Why Do People Hate the USA

With the WTC cleanup nearly complete, the question I have in my mind is why. I understand if you don't agree with our religions, our government or our econimic growth. But why hate us for ?

The Citizens of my country are, at times, cocky in thinking we are the best country in the world. At times, they can be hateful against other countries and laugh at other customs. The difference between us and the terrorists is that we don't act on those things.

We believe that everyone has a right to choose for themselves, and to live their own lives. So although we do not understand, or may not like other customs, we wouldn't attack for the sake of them being different. The attacks on us were just that. They don't like our views or our living conditions. So they attacked us.

That, to me, is ridiculous. If I didn't like your shirt, I might laugh at it. If I am a big jerk, I'll taunt you and humilate you. But just because I don't like your shirt, I wouldn't try to kill you. That's what this was. Opinions differed and one side sucker punched the other side. Why couldn't they just accept that we, over here, can do what we want, and they what they want.

Does anyone understand?

Originally posted by downside
Why couldn't they just accept that we, over here, can do what we want, and they what they want.

Does anyone understand?

Well, their point of view is that the US and the Brits held the Palastinian Arabs down while the Jews took over their country. That the Palastinian Arabs had been holding the Jews down for hundreds of years before that doesn't feature large in their thinking, since their position is "we were here first"....which is either true or untrue, depending on the timescales you choose.

Read though all the historical stuff at

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iltoc.html

if what's going on in the Middle East doesn't add up for you.

Are you lookin' for answers in all the wrong places?

Some people have gone to a lot of effort to provide their answers to your question.

Maybe you will find some of the answers you seek in these links:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/hateamerica.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0927/p1s1-wogi.html

http://interconnected.org/dirk/?object1=america

http://www.co.jyu.fi/~np/hate/USAHate.html

Maybe not.

Perhaps you just meant to say, hey, what's not to like about the USA?

Nic *ducks*

Disclaimer: non of these are my websites or represent my views.

I just wanted to provide some guidance to the downside, who seems totally perplexed and seeking answers to the most vexing of questions. He asks why do they hate the USA, not why do we think they are wrong to hate the USA. Perhaps, like so many who ask that question, he really doesn't even want to hear what they think. It's usually a rhetorical question.

The answer given more often than not is that they hate us because we're God's Chosen People, because we're free, because we're rich, and because we're always right ... and, quite frankly, because we're better. What's not to like?

i understand why people from other countries could dislike ours, but i don't agree. i mean, there are assholes everywhere, right? why target a bunch of innocent people? not up to me to say. not something i'd ever do. i don't think the U.S. is necessarily better all around, just a damned fine place to live.

I don't want to give the wrong impression; that I'm unaware of the world events. I'm simply venting. The US is a damned fine place. It has a mix of cultures and religions and races that all (basically) live together in peace. Not to mention it's econimc standing and it's limitless opportunities it gives to it's citizens.

That's why I'm confused. Don't bomb a place because you think it's better than what you have. I drive a 96' Chevy Cavalier. You don't see me intentionally crashing into the Cadlillacs on the road. The driver worked for that car. It's not his fault I have a crappy car. It's mine.

Again, just venting. No matter what is happening in the world, to attack the US people for living the way we do is cowardly.

That's why I'm confused. Don't bomb a place because you think it's better than what you have.

I see that of all the reasons given by others, you are most comfortable with the view that the root cause of the attacks is that they think we're better than they are. Well, frankly, they don't think we're better, and that wasn't their motivation ... so don't try to make sense of the terrorist attacks from that analysis.

There is nothing that could justify terrorism.

You seem to ask, "What causes terrorism?"

And then respond, "Well, that doesn't justify terrorism."

If you were to ask, "What justifies terrorism?"

The answer should be, "Nothing."

If you were to ask, "What causes terrorism?"

There are many answers.

That Americans are better than everyone else, isn't one of them.

