Fighting for MY Freedoms?

[Auteur]

Yes, I like satire. Western Whites developed virtually all modern weapons.

Actually, gunpowder and guns originated in China. They tended to use such more for firework displays. The technology migrated to Europe, where they tended to use the fireworks on each other. Hmm, does that mean they were more primitive?

So too with the compass (China), the lateen sail (Arabs), the helicopter (Russians), and endless other examples that take us up to today, when US astronauts need Russian facilities to get to and from the space station, and all manner of weapons systems are manufactured all over the world, not only in "white" countries.

The simple gun made all other swords, clubs, and other edged weapons obsolete. Guns are a kinder, gentler weapon than using ancient weapons to bash-in or split open enemies. Western colonialists were able to basically walk over Stone Age cultures all over the planet. Just because it wasn't a fair fight does not let the Sone Age peoples off the hook. They were doing the same thing to each other, holding and gaining territory through warfare long before the Whites came along. Given the "savage" behavior of Zulus, Aztecs, Yaquies, Arabs, Mongols, etc., etc....Ancient Europeans like the Vikings were far less brutal in most cases. The Western code of Honor was the basis of the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention...violated how many times during white on white conflict? Hint- it's more than you can count on your fingers and toes.

Now if you go to college at some intolerant, liberal instiution like UC Berkeley, DON'T bring any of the following up in any class or face crucifiction and bad grades. It is taboo in such liberal cultures:

From the best data available, an objective person knows that hereditiy is the main influence on what a person's IQ, personality and behavior will develop into. I'd say heredity is at least 80% of it. There are no "Tarzan Studies" with Whites being raised by anything but some Native Americans as small children, but there are others:

Minnesota Twin Family Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Twins reared apart:

In 1979, Thomas Bouchard began to study twins who were separated at birth and reared in different families. He found that an identical twin reared away from his or her co-twin seems to have about an equal chance of being similar to the co-twin in terms of personality, interests, and attitudes as one who has been reared with his or her co-twin. This leads to the conclusion that the similarities between twins are due to genes, not environment, since the differences between twins reared apart must be due totally to the environment

Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both Levin (1994) and Lynn (1994) argued that the data clearly support a hereditarian alternative: that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees

The meat of the last study showed that Black children adopted by two very intelligent White parents only moved their average IQ's of 85 to about 91. Whites avg 100.

A little thought experiment for you Mr S: You are born with a Confederate flag tatooed to your forehead. You can't get it off. When people look at you, they tend to have a judgement. This is bad enough in the swamp, but ma and pa also travel to places like San Fransisco, and New York. People there have a definite reaction. The more enlightened and educated realize this is just a tatoo, and it is very unlikely you put it there yourself. Unfortunately for your young and impressionable mind, there are others of a more simplistic constitution, who believe that what you see is what you get. No point in thinking much more deeply about it than that. Your flag indicates your behavior and intelligence. Action begets reaction, and soon your young life is full of animosities and resentments for the treatment you have received. In later life, you may be a bit more philosophical about this, but in your teens and 20's, with hormones exploding, negative consequences occur.

Get the picture? Blacks have a tatoo also- one they can't take off. It affects there interactions with others (well, some others....) It's called environmental influences, and it is what is missing from your so called "studies".

If intelligence is inherited, so it personality and tendancies toward violent behavior. Yes Whites like all other peoples have been brutal in wars over the years, but how violent have they been to each other Lately? Is the IRA fighting in Northern Ireland the best anyone can come up with in the last 60 years?

You are at least keeping your sense of humour here Mr S. Have you forgotten that your own country has just finished rampaging through two countries?

Keep in mind that Ecomonics, Sociology and Psycology are not pure sciences. Not like Mathmatics where 1+1 always equals 2, they are very, very subjective and politically influenced.

 

[numan]

If you want to compare a territory that is in rough and preliminary stages of its infancy, why don't we have a look at the "white" folks in the US, in the 1770's and 1780's. The united empire loyalists (perhaps a third or more of the population), where beaten, robbed, killed, raped, and expelled. Why? They were perceived, at the time, to belong to another tribe, with different loyalties. Sounds almost like Africa, doesn't it? Of course, these are things you will not find in an American text.

