United 93Follow

No, I just didn't read it.

Your mom shagged gbaji or sunnink?

gbaji said....



something that Gbaji is amazingly efficient at doing....

Okay, here's a shot.

bin Laden and his cronies (henceforth referred to as S.C.U.M. for no reason) are generally charismatic in the Arabic fashion - meaning that plenty of people are willing to listen to what they have to say.

They also happen to have been exposed to Western culture earlier in their lives. Now, unlike most people, whose general reaction seems to be "you know, I'd like to be able to achieve that kind of life", their reaction turned more into a "because they have a better lifestyle than us, they are evil, and we must destroy them". (This is also the kind of reaction that Southern Baptists here would have if, say, Qatar and the US's positions were reversed.)

While our presence over in the Middle East may very well have helped cement the idea in S.C.U.M.'s councils, it sure as hell isn't the only reason - it's because their beliefs run counter to everything visible about us (and, for that matter, nearly everything stated in the Koran), and they feel it's their duty to destroy us, and everyone else who shares values even remotely similar to ours, as they have the One True BeliefÂÂâ„¢ and all those who disagree must die in fire.

Basically, it wasn't our presence in Saudi Arabia - it was our presence on Earth.

I admit that most people who aren't at least moderately religious will not understand the kind of reasoning these people go through; it's not logical at all, and Bush is just as blindly zealous as these people are, making this situation perfectly designed for everyone involved ('cept the troops).

One can only hope that the revolution occurs before Bush actually gets a clue that he's not gonna win.

Except that there's no evidence that this is the case, and lots of evidence to the contrary. Osama bin Laden was/is a businessman. He ran and operated numerous profitable businesses. He had *no* problems with doing business with the West. He very much embodied the western business ideal. There's zero evidence that he came to hate the west for the reasons you propose. That may very well be the reason many Islamic fundamentalists come to hate the west, but that's *not* how Bin Laden did it.



You're using stereotype though. You're assuming that Osama bin Laden's motives must be that simple. But that does not match his history, nor explain why he's been so successfull.

You are certainly correct that our presense in the Middle East may not have beeen the "only reasons", but it was very clearly the straw that broke the camel's back in this case. Let's see what Wiki has to say about his "Turn towards Extremism":



Note. He builds the group we now call "Al Queda" *after* western forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia to fight off Iraq. Notice also that he was pissed off that much that they'd be there a short time. How much more upset do you think he was as a decade went by with no end in sight? Note also, that even while building this organization, he's conducting business. That's what he does. He's not a stereotypical "blindly hates the west" Islamic fundamentalist. It's incredibly wrong to portray him that way.

Also, in their "Formation of Al-Qaeda" section:



Getting it yet? He didn't decide to oppose the US "just because". He did so very specifically because of our presense on Saudi soil. Period. We can argue about minor points all day long, but at the end of the day, this one point is by far the most significant issue and is arguably the ultimate cause of the 911 attacks. Had we resolved the issue in Iraq fully instead of following the UN's policy of containment and "the sanctions are working... as long as we're there enforcing them", it is quite arguable that the 9/11 attacks would never have happened. Certainly, the initial focus of Al-queda was specific to the Middle East and surrounding Muslim world. It wasn't until well into the 90s, when it became apparent that the situation in Iraq would not be resolved soon, that attacks widened to other US targets (like the WTC bombing in 1994 for example).




Sorry. I think you're absolutely wrong. You're trying hard to apply a "he hates us because we're different" argument, when all the evidence points specifically to our presence in Saudi Arabia being absolutely and undoubtably the key issue.

Your whole line of reasonaing is also pretty much pointless. You're basically arguing that it doesn't matter what we do in terms of foreign policy, since "those people" will hate us anyway. Um. If that's really the case, then what's the point? We may as well just nuke the whole region now. I personally don't ascribe to that belief. I think our actions do have effects and consequences. And in this particular case, 9/11 was a direct consequence of our faliure to resolve Iraq when we should have. Resolving it now at least removes that problem, even if it costs us more and comes a bit too late.