I've been misquoted in High School, but not recently. So for that, I thank you for the change of pace.

I do not agree, however, that the message I am trying to convey is that "Americans are better than everyone else". In fact, all of my responses have included my theory; they don't like what we have.

And analizing terrorism, with large words and phrases, is entertaining but useless. Terrorists, with or without religion or governmental excuses, cannot be tolerated. At no point should we say "Sure, they killed many of our people. But look at the way they think." If "the way they think" includes killing people for the sake of disagreement in life, then they don't deserve the time spent on theorizing. Killing people, citizen at that, is not a discussion topic. It's a crime that cannot go without punishment.

Originally posted by jeni
why target a bunch of innocent people?

My best answer is that they're going for the soft underbelly -- no way they could go up against our military and make any sort of impact. Still hard to believe what happened. :(

What I find curious is that most Americans reacted with anger, whereas most Europeans reacted with sadness, as did I.

Yes. I think there was the initial shock and sadness the first month during clean up. Now, the general public here is quite angry. Angry for a few reasons.

#1. Our Government, to us, can't move fast enough. We all understand that they are doing everything they can, when they can. But we have been a country that has demanded action when it is needed.

#2. Obviously, as I have been posting, we are confused and angry that someone would think badly enough to take innocent lives.

#3. After this time, we have seen countries, thought to be allies, who have celebrated. Some parts of the world, who are thought to be friendly nations have rallied and partied and laughed when our people were dying.

I think I used this paraphrase from Joe Sobran (maybe) here before. They don't hate us for our virtues, they hate us for our vices. I had the misfortune of reading Blowback : The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson a couple months before 9/11, so I find myself unable to participate in the righteous indignation sweeping our country. He explains quite clearly why we are hated and why an event of this type was inevitable. Our values are not reflected in our foreign policy.


We have soldiers in well over 100 foreign countries, we have armed and protected regimes whose policies are anti-thetical to American values, we play with economies, we enforce sanctions on Iraq that kill civilians... Islamic fundementalists do hate us for treating women as equals but as tw will be happy to explain there are reasons why people join extremist organizations.

"Killing people, citizen at that, is not a discussion topic." The thing is, even though we are the biggest dog, this sentiment applies to us as well. There are a couple pretty good threads here on this but among the regulars here this discussion has been done... at length..... so we're probably a little burned out on it.

"They hate us for our virtues." is the Bush theme, and he's sticking to it, because it plays so well to the American audience.

Iraq Shimaq. Hussein is a poophead, plain and simple. He could very easily get those sanctions lifted, but he refuses to move.

The problem is with this fucked up notion with what seems to be a majority of muslims that the USA is attacking Islam whenever it gets into a skirmish with someone who has a brother who knows a guy whose boss gets his tires changed by an outfit that employs a follower of Islam. Since we have a big problem with Hussein, we're attacking Islam. We're killing children. Spare me the fucking bullshit.

There are plenty of legitimite reasons to be pissed off at the United States, but Iraq is not one of them.

I'm not doubting it was a good book. But the topic in which he chose to write about seems loose. The equivalent of the book that you are describing would be something like "Earthquakes: Why I Can't Stop Them". Why publish/read a book containing nothing more than a "why we should be punished" theme. But that's another topic.

Anyone can right a book about why they think these people hate us. The real answer lies, obviously, in their beliefs. I believe, for instance, that a variant of the religion, combined with their economic state and a hint of pure hatred caused the September attack. The most important part, of course, is the hatred. I give no merit to any person, group or Religion that agrees killing humans is acceptable.

So, when you think about it, we don't need other reason in your book or otherwise. Ignore everything about the religion, the country, the economic stand point, everything. Just focus in on that one person. If a person, for whatever reason, justifies killing, they are wrong.

I agree on this being burnt out. People, in my eyes, try to delve into the minds of these people too much. You can't diagnose hatred.

Originally posted by downside
I give no merit to any person, group or Religion that agrees killing humans is acceptable.

