizbullah.
Al-Qaeda is believed to have conducted the bombings in August 1998 of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing more than 200 people and injuring more than 5,000 others.
In December 1999 and into 2000, al-Qaeda planned attacks against U.S. and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations; however, Jordanian authorities thwarted the planned attacks and put 28 suspects on trial. Part of this plot included the planned bombing of the Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California, but this plot was foiled when bomber Ahmed Ressam was caught at the US-Canadian border with explosives in the trunk of his car. Al-Qaeda also planned to attack the USS The Sullivans on January 3, 2000, but the effort failed due to too much weight being put on the small boat meant to bomb the ship.
Despite the setback with the USS The Sullivans, al-Qaeda succeeded in bombing a U.S. warship in October 2000 with the USS Cole bombing. German police foiled a plot to destroy a cathedral in Strasbourg, France in December 2000. See: Strasbourg cathedral bombing plot
The most destructive act ascribed to al-Qaeda was the series of attacks in the United States on September 11th, 2001.
Several attacks and attempted attacks since September 11, 2001 have been attributed to al-Qaeda. The first of which was the Paris embassy attack plot, which was foiled. The second of which involved the attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, who proclaimed himself a follower of Osama bin Laden, and who intended to destroy American Airlines Flight 63 and its passengers.
Other attacks ascribed to al-Qaeda and its affiliates:
The Singapore embassies attack plot.
The kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, and numerous bombings in Pakistan.
The El Ghriba synagogue bombing in Djerba, Tunisia, which killed 21.
Foiled attacks on Western warships in the Strait of Gibraltar.
The Limburg tanker bombing.
A November 2002 car bombing in Mombasa, Kenya, and an attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner.
Bombings of Western compounds in Riyadh in May 2003 and other attacks of the Saudi insurgency.
The Istanbul bombings in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2003.

[besson3c]

I'll ask again: at what point are we over-compensating for the threat posed by these terorrists?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Those on the left - they're not called liberals over here - are far more prone to direct cencorship and/or imprisonment of individuals because of their private opinions.

V

Yeah. It's not like Conservative Republicans would violate human rights like that. Ever.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'll ask again: at what point are we over-compensating for the threat posed by these terorrists?

When there is no longer a threat.

[analogika]

There has always been a threat of senseless violence and terror, and there always will be.

Until all humanity is dead.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Yeah. It's not like Conservative Republicans would violate human rights like that. Ever.

Sarcasm noted.. although, I don't see any difference between Democrats and Republicans. To me they're the ultra right party and the super-ultra right party.

They have no equivalent in Europe. They're just *that* much out there. That makes for a very different political spectrum. Here it goes from:

[ultra-left]

communists

green/socialists

social-democrats

centrists

christian conservatives

conservatives

liberals

fascists

[ultra-right]

It's comparing apples to oranges in many ways. At least I can't directly translate the two political parties in the US to European politics

Different values, different history I guess.

V

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Sarcasm noted.. although, I don't see any difference between Democrats and Republicans. To me they're the ultra right party and the super-ultra right party.

Wow...

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Wow...

Yes, and in Europe I'm a right-wing Christian conservative. I'm a downright commie compared to the two major US political parties.

V

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm still in shock that we haven't had another terrorist attack in the last 5 years.

It'll happen, though. And I think next time we'll lose a city.

Gotta figure that the level of the next attack would be higher than the last.

Even that won't be enough of a wake-up call for some Americans.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by DBursey

I'll very generally apportion my blame thus:

the Wahhabists for providing a joyless, austere ideology;
the Saudis for sheltering, funding and exporting said ideology;
the Madrassas for indoctrinating and radicalizing poor young muslims;
the Pakistanis for allowing the Madrassas in question and for their support of ...
the Taliban, for imposing a particularly brutal, stalinist flavour of wahhabism on long-suffering Afghanis, and for Taliban shelter and support of ...
Al Qaeda; for training and material support; for crowing responsibility for mass murder and for a nihilistic call to violent jihad.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'm still in shock that we haven't had another terrorist attack in the last 5 years.

It'll happen, though. And I think next time we'll lose a city.

Gotta figure that the level of the next attack would be higher than the last.

Even that won't be enough of a wake-up call for some Americans.

No smoking pot and posting. You know that. Where's that American can-do optimism?!

V

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by analogika

There has always been a threat of senseless violence and terror, and there always will be.

Until all humanity is dead.

And so, conservatives will have to remain in power until all humanity is dead ... fortunately, with conservatives in power for extended periods of time, that shouldn't take to long.

[Buckaroo]

Although he is not the perpetrator, he has done more damage to this country than anyone else. He and Clinton are the reason we are fighting a war in Iraq. The most shameful part is I voted for this idiot the first time he ran. Never again.

[jckalen]

So... Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton single-handedly created Christianity and western civilization? Neat!

[Sky Captain]

The only redeeming thing Carter did was sign the Superfund into law.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

Simpler than that.



Muslims.

Islam is what is needed to be removed. It's way to dangerous of a hateful, oppressive way of life to be allowed in todays progressive world.

The world has no room for it's hate and tyranny, worshiping some false god and false "prophet".

Is it Muslims or Islam that needs to be removed?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by analogika

It's amazing to me to read such openly racist bullsh¡t.

Isn't that amazing when you consider what an unnamed moderator around here posts.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by DBursey

I'll very generally apportion my blame thus:

the Wahhabists for providing a joyless, austere ideology;
the Saudis for sheltering, funding and exporting said ideology;
the Madrassas for indoctrinating and radicalizing poor young muslims;
the Pakistanis for allowing the Madrassas in question and for their support of ...
the Taliban, for imposing a particularly brutal, stalinist flavour of wahhabism on long-suffering Afghanis, and for Taliban shelter and support of ...
Al Qaeda; for training and material support; for crowing responsibility for mass murder and for a nihilistic call to violent jihad.

You forgot one thing:

the USofA for supporting the Wahhabi Saudis which leads to all of the above.

If you've added that I'd say

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Is it Muslims or Islam that needs to be removed?

Remove Islam, no more Muslims.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Remove Islam, no more Muslims.

And how are you going to remove Islam from the lives of 1-2 billion people?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

Simpler than that.



Muslims.

Islam is what is needed to be removed. It's way to dangerous of a hateful, oppressive way of life to be allowed in todays progressive world.

The world has no room for it's hate and tyranny, worshiping some false god and false "prophet".

Not a fan of freedom of religion, are you?

Can you distinguish between beliefs which you find offensive, and actions that actually harm?

People can hold all sorts of nasty virulent beliefs, and as long as they don't harm someone else by acting on them, I can tolerate it, barely. I don't agree, I protest, I try and present evidence to convince and open eyes, --

Because I believe in freedom over fear.

[Sky Captain]

Islam amd Christianity have managed to remove native cultures and replace it with their own for millenia.
Show them the way to enlightenment and peace is atheism.