You're darned tootin'!! It is a rare American who can look objectively at the Insurrectionary Terrorists of the Continental Congress (which would be beter compared to a meeting of Mafiosi dons dividing up territories for their criminal activities). These sinister "Founding Fathers" would never have been successful without the aid of France, a meddling European country -- just as African countries have suffered misrule by their worst elements due to outside meddling by Neo-Colonialst exploiters.
.

 

[sambino510]

A Taliban soldier killed by an Apache gunship holds no bearing on my personal life as far as I'm concerned.

That's because your mental and moral limitations are quite severe.

If my moral compass keeps me from celebrating the death of ANY human being, even my so-called enemies, then I fail to see how that could be classified as "limited". Limited in my mind are those who are only concerned with their supposed friends or comrades and not with the human race as a whole.

Nor does it reflect a lack of intelligence, as you continue to claim. Our strategies to end the violence aren't working; they're perpetuating the problem. Forgive me if I feel a change is in order, one where positive energy combats negative energy and fire doesn't fight fire.

 

[sambino510]

From what I can figure out, you are from a Commonwealth country---likely the UK. The most rabid anti-gunners in the political forums seem to come from there. I don't see anyone defending your feelings that there are no bad people, only bad guns.

Once again, you are forced to mix in "gun deaths" like with suicides to validate your views on public safety. If I was as concered about other people killing themselves as you, I wouldn't ever visit Japan, which has almost no privately owned guns, and vastly more suicides than anywhere else. Since so many people kill themselves by falling off buildings, I would not want to take the chance of walking down the street in Tokoyo and having a suicidal person land on me. The risk of that happening would be far greater than for me getting shot by a stray bullet from a suicide attempt down the street in the US.

Here is the latest comprehensive look at worldwide crime ( I know you won't look at it, but here it is anyway):

http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobt...tion&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

Look at Figure 1 page 10. As you see all the Black African regions are at the top of world homocide rates.

Figure 2 shows how so much of Africa is so jacked-up that there are no police or government agencies to record any of the killings in most of them.

Figure 3 shows that all but the northern Arab areas of the Africa have so many murders compared to Figure 4 in Western Europe, that they make the murders in W. Europe seem insignificant. Somalia is considered the most dangerous country on earth and any outsider going there is often kidnapped or killed. Most of Africa has no 911 emergency service or police force around.

Figure 5 pg 15 show what I already told you that there are about twice as many homocides per person in the UK as there is in Switzerland.

Now if what you are saying is true that people or ethnic groups CAN'T inherit violent tendancies, personalities or intelligence, then the brain would have to work by magical powers outside of how the rest of the body does.

The human brain would always be born as a blank slate, only, and only the enviornment can have an influence on a person then. Geniuses could only be nurtured, not born if what you say is true.

To prove your point, right after birth, a baby of the Aboriginals (with about the lowest IQ's of any group) could be adopted and raised by the best and brightest and could be trained to be anything they deisred.

You see, any baby can be a genius like Mozart and compose music by age 5 with the right teachers and parents. Any baby of any race could also be an Iassic Newton, Thomas Edison or Steve Jobs.

Oh, and BTW Barak is only half Black---try another example please.

I doubt peoples' concern about people committing suicide has to do with the fact that they're worried about them falling on them. Maybe a bit of sarcasm in your statement, I'm not sure. Forgive me if I've missed the point.

I'd be curious to see scientific, biological differences between Black, White, Asian, and other races that could support your findings. The statistics you list,accurate or inaccurate I do not know, have all sorts of influences, none of them necessarily reflecting a natural inclination for African people to live more violent lives. They have an infinite number of influences; upbringing, culture, and yes environment come to mind.

If we are to look at the world from your statistics' perspective, where white, Western countries have less killings, then I don't see how that explains the white barbarians from hundreds of years ago. Wouldn't they naturally exhibit less of a tendency towards violent behavior than their black counterparts? Maybe I'm going to deep with this, but there's all sorts of examples of white people committing violent acts, from the British empire and Spanish Armada to the Napoleonic Wars, NONE of them necessarily biological.