What about sand niggers over in that Afghanamastan or whatever?

My point being, of course, that many people talk that line, but then call for revenge. Where do we draw the line? When is it okay to kill? What do you think about Napoleon Beazley?

Did you get any point across from using racial slang?

Eh, you missed it. The point of that being that it's a whole lot easier to look at those we don't know as less than human.

If you haven't heard Arabs and Afghanis being referred to as "sand niggers", you haven't been listening.

Whenever I hear this line of logic, i'm reminded of the song that goes: "You're so vain, you prob'ly think this song is about you."

It's not about America. They don't care about us. They care about their stupid little piece of land.

Every action they take is in accordance with their needs. We are in their way because we are militarily supporting Israel, who destroys their homes and kills their families. If someone destroyed your home, and killed your families, you would hate them too.

Think about it. Noone is going to become a suicide bomber because they're offended by your way of life. They do it because they are at war over land.

People, in my eyes, try to delve into the minds of these people too much. You can't diagnose hatred.

Yeah, who asked the question?

I have heard it. I just don't see the point in using it. It only makes those that do use it look more like the idiots that they are.

And your point, even though slight lost by your racism, is taken. there are times when it is easier to look at people as less than human. But here is the difference: They look less Human now that they've attacked us. We only look less Human to them because of the way we live.

Had they never attacked us, there beliefs, although strange, wouldn't be questioned.

The world changed on 9/11, it didn't start then. ;)

Heh. There's no racism here. Just a fuckin' cracker that loves his freedom of speech. Ask my brown friends - there's not a hateful bone in my body.

There is a point about racism, though, which you're obviously still missing. The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of Americans, especially those in the heartland, find it exceptionally easy to dismiss arabs, Afghanis, etc. because of their color. I know it because I have heard it and I have seen it. Popular support is high for a war against Taliban, al-Qaeda, etc, in part because of the color of their skin and their different way of life. Don't lie to yourself and say it's not there, because it is. I have seen it in moderate people who, consciously, do not care about the race of others. You can hear it in the way they talk and see it in their eyes - race is a factor.

[ Edit - it occurs to me that this statement is slightly inaccurate. There <b>is</b> a hateful bone in my body, and it's reserved for people that use that goddamn JavaScript that denies a right click on a webpage. I always right-click -> Back to go back a webpage, and when I get that goddamn popup.... arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! I <b>hate</b> that! ]

Must be a Southern thing.

Originally posted by downside
They look less Human now that they've attacked us. We only look less Human to them because of the way we live.

This is wrong. We attacked them first by supporting Israel. Our best friend, who we loan weapons to, is killing their families and burning their houses. How exactly are the supposed to feel?

Originally posted by downside
Must be a Southern thing.

Come the hell on. Open your eyes.

I live in Northern Virginia, which is pretty much the melting pot of the east coast. Everyone lives here, because it's the fasting growing area in the US, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. I see it in people here. I see it in people in Maryland.

It's part of the way people are raised. They can't control it, but it's there.

When the planes hit the towers, what did you think?

Well, I work with professionals - computer programmers, Ivy League-educated managers - and I saw it there. Everyone (and I do mean <b>everyone</b>) assumed it was Arabs. Now, they were correct. But that doesn't matter. The assumption is what's important. No one was thinking "a bunch of white guys hijacked some planes and flew them into some buildings". No one was attacking Christians the night of and day after the attacks, but some Muslim, Hindu and Sikh dudes were getting beaten up. Why? Because they're brown.

Nevermind that there are terrorist organizations too - the predominant sentiment was that Arabs had hijacked planes and flew them into the World Trade Center.

Yeah, must be a Southern thing. Quit kidding yourself.

Originally posted by juju2112


This is wrong. We attacked them first by supporting Israel. Our best friend, who we loan weapons to, is killing their families and burning their houses. How exactly are the supposed to feel?