If we'd done it back in 93/94, when it first became obvious that Saddam was never going to comply with the cease fire terms, we'd have been 3 years past the point we are now in Iraq in 2000. And very likely Al-queda would never have formed, or at least would not have targetted US domestic targets. We'd have been out of Saudi Arabia, which was the main point. We'd have been in Iraq, with all the problems that brings along with it, but that would not have inflamed Bin Laden to the point of conducting terrorist attacks against the US. We may very well have seen fighters trained by him in Iraq, but not terrorist cells in the US and around the world like we're seeing now.

Interestingly enough, Osama Bin Laden might actually have ended up being a legitimate faction force in Iraq if we'd toppled Iraq back then. His primary hatred was western formed dictatorships (which pretty much describes most of the nations in the region). It's unclear how he would have reacted to a western force fighting to create an Arab democracy. Likely, he'd have been behind some faction to try to create an Islamic state, but he'd have been no different then a dozen other factions in Iraq also doing that now. It would have been a very different world today if Clinton had made a different choice in 93/94.

Edited, Wed May 10 08:24:11 2006 by gbaji

MDenham the Shady said



Have you even read his letter?

Just in case anyone wants to read the full text, as opposed to the bits that the media has printed, heres a link

Sounds fairly well educated to me.
Not saying He's any less of a nutter than any other world leader type tho.
At least he is approaching the impending crisis with an offer to talk about it.

I wonder why the rest of the
'civilised world' is doing everything in its power to charge off into a repeat of the debacle in Iraq (X 1000) without even making an attempt at dialogue.....

Sounds to me like someones already made up their minds...

Gbaji. Im reading your post above, and it exasperates me that you have such a selective way of understanding the 'facts' as you see them.

I work with a bloke sometimes. He's a 'creationist'. Attempting to have a debate with him about the pro's and cons of evolution v. creationism is the most frustrating bloody exercise I can imagine. He focuses so intently on his utter belief that the world was formed 4000 years ago by the hand of God, as 'proved' by no end of "Creation' scientists, even tho the 'science' they use is so full of holes, that a 10 year old can see the contradictions between the theory and the reality.

I personally 'believe' that evolution is the more likely reason that we are here on this planet. Now I could be wrong, but in my considered opinion, I think that the evidence is more compelling that we evolved, rather than were created on the whim of a superior being. But I am open to other theories, and enjoy debating whats new and fresh in the field. But not, I'm afraid, with this bloke I work with.

Now when it comes to your views on the middle east, and the 'Wests' role in middle eastern (and indeed) global affairs, I think you are so wrapped up in your personal beliefs that Democrats are bad, and Republicans are good, that you somehow manage to convince yourself that all this death, destruction and downright nastiness being perpetrated around the world is somehow justified and in the end will lead to a vindication of your belief system.

I'm not going to go through your post, point by point, because I know that ultimately I'm wasting my time. You will continue to believe that the US. army is fighting a noble war, on behalf of the American people, to liberate the suppressed Iraqis from terrorists who are afraid of 'democracy' (whatever that is) and "our freedoms".

Yes, the reason that Bin Laden is pissed off with the west, is as you say but You selectively choose to ignore the other equally contentious issue. That of the Wests' and particularly Americas unconditional support of Israel and its occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.

How can you defend your govts. unconditional support of nuclear armed Israel, while supporting your governments aggressive stance towards the Iranians. Unless its because you actually believe that the Iranians, the Iraqis and the Palestinians are somehow deserving of the destruction being either threatened or actually carried out against them.

You WHAT!!! Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!