I believe it's true that, on average, most brains are indeed some sort of blank slate to a degree. Then a family's upbringing, or lack there of, as well as culture trains them in various ways and teaches them different behaviors. I have no degree in science, but this seems rather logical. The method of measuring skulls for brain capacity and all that nonsense is, I hope, a thing of the past. Any person of any race is capable of any thing with the right environment and lifestyle.

Yes, I like satire. Western Whites developed virtually all modern weapons. The simple gun made all other swords, clubs, and other edged weapons obsolete. Guns are a kinder, gentler weapon than using ancient weapons to bash-in or split open enemies. Western colonialists were able to basically walk over Stone Age cultures all over the planet. Just because it wasn't a fair fight does not let the Sone Age peoples off the hook. They were doing the same thing to each other, holding and gaining territory through warfare long before the Whites came along. Given the "savage" behavior of Zulus, Aztecs, Yaquies, Arabs, Mongols, etc., etc....Ancient Europeans like the Vikings were far less brutal in most cases. The Western code of Honor was the basis of the Geneva Convention.

Now if you go to college at some intolerant, liberal instiution like UC Berkeley, DON'T bring any of the following up in any class or face crucifiction and bad grades. It is taboo in such liberal cultures:

From the best data available, an objective person knows that hereditiy is the main influence on what a person's IQ, personality and behavior will develop into. I'd say heredity is at least 80% of it. There are no "Tarzan Studies" with Whites being raised by anything but some Native Americans as small children, but there are others:

Minnesota Twin Family Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Twins reared apart:

In 1979, Thomas Bouchard began to study twins who were separated at birth and reared in different families. He found that an identical twin reared away from his or her co-twin seems to have about an equal chance of being similar to the co-twin in terms of personality, interests, and attitudes as one who has been reared with his or her co-twin. This leads to the conclusion that the similarities between twins are due to genes, not environment, since the differences between twins reared apart must be due totally to the environment

Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both Levin (1994) and Lynn (1994) argued that the data clearly support a hereditarian alternative: that the mean IQ scores and school achievement of each group reflected their degree of African ancestry. For all measures, the children with two black parents scored lower than the children with one black and white parent, who in turn scored lower than the adopted children with two white parents. Both omitted discussion of Asian adoptees

The meat of the last study showed that Black children adopted by two very intelligent White parents only moved their average IQ's of 85 to about 91. Whites avg 100.

If intelligence is inherited, so it personality and tendancies toward violent behavior. Yes Whites like all other peoples have been brutal in wars over the years, but how violent have they been to each other Lately? Is the IRA fighting in Northern Ireland the best anyone can come up with in the last 60 years?

Keep in mind that Ecomonics, Sociology and Psycology are not pure sciences. Not like Mathmatics where 1+1 always equals 2, they are very, very subjective and politically influenced.

Once again we are obviously very far apart on our world view and view of race, and that's fine. I doubt you will be convinced that all races are biologically equal, or that I'll be convinced that they're not. I still appreciate the debate. Your point that white people have not done anything violent in the past 60 years is both irrelevant and untrue in my opinion. It's irrelevant because no matter what time of history a race commits violent acts, it still proves that psychologically they are capable of it. It's untrue because there are indeed wars like the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. that are all demonstrations of white violence, no matter what our purposes behind it were. What stands out to me was the Vietnam war, where soldiers would raid villages like My Lai and burn them down, rape the women, and kill most of the villagers. That sounds like pretty violent behavior to me, and that was only 50 years ago.

If a black child is adopted by white parents, that doesn't mean they are A. good parents or B. he is necessarily in an environment to learn and improve. You can't put a tax attorney and a pharmacist together and say they're automatically going to produce a good child.

In my opinion IQ is just as "subjective" as the other sciences you state, and is not at all an omniscient factor when trying to judge someone's intellectual ability. Your theory that these sciences are influenced by political factors, though not necessarily untrue, seems a little paranoid. If we are to assume they are influenced by politics, I would argue it's many more sciences than just those few.