Wank wank wank. Hebron Massacre, 1929. Kay, thanks, buh bye.

Yes, we Southerners hate Javascript! :D

Guessing language is a bigger factor than skin color, per se. It's so much easier to de-humanize a people when everything coming from their mouths sounds like gibberish. Still racism, in a way...

It's an American fascination with the "n" word, which is now tolerable in the USA if used after the word sand.

Yeah, why do they hate US?

They envy our dual processors and our freedom of speech.

Originally posted by dhamsaic


Wank wank wank. Hebron Massacre, 1929. Kay, thanks, buh bye.

Dammit, why are you forcing me to use google at this ungodly hour? &lt;g&gt;

I don't speak with anyone using it seriously, but when one is quoting (even without quotes), I don't see any problem.

Unfortunately, if you're gonna support free speech, you have to go all the way. I don't like it when someone calls me a "one eyed bastard" but I have to support their right to do so. Offensive speech comes from all corners; it's a part of life.

The point is not in the word, though. It's not about "sand nigger", per se. It's about realizing that a sizeable portion of the American public does not look at our enemies as people. It's easier to look at a man who died as a sand nigger than to think that he was a son, a brother, a husband, a father...

Don't focus on the word. Focus on the problem - dehumanization.

I agree that the US, in supplying weapons to our Allies, we must look like an enemy. But still, to attack an office building? That has less to do with politics and more to do with hatred.

If you want to strategically stop the US from sending weapons to your enemy, you physically hit the planes, trins, and automobiles (John Candy not included) that are bringing them. Don't attack our families that have little to nothing to do with the problem. This is what happened.

So now, the reverse has happened; rather than sending weapons and not fighting ourselves, we are doing both. We give weapons to their enemies and now we are attacking them. they now have two forces to deal with. Hatred or not, that was a stupid move.

And tell me to open me to open my eyes? Why, because I refuse to refer to my friends as "browns"? Aren't you late for the rally?

Originally posted by downside
I agree that the US, in supplying weapons to our Allies, we must look like an enemy. But still, to attack an office building? That has less to do with politics and more to do with hatred.

If you want to strategically stop the US from sending weapons to your enemy, you physically hit the planes, trins, and automobiles (John Candy not included) that are bringing them. Don't attack our families that have little to nothing to do with the problem. This is what happened.

Yeah, i guess you have a point. Still, I think both are probably significant factors. I think people deeply misunderstand our enemies when they say they attacked our office buildings just because they hate our movies (not that you're putting in that way, but other people have).

Heh. I can imagine you, sitting there in your righteousness, feeling great about your superiority over me because you've never had enough Hapa friends or Black friends to know that "mutt" or "brown" to many of them isn't an insult, but a term of affection. But hey, whatever.

No one is justifying an attack on civilians. Hey, it upset me too. But whether or not you want to admit it, the attack on the World Trade Center was executed brilliantly and was <b>very</b> successful.

For example, as we sit here, you are less free than you were on September 10th.

Many billions of dollars were lost in stocks with the resulting market fall.

There are over 3,000 people dead, including a guy that I worked with. 19 guys killed over 3,000. That's pretty fucking successful.

It wasn't stupid. It accomplished exactly what they wanted it to do - we are afraid to do many things we used to do without thinking, and we're less free doing them.

And tell me to open me to open my eyes? Why, because I refuse to refer to my friends as "browns"?

No. Because you refuse to acknowledge that racism is omnipresent.

Juju, you've summed up the argument nicely.

DumSac: You've proven to be much more useless than originally thought. But don't get me wrong, you do use big words.

Some people don't mind being called "niggers" either. The difference between you and I is that I have the sense that MOST people of color would be offended by it. You just assume otherwise.

And I doubt highly that the terrorists were planning to decrease the price of my Coca-Cola stock. If so, they should have just boycotted like the rest of us.

Who is at war right now, and who is on their computers? The people free to talk trashon these sites, I garauntee are more free.