As far as failing to resolve Iraq, you seem to believe that its Clintons fault. /flummoxed. That immediately gave me a vision of a kid with chocolate all over his face and his hand in the cookie tin, blaming his brother for eating all the cookies... You probably remember Gulf War1. That was the one that daddy Bush started, and ended when he did, because he knew that going into Iraq proper would lead to the mess you find yourselves in today. Taken back further, you may remember the support that was given to Saddaam during the Iran/Iraq war. Im not for a moment suggesting that clinton was innocent of wrongdoing, (what he did in the Balkans, will not be forgotten by the victims of that intervention for a long time to come) but to lay it at his feet is a poor way of absolving your present govt. of wrongdoing.




Saddam never complied with the cease fire terms?? According to your Republicans and the Israelis he didn't. But according to the fact, that the Iraqi army was fighting gulf war II in sandals with world war 2 rifles and petrol bombs, suggests to me that they wern't a "current and gathering threat" to anyone, especially the good ol USA. Oh yeah the weapons inspectors had said they didn't have any WMD's, and sure as **** none have been found. How that amounts to 'not complying' I struggle to see.

Yor last paragraph is a classic. Do you not even see the Irony?
can you not see that that is exactly what this idiotic administration has gone and done? the shiite parties in Iraq are by far the most influential and fully backed by the Iranians and no doubt any organisation with sympathy for fundamentalist Islam including al qaeda.

An observer more cynical than i would say that not only has the Iraq war created a shooting/bombing amusement park for trainee jihadists with 'real life american soldiers to kill!' but Bushes' blundering activities have done more to recruit members for al qaeda than Osama could have ever hoped for. (Whose side is bush on again??

So! Well done Mr. Bush! you've done exactly what was wanted by the Islamic fundamentalists all along. You have created the biggest terrorist training ground on the planet. Also as a by product you have given power to people that are going to strive to ensure that Iraq becomes as Islamicly fundamentalist as Iran.

Meanwhile your soldiers are still dying and being maimed, vast amounts of money are being spent, and truly innocent people are being blown up, displaced and tortured in this real life tragedy that your govt. is hell bent on replicating in at least one other country in the area. and there you are burbling on in your own polarised world that says "the Republicans have to be right! And the main reason that is true, is because the democrats are wrong". Forget the blindingly obvious disaster unfolding in front of us all. If its not in your thinly delineated view of what is Right, then it absolutely must be wrong...

as I said, I don't expect to change your views, any more than I would expect to change the views of my creationist workmate, , but FFS, I had to get this off my chest.

Anyway, I'm off to India for a couple o weeks....have fun.

Paulsol. If Iraq had complied with the terms of the cease fire agreement from 91, then why were we still conducting sanctions against the country, maintaining no-fly zones in the country, and conducting weapons inspections in the country? Why did the UN pass a dozen subsequent resolutions between 1991 and 2002, all stating that Iraq was not in compliance with those terms?

Think about it. The answer isn't hard. Those things were being performed because Iraq had not complied. They were put in place by the UN to try to coerce Iraq into complying with those terms. This process went on for 10 years. All the while, we've got troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.


It's funny that you mention religious belief, because your position on this is earily like it. You're refusing to accept even simple and obvious truths because they don't match the "gospel" you've been taught to believe.


I'm serious here. Why do *you* think we were still enforcing UN sanctions in Iraq out of Saudi Arabia if Iraq had complied with the terms? Shouldn't there have been a peace treaty signed or something?


And I'll reiterate. I didn't cook up the Iraq -> Al-Qaeda connection. Do your own research. Every single source of historical information about Al-Qaeda lists the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia as the primary reason for it's formation as a terrorist network intent on attacking US targets. Sure. They disliked us for other reasons, but that was clearly the one single situation that galvanized them into action. Without those troops there, it's very unlikely that 9/11 would have happened.

Support for Isreal isn't enough. We've been supporting Isreal for 60 years. We never had a domestic Islamic terror attack during all that time. But we station troops in Saudi Arabi and suffer a succession of attacks over the next decade that directly coincide with that and you claim its purely coincidence? How do you support that position?

Meh, you could pick worse things to ditch our Civ game for.