Whether my perspective is right or yours is, I fail to see how it's productive to speak of certain races as superior or inferior to others. It's divisive and it's the Old World's way of thinking. Whether it was slaves in the field or the Chinese building our railroads, white people have always looked at these other races as inferior savages, who were at best disciplined and obedient enough to help us build up our country. If there is any proven, universal biological science to prove to me that some races are inferior, I would probably choose to ignore it, and continue viewing them all as equals in order to promote more unity. Otherwise, we're absolutely destined to repeat the same mistakes of the past.

 

[Mushroom]

According to Osama bin Laden, the reasons for the 9/11 attack were (1) our support of Israel, and (2) the presence of an American military base smack in the middle of Mecca.

Yea, and according to Der Paper Hanger, the Jews in Germany and Europe were slaughtered because of their crimes as a parasitic race that destroyed others.

Should we take that serious as well?

And no, there is and was no military base in Mecca. His major attack at the only significant US military base in Saudi Arabia was at Khobar, which is all the way on the opposite side of the country.

https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=...O_oOehJPjHRqrbYEoh37w&oq=mecca&mra=ls&t=m&z=6

 

[numan]

To prove your point, right after birth, a baby of the Aboriginals (with about the lowest IQ's of any group) could be adopted and raised by the best and brightest and could be trained to be anything they deisred.

You ignorant racist, aboriginals of Papua New Guinea have already earned PhDs in nuclear physics !!

Someone like you is not worthy to shine their shoes !!

.

 

[sambino510]

According to Osama bin Laden, the reasons for the 9/11 attack were (1) our support of Israel, and (2) the presence of an American military base smack in the middle of Mecca.

Yea, and according to Der Paper Hanger, the Jews in Germany and Europe were slaughtered because of their crimes as a parasitic race that destroyed others.

Should we take that serious as well?

And no, there is and was no military base in Mecca. His major attack at the only significant US military base in Saudi Arabia was at Khobar, which is all the way on the opposite side of the country.

https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=...O_oOehJPjHRqrbYEoh37w&oq=mecca&mra=ls&t=m&z=6

Though I too would disagree with a base in Mecca, as I've never heard of that, I think it would be fair to say that Bin Laden's home country of Saudi Arabia is in the back pocket of the U.S. I personally am not familiar with specific statistics, but I would be curious to know how many soldiers are stationed there altogether now, or how many there were in the 90s. Either way, I can see how that might irk him a bit.

Our support of Israel can piss off any number of people.

I think another reason is our abandonment of Afghanistan after they finished defeating the Russians in the 80s. We promised all sorts of infrastructural improvement and then simply forgot about them once the job was finished. Osama Bin Laden was one of these rebels fighting in Afghanistan, and I'm sure did not forget this.

This all being said, I would never say there is a justification for killing other humans. However, a man's reasoning behind his actions is still a factor to be taken into account. I don't think Osama Bin Laden cared about a single one of the Americans in the World Trade Center personally, but rather saw the building as a symbol of a country he had come to hate. He thought that destroying it would set off a major chain of events that would change the world forever. And he was right. Terrorism isn't about killing the most people possible. Whether you can kill one, a hundred, or a thousand, it's the after effects that matter.

I state once more that however much we wanted to stop these people and hunt them down around the globe, it is our response itself that has lost the War on Terror. They wanted us to go rampaging through the Middle East, they wanted us to live in fear and have our backpacks searched at all major parades and other events. They wanted us to not be allowed to bring large liquids on planes. I don't agree with any particular part of their ideology, but I still think their successful attack on 9/11 had a profound psychological effect, on all of us. I say once again that the only way to defeat these people is in the mind.

 

[numan]

I don't think Osama Bin Laden cared about a single one of the Americans in the World Trade Center personally, but rather saw the building as a symbol of a country he had come to hate. He thought that destroying it would set off a major chain of events that would change the world forever.

Don't be so ready to join the mass-media driven stampede that "shocked and awed" the unthinking, brainwashed sheeple in America. What real evidence is there that a handful of Islamic fanatics pulled off that job?