And I'm glad your impressed at the mass destruction these people caused. If building tumbling and people dying impress you, feel free to stand closer next time for a better look.

Success can only be measured when the tast is done. America isn't finished.

racism is omnipotent

What do you mean by omnipotent?

ubiquitous?

I think he means "good". ;)

Hee hee! You're so cute when you make funnies of my name.

My goal isn't to be useful. It's intelligent discussion. You're trying, and I'm not personally attacking you for that. You, on the other hand, are now making an effort to discredit me. That's okay too - I expect it from time to time. Unfortunately, you're not going to discourage me.

I know for a fact that most African American citizens would be offended by being called "nigger". I have the good sense to address my African American <b>friends</b> (not acquaintances - the difference is important) by their names. Now, this doesn't change the fact that their skin is brown, the same as mine is pale. My Asian American <b>friends</b> (not acquaintances - the difference is important) are also addressed by their names, except for some lovingly placed race jokes, such as "mutt" and "slitty eyed". Know what they do when I bring that up? Laugh. Hmmmm.

Furthermore, I never called anyone "nigger". I even stated pretty clearly that I don't condone the usage of the word in a derogatory sense, but only while quoting. What say you now?

And I doubt highly that the terrorists were planning to decrease the price of my Coca-Cola stock.

Well, then you're mostly ignorant of the investigation into their motives. They knew that what they were doing was going to wreak financial havoc. It was very much a part of their plan.

And I'm glad your impressed at the mass destruction these people caused. If building tumbling and people dying impress you, feel free to stand closer next time for a better look

Awww, now you want me dead. I love you too!

Saying that the September 11 attacks were not well executed is denial. Any level headed, rational, non-emotional thinking person will tell you that they were very successful. That doesn't mean that I agree with them, that I think they should have happened, or that I'm glad that Khang Nguyen, my co-worker, died in the Pentagon as he did. If you stand back and look at the attack from a non-emotional and rational point, it's very easy to see that these were well planned and exceptionally well executed.

Success can only be measured when the tast is done. America isn't finished.

Their task is done. 3,000 people are dead. Nothing we do is going to bring that back.

Will we win the war? Yes. Absolutely. And, incidentally, it's something that I support. But that doesn't change the fact that al Qaeda's first blow was a very successful one.

[ Edit - fixed typo - "as" becomes "is". ]

Originally posted by Nic Name
What do you mean by omnipotent?

ubiquitous?

Ha! Yes. Wrong word came out. I was listening to a song with "omniscient" in it and omnipotent somehow popped out. Will edit to reflect. Good catch.

Guess it was just a matter of time before the discussion degenerated into ad hominem attacks -- attack the debator rather than his argument. Sad, but inevitable.

Well, pardon me if I read correctly into what you were saying. You never said before that you only call friends by these names, which is great for your friends I have to assume. And also, how are Asians 'mutts'? I expect racist slang to be low-brow, but this doesn't seem to make any sence.

I think you give to much credit to a pack of idiots.

The terrorists were aiming to take lives, not waste our money. It probably never occurred to them what the damage cost did to our economic system. To them, it was probably a welcome surprise.

And It doesn't take much to learn to fly. 12 year olds do it all the time. So how is it that plowing a plane into the tallest building is brilliant? It was the large building out there; alls they had to do was steer.

In your next argument, explain to me the effect the Holocaust had on my local bread factory and why Hitler was brilliant. That arguement, although interesting, is just as useful as this.

<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/Godwin's-Law.html" target="new">Godwin's law</a> invoked.

Originally posted by Undertoad
<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/Godwin's-Law.html" target="new">Godwin's law</a> invoked.

LOL.

Originally posted by LordSludge
Guess it was just a matter of time before the discussion degenerated into ad hominem attacks -- attack the debator rather than his argument. Sad, but inevitable.