There is better evidence that it was a "black operation" by a traitorous cabal inside the American government. Study the ACTUAL EVIDENCE on both sides and make up your own mind.

You can start on the "Conspiracy" forum on this very site -- if you can ignore the tendentious, emotional red herrings of the trolls, and just look at the real facts.
.

 

[sambino510]

I don't think Osama Bin Laden cared about a single one of the Americans in the World Trade Center personally, but rather saw the building as a symbol of a country he had come to hate. He thought that destroying it would set off a major chain of events that would change the world forever.

Don't be so ready to join the mass-media driven stampede that "shocked and awed" the unthinking, brainwashed sheeple in America. What real evidence is there that a handful of Islamic fanatics pulled off that job?

There is better evidence that it was a "black operation" by a traitorous cabal inside the American government. Study the ACTUAL EVIDENCE on both sides and make up your own mind.

You can start on the "Conspiracy" forum on this very site -- if you can ignore the tendentious, emotional red herrings of the trolls, and just look at the real facts.
.

I suppose I'm not that big of a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean those theories aren't true, but it seems to me that there is ample evidence that 9/11 was done by a bunch of Al Qaeda Saudis led by Bin Laden. Sure, I suppose it's possible that the government or whoever did it and that Al Qaeda is simply taking credit for it, but I don't see the reasoning behind that at all. As messed up as our government can be at times, killing 3,000 people simply to justify a war in the Middle East seems a little elaborate.

 

[numan]

I suppose I'm not that big of a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean those theories aren't true, but it seems to me that there is ample evidence that 9/11 was done by a bunch of Al Qaeda Saudis led by Bin Laden. Sure, I suppose it's possible that the government or whoever did it and that Al Qaeda is simply taking credit for it, but I don't see the reasoning behind that at all. As messed up as our government can be at times, killing 3,000 people simply to justify a war in the Middle East seems a little elaborate.

Oh, how naive and trusting you are, Sambino!!

You had better look at that "ample evidence" again!! You will find that, upon close inspection, it evaporates like dry ice!!

"Al Qaeda is taking credit for it" Really? Does Al Qaeda even exist -- other than as a CIA Potemkin Village to scare the rubes?

"Killing 3,000 people simply to justify a war seems a little elaborate."

You had better read a little history of the past hundred years. Over and over, millions of people have been killed to make profits for interested parties.

.

 

[Auteur]

According to Osama bin Laden, the reasons for the 9/11 attack were (1) our support of Israel, and (2) the presence of an American military base smack in the middle of Mecca.

Yea, and according to Der Paper Hanger, the Jews in Germany and Europe were slaughtered because of their crimes as a parasitic race that destroyed others.

Should we take that serious as well?

And no, there is and was no military base in Mecca. His major attack at the only significant US military base in Saudi Arabia was at Khobar, which is all the way on the opposite side of the country.

https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=...O_oOehJPjHRqrbYEoh37w&oq=mecca&mra=ls&t=m&z=6

It may surprise you to know that before the '60s, Americans had generally good relations with the Arab world, and the idea of a clash between the two would have seemed highly unlikely. So what happened? Did a number of psychopaths suddenly rise up out of nowhere and target Americans? Some significant events did happen, and they caused huge resentments in that part of the world. The obtuseness of many Americans to anything that does not paint their country as ideal is one of the reasons for the ongoing threat of extremists. When other countries engage in double dealing and geopolitical hardball, Americans can be outraged, yet when their own government does so, they can't or won't see it. Those at the butt end do see it though, and suffer the effects.

 

[sambino510]

I suppose I'm not that big of a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean those theories aren't true, but it seems to me that there is ample evidence that 9/11 was done by a bunch of Al Qaeda Saudis led by Bin Laden. Sure, I suppose it's possible that the government or whoever did it and that Al Qaeda is simply taking credit for it, but I don't see the reasoning behind that at all. As messed up as our government can be at times, killing 3,000 people simply to justify a war in the Middle East seems a little elaborate.

Oh, how naive and trusting you are, Sambino!!

You had better look at that "ample evidence" again!! You will find that, upon close inspection, it evaporates like dry ice!!

"Al Qaeda is taking credit for it" Really? Does Al Qaeda even exist -- other than as a CIA Potemkin Village to scare the rubes?

"Killing 3,000 people simply to justify a war seems a little elaborate."

You had better read a little history of the past hundred years. Over and over, millions of people have been killed to make profits for interested parties.

.

I assure you, though I'm not quite on the same level as yourself, I'm very skeptical of all media and our government in general, probably moreso than the average person. I'm also very aware of the nefarious actions of our government and the governments of the past. Thus, I get a bit frustrated when people consider me naive or out of touch with reality; that's not the case. I also have read a lot of history, and know that many people have been killed to promote political interests, just for the record.

I'm obviously not intelligent enough to understand how the evidence that Al Qaeda was behind the attack is fabricated, so could you attempt to explain it to me? I'm once again not claiming you're wrong, I just simply don't understand that point of view and am looking for a bit of clarification.

 

[numan]

'

I am heartened by your words, Sambino, they indicate that you have not been entirely taken in by the brainwashing endemic in the USA.

Just remember, no matter how bad you think the government -- and the people controlling it -- are, the truth and the reality is that they are far worse than you can even conceive.

.

 

[MikeK]

According to Osama bin Laden, the reasons for the 9/11 attack were (1) our support of Israel, and (2) the presence of an American military base smack in the middle of Mecca.

Yea, and according to Der Paper Hanger, the Jews in Germany and Europe were slaughtered because of their crimes as a parasitic race that destroyed others.

Should we take that serious as well?

By the time the Allied armies brought an early end to the proposed Thousand Year Reich Europe was running out of Jews and the popular claim is those Nazis had managed to wipe out millions of them. So evidently they took their motivation rather seriously. Why shouldn't we?

And if the U.S. had taken bin Laden's 1998 admonition seriously, withdrew our support of Israel and removed our military base from the Islamic Holy Land, the World Trade Center would still be standing and there would be 3,000 more Americans enjoying their lives.

And no, there is and was no military base in Mecca. His major attack at the only significant US military base in Saudi Arabia was at Khobar, which is all the way on the opposite side of the country.

(Excerpt)

Since Saudi Arabia houses the holiest sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina) — many Muslims were upset at the permanent military presence. The continued presence of US troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia was one of the stated motivations behind the September 11th terrorist attacks[1] and the Khobar Towers bombing. The date of the 1998 United States embassy bombings was eight years to the day (August 7) that American troops were sent to Saudi Arabia.[2] Bin Laden interpreted the Prophet Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia".

United States withdrawal from Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Close)

I'm neither inclined to or academically capable of arguing about the geography of the Islamic Holy Land, which I am content to think of as Mecca. The fact remains our military presence there pissed off the Muslims and was in part the motivation for the 9/11 attack.

 

[MikeK]

Though I too would disagree with a base in Mecca, as I've never heard of that, I think it would be fair to say that Bin Laden's home country of Saudi Arabia is in the back pocket of the U.S. I personally am not familiar with specific statistics, but I would be curious to know how many soldiers are stationed there altogether now, or how many there were in the 90s. Either way, I can see how that might irk him a bit.

I can't tell you how many troops we had installed in the Islamic Holy Land of Saudi Arabia (commonly referred to as Mecca) but you probably can find out via Google. I can assure you we did have an air base there which we promised to remove immediately after Operation Desert Storm, which we not only failed to do but proceeded to expand and gradually increase the number of personnel.

It also will interest you to know that shortly after learning who was responsible for the 9/11attack Bush quietly removed the offending bin Sultan airbase from Saudi Arabia and he pressured Arial Sharon to remove the offending settlements from the Gaza region. Those were the two demands bin Laden had repeatedly made during the end of Clinton's term and the beginning of Bush's.

While Napolitano will assuringly claim the TSA-type Homeland Security extremes and NSA surveillance programs are protecting us, it was Bush's action in removing the airbase and inducing Sharon to remove the expanding Gaza settlers (at U.S. expense) which accounts for why there have been no major terrorist attacks against us since 9/11.