Dhamsaic has a history of composing intelligent responses and then lacing them with profanities. This throws the other person off, causing them to attack the profanities instead of the actual issue, and makes dhamsaic look more intelligent because he's the only one addressing the issues. Prety clever if you ask me, though he denies that it's intentional. :]

Originally posted by downside
And also, how are Asians 'mutts'? I expect racist slang to be low-brow, but this doesn't seem to make any sence.

Uh, try Asian Americans, like I said. You know. Half Chinese, Half Hick. Or, in the case of my friend Jason, just Half Chinese, Half Caucasian.

I think you give to much credit to a pack of idiots.

The terrorists were aiming to take lives, not waste our money. It probably never occurred to them what the damage cost did to our economic system. To them, it was probably a welcome surprise.

And It doesn't take much to learn to fly. 12 year olds do it all the time. So how is it that plowing a plane into the tallest building is brilliant? It was the large building out there; alls they had to do was steer.

See, what you're doing here is discrediting them. It's what a large portion of the American public has done, and for good reason - we want to believe that these were just a bunch of loonies, a bunch of idiots, that did this. 'Cause we can take a bunch of idiots, can't we? We can crush these idiots. We don't want to admit that we're up against a difficult and intelligent enemy. I don't blame you for viewing them this way, but I think it's very inaccurate. Those in the intelligence field will tell you the same.

In your next argument, explain to me the effect the Holocaust had on my local bread factory and why Hitler was brilliant. That arguement, although interesting, is just as useful as this.

Brilliant does not mean that a person is incapable of atrocities. The fact of the matter is that Adolf Hitler was a highly intelligent person. He was a <b>brilliant</b> orator. He was <b>brilliant</b> in his ability to assemble the support of Germany. He also had a lot of misplaced hatred and managed to accomplish one of the most horrific mass murders in the history of the world.

Again, it's easier to discredit monsters like Hitler as idiots and loonies (though Hitler may indeed have had some serious mental issues). However, again, it is incorrect to do so, and short sighted. The first rule of war is to know your enemy. We need to look at them from a rational, non-emotional point of view and attempt to understand the who's, the what's, the when's, the where's, the how's and, most importantly, the why's. Why did 3,000+ people die on September 11th? Was it because a bunch of mentally retarded Arabs managed to commandeer four jets and fly them into buildings? No. It was because a very well planned operation was successfully executed by people willing to die for their cause. Do not underestimate them.

Shouldn't this thread be in politics, or polemics, or whatever that word is I'm thinking of?

Originally posted by juju2112
Dhamsaic has a history of composing intelligent responses and then lacing them with profanities. This throws the other person off, causing them to attack the profanities instead of the actual issue, and makes dhamsaic look more intelligent because he's the only one addressing the issues. Prety clever if you ask me, though he denies that it's intentional. :]

Hm, actually I was referring to downside:

DumSac: You've proven to be much more useless than originally thought. But don't get me wrong, you do use big words.

Direct attack against dham. Nothing to do with his argument.

Some people don't mind being called "niggers" either. The difference between you and I is that I have the sense that MOST people of color would be offended by it. You just assume otherwise.
...
And I'm glad your impressed at the mass destruction these people caused. If building tumbling and people dying impress you, feel free to stand closer next time for a better look.

Dham is insensitive, and therefore wrong. Bzzzt! Faulty logic.

Profanities != ad hominem attacks. Perhaps a failure of vocabulary, but that's about it.

FWIW, I'm pretty much in agreement w/ dham on this one. It's a complex situation that can't be understood, much less solved, with the "They're insane! Nuke the insane towelheads!!" sentiment so common in the 'States these days.

Yeah, I'm a N00B here, but I'm used to being on the unpopular end of arguments, so this stuff is nothing new.

[edit: typo]

Actually, since I know him, I know that juju wasn't accusing me of ad hominem attacks. He was accusing me of being a great target for them, because it's easy to attack me and not my logic, many times because my vocabulary includes words that are objectionable to others. So don't be upset with juju - he was smiling affectionately as he wrote that. :)

Incidentally, my usage of profanities has dropped markedly in the last six months. However, simply because I use them by habit, they tend to come out now and then, mostly unintentionally.

Back to the only thing that could be considered "profane" in this discussion (if I recall correctly - I'm not going to go re-read everything to see if I accidentally tossed "fuck" in there), "sand nigger" was used as a quote (though without quotation marks) to represent the attitude of a fair number of Americans. I'm not saying this is a majority, but it is a significant minority. I thought I was making it clear by refering to Afghanistan as "Afghanamastan", but I suppose I could have done better. Unfortunately, the issue was skewed - my usage of the term overshadowed the real issue, which is the dehumanization of our enemies. We have a tendency to look at those we are fighting as less than human. Think about how amazing it is to be a person - the thoughts you have, the feelings, your family - and then think that the people we're killing over in Afghanistan are indeed <b>people</b>. It's easy to go "Well duh, we're not fighting camels over there, of course we're fighting people." But really consider it as you see the pictures of a dead guy laying in the street in Kabul. That was a man, a life... ended. His family will grieve.

Now, he might have been a bad man. He maybe even deserved what he got. But he was still a human being, and I think that we need to recognize this fact and take it into account before we act.

Should we be fighting the war in Afghanistan? Yes, I think we should. I think we need to take strong efforts to dismantle the al Qaeda infrastructure and neutralize the leaders. But there's an attitude that we should be launching nukes all over south Asia to "take 'em all out." This attitude achieves wide appeal only when the masses look at the enemy as unhuman. And that's something we need to fight.

Originally posted by LordSludge

Dham is insensitive, and therefore wrong. Bzzzt! Faulty logic.

Profanities != ad hominem attacks. Perhaps a failure of vocabulary, but that's about it.

Using profanities causes other people to think illogically. If hadn'd have been like, "nigger this, and nigger that", then i'd bet money that downside's argument would have been constructed much more intelligently.

Even so, I completely agree with dhamsaic. Well said. :]

Thanks for the vote of confidense, I think. While my argument may not have been agreeable with most, I'd like to think that people took time to read the posting rather than just choose the underdog. Therefore, I take Sludges attack as nothing more than someone who needs more time to read.

And although I totally disagree with DumSac (Sorry, I can't remember your real handle. Feel free to masacre mine.), I can say that he has his right to his opinon. As do I. I was giving mine and he was reading his from a book. Whichever. It was his decision.

I think this thread has been burnt to a crisp. I thank everyone who participated and wrote in with true opinion, whether it agreed with me or not.

The end result as that we all seem to feel differently about what happened here. Some are mad, others impressed, and some are just trying to got on with life. I hope, at least, people can agree that any loss of life is horrible, no matter what side. If not, please feel free to start a new thread, as I will like to comment.

Feel free to continue without me.

I don't think anybody's mad, are they?

UnderToad - Sorry, this doesn't haven anything to do with these threads.

I was wondering about your "Freelancer" tag. What do you do?

I was giving mine and he was reading his from a book.

Actually, my opinion has been formulated and tweaked over the past nine months, having read many pieces and discussed, at great length, what happened on 9/11 and why. I realize that you're simply trying to discredit me by proposing that I am not a thinker, but a follower. Again, I won't take your insults personally.

Some are mad, others impressed

You're obviously referring to me again, which is fine - we were debating. However, I find it particularly absurd that you accuse others of needing "more time to read", but have obviously not read, nor made any attempt to understand, my view that the 9/11 attacks were well planned. I never said that I was impressed - these are words that you are trying to add into my argument to make it look as though I am a terrorist sympathizer. I am not, but I am most certainly capable of remembering what I argued. This sort of shit isn't going to cut it around here, putting words in someone's proverbial mouth. If you're in the habit of doing so, maybe you should lurk for a while before engaging in debate again.