 

[sambino510]

Though I too would disagree with a base in Mecca, as I've never heard of that, I think it would be fair to say that Bin Laden's home country of Saudi Arabia is in the back pocket of the U.S. I personally am not familiar with specific statistics, but I would be curious to know how many soldiers are stationed there altogether now, or how many there were in the 90s. Either way, I can see how that might irk him a bit.

I can't tell you how many troops we had installed in the Islamic Holy Land of Saudi Arabia (commonly referred to as Mecca) but you probably can find out via Google. I can assure you we did have an air base there which we promised to remove immediately after Operation Desert Storm, which we not only failed to do but proceeded to expand and gradually increase the number of personnel.

It also will interest you to know that shortly after learning who was responsible for the 9/11attack Bush quietly removed the offending bin Sultan airbase from Saudi Arabia and he pressured Arial Sharon to remove the offending settlements from the Gaza region. Those were the two demands bin Laden had repeatedly made during the end of Clinton's term and the beginning of Bush's.

While Napolitano will assuringly claim the TSA-type Homeland Security extremes and NSA surveillance programs are protecting us, it was Bush's action in removing the airbase and inducing Sharon to remove the expanding Gaza settlers (at U.S. expense) which accounts for why there have been no major terrorist attacks against us since 9/11.

I agree with this. It seems too often our government associates the wrong thing as the reason for why we have been able to prevent terrorism since 9/11, whether it's fractured leadership due to the drone program or surveillance programs. Interesting note about Bush though, I wasn't aware of that at all. Obviously he can't be given all the credit for preventing attacks, but fascinating nonetheless. At least he got the memo eventually.

In terms of Osama Bin Laden's demands at the end of the 90s, I can understand how Clinton and whoever else didn't want to bow to his wishes. That being said, an increased amount of dialogue and negotiations could have gone a long way, and yes, perhaps prevented 9/11.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it's absolutely astonishing that there have not been more terrorist attacks, just in history in general. It's so, so easy to scare people. I use this example a lot in my writing but who is going to stop a "terrorist" from going to a school in your hometown and shooting up the place? One lone policeman with a gun? How about car bombs? You can't just inspect every car in a metropolitan area. It's interesting that terrorists, whether self-radicalized or not, have not taken advantage of these opportunities more often. Our country could be in complete chaos. (Not that I hope for any of that to happen.)

 

[sambino510]

Just a general message to everyone. I don't mean to toot my own horn here, but I have a couple other posts which haven't gotten as many replies as I'd like (any for that matter). I don't mean to sound all self-centered, just looking for more interesting conversation from all of you about a couple different topics after the success of this post, namely Iran and the Drone Program. I'll also try to read other people's posts too, as I've been too focused on posting my own stuff and posting replies to my own threads. Anyways, would appreciate more useful feedback. Here's the links.

The Drone Program

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/301898-the-drone-program.html

Several Iranian Issues

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/301079-several-iranian-issues.html

 

[Unkotare]

And................now the thread belongs in the Conspiracy Forum.

 

[sambino510]

And................now the thread belongs in the Conspiracy Forum.

Well if you want to get really specific about it this thread could belong in any number of forums, including racial issues, gun control, conspiracy, politics, whatever. There's no reason we can't have broad discussions in a military forum, as politics and conspiracy theories can directly effect troop allocation. Granted, I'm no conspiracy theorist. Just a thought.

 

[Mushroom]

I think another reason is our abandonment of Afghanistan after they finished defeating the Russians in the 80s. We promised all sorts of infrastructural improvement and then simply forgot about them once the job was finished. Osama Bin Laden was one of these rebels fighting in Afghanistan, and I'm sure did not forget this.

Well, you have to realize that this is something I have long thought was our #2 most boneheaded mistake in the 20th century. Right behind throwing Uncle Ho under the bus after the end of WWII. I have long thought we should have told the French "OK, you can move back into Indochina, but only with a 5 year plan for granting them their freedom."

Much as we did with the Philippines. The stupidest thing we did was to not protest when they tried to become a Colonial Power again after being destroyed after WWII.

And not helping rebuild Afghanistan after the Soviet-Afghan War was #2. However, you also have to remember that the largest opponent of the Taliban (and the individual that Al-Qaeda assassinated right before 9-11 was the leader of the Northern Alliance, which was primarily made up of the Mujahedeen that the US supported (the US did not support AQ or the Taliban).

I suppose I'm not that big of a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean those theories aren't true, but it seems to me that there is ample evidence that 9/11 was done by a bunch of Al Qaeda Saudis led by Bin Laden. Sure, I suppose it's possible that the government or whoever did it and that Al Qaeda is simply taking credit for it, but I don't see the reasoning behind that at all. As messed up as our government can be at times, killing 3,000 people simply to justify a war in the Middle East seems a little elaborate.

Not to mention that was not the first attack on the WTC by OBL. For some reason everybody seems to forget the 1993 attack.

If this is some kind of conspiracy, it dates back through at least 3 Presidential Administrations, and that simply become implausible to the extreme.

It may surprise you to know that before the '60s, Americans had generally good relations with the Arab world, and the idea of a clash between the two would have seemed highly unlikely. So what happened? Did a number of psychopaths suddenly rise up out of nowhere and target Americans?

Prior to the 1960's, the ME was largely considered by most to be the "armpit of the world", only wanted by lunatics, Arabs and Jews. In fact, that land was considered so worthless by most that controlled it that other then a few choice locations (the Nile, Jerusalem, etc) nobody really cared what went on there, or what they thought.

And the "Arabs" largely did not care what the rest of the world thought. They primarily wanted to just be left alone. Until the discovery of oil, they mostly used European Powers against European Powers, knowing that eventually they would leave and things would return to normal.

And there is no "sudden rise" of terrorism. It has been in place since the end of WWII, it simply did not touch the US much because we really did not have many assets over there (other then our relationship with the Shah).

And actually if you look at the 1960's and 1970's, we were quite opposed with most Arab nations. Are you aware that during the Arab-Israeli Wars, we supported the only 2 nations that were not attackers? For all of the vinegar spread now by Iran, that nation never took part in the wars against Israel. Our relations at the time were much less cordial with those opposed to Israel, and those are generally the ones we get along with best today.

I can't tell you how many troops we had installed in the Islamic Holy Land of Saudi Arabia (commonly referred to as Mecca) but you probably can find out via Google. I can assure you we did have an air base there which we promised to remove immediately after Operation Desert Storm, which we not only failed to do but proceeded to expand and gradually increase the number of personnel.

I am sorry, Saudi Arabia is not the "Islamic Holy Land". And Saudi Arabia is also not "Mecca". You really need to try and bother to learn a little about Islam, because you are coming off like an ignorant Isamophobe at the moment.

And yes, we maintained a presence at KKMC, because Saudi Arabia Asked Us To. That was because of how Saudi Arabia felt about the Iraqi No Fly Zone, which they were one of the main petitioners to the UN to extend indefinitely.

And without an air base in Saudi Arabia, we could not have maintained an almost decade long UN mandate active.

It is not like we just moved in and refused to go. Saudi Arabia by their own choice became the home of the Coalition and UN forces that was enforcing the UN No Fly Zone. At any time Saudi Arabia could have withdrawn their support for this UN mission, and we would have left. But they kept them in place, because they had legitimate reasons to fear Iraq.

I agree with this. It seems too often our government associates the wrong thing as the reason for why we have been able to prevent terrorism since 9/11, whether it's fractured leadership due to the drone program or surveillance programs.

We have been able to curtail terrorist attacks, but certainly not "prevent" it. We have largely been able to largely prevent it from striking directly on US soil, but not eliminated it (not even on US soil).

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the very short attention spans of Americans. Just today I was talking to my roomie (who is in her 60's), and she had absolutely forgotten that the WTC had been attacked in 1993. And she said she had never heard of the Millennium Plot, and had also forgotten about the plot against Fort Dix.

And there are still hundreds (if not thousands) of attacks elsewhere around the world, from Mahadobhi Temple to Israel.

We in reality have not done a lot to stop "terrorism". Other then very rare instances that never really impacted the US, and is still does not today. Most of those that die from it live in that area.