I certainly welcome challenges to my views, and I'm completely supportive of differing opinions. But one thing that is unacceptable in intelligent discussion is "making shit up". All you end up doing is discrediting yourself, especially when you're arguing with someone who knows how to carry themselves in these types of debates.

Welcome to the Cellar.

Originally posted by downside
I'm not doubting it was a good book. But the topic in which he chose to write about seems loose. The equivalent of the book that you are describing would be something like "Earthquakes: Why I Can't Stop Them". Why publish/read a book containing nothing more than a "why we should be punished" theme. But that's another topic.

Johnson was a long time Federal emplyee (Defense and State Depts) who thought he knew how to stop the earthquake. The book was written in the hope that with the end of the Cold War, US comittments overseas would be re-evaluated. During the Presidential election cycle, Bush actually gave folks some hope that that would be the case, with his talk of bringing home troops. Since many conservatives operate under the assumption that where goods cross borders troops don't, it was hoped that economic engagement would replace military engagement. Our window of opportunity is now probably closed. "why we should be punished" is a theme attributed to anyone who doubts the wisdom of turning the legitimate policing action against Al Queda into a wider conflict which has the potential of becoming a major East v West war. If you don't think thats possible, read up on whats happening in Kashmir.

Down tiger. You are getting too worked up over this.

There will be many future posts in which I "discredit" the person writing the message. And likewise, I too will be attacked for my posts. It's a part of posting. But you're kind of dragging thison.

Yes, I was talking about you in both lines.

Yes, you've said time and time again how you've read this and you've read that. Now, for some reason, you consider the ideas (that you admit to having read) to be your own?!? That fine too. I don't care.

I'm trying to cut this possibly distructive line of insults. I disagree with you and you disagree with me. There will be plenty of Posts to argue over. This one is getting milked.

The above, of course was to the daihsuic guy. Not you Griff. Well put.

I was a little thrown off when you started with "Johnson was a long time Federal emplyee (Defense and State Depts) who thought he knew how to stop the earthquake." I was all excited, since earthquakes are bad. Then you followed up with the other stuff. That's fine, it was just a little more boring than the Earthquake book I was hoping to read.

I response: I will look into Kashmir and see what I can do. I'm pretty busy right now but I'll let you know what I find.

[What I do] I'm an internet guy; I do a little bit of everything. Hosting, web design, script development, mailing list management... basically a jack of all trades, "whatever needs doin'" dude. I'm a contractor and a subcontractor and an entrepreneur.

And you?

That is quite the package.

I'm a friggin' pinata. I deal mainly with large Host Mainframes (IBM iSeries, Unisys, Unix, etc) and Terminal Emulation. Also, as an additive to these hosts, File Transfer and Host-to-Web applications. Plus, on the side, I am a VB addict (5+ and .NET) and I dig into the Graphic Design area any chance I get.

Mostly tedious stuff, but I suppose it can get exciting.

I understand trade is less exciting than war making, resulting in fewer papers getting sold and folks falling asleep watching Brokaw, but its probably more productive. Thats interesting to me that the cure for earthquakes has to be exciting, it explains alot about peoples fascination with government solutions.

No one makes money off of curing Earthquakes.

(note to self: Sell Earthquake Remover in a bottle)

Market trade is where the money is, and thus where the people are. I can do without excitment, as long as I have other people there with me and I'm rich.

What type of work do you do?

Originally posted by downside

What type of work do you do?

Thats a damn good question! I don't really know.... At the moment, I'm building a Post and Beam house, fooling around with farm/garden stuff, outlining a potential novel, and working part-time with friends who do land surveying .

J.K. Rowling, Martha Stewart & Bob Vila. All these people just do what they love and people can't get enough of it. That's my dream job.

Downside, I find you guilty of not doing your research on the Cellar or its members. You are hereby subject to perpetual taunting.

We are adjourned. :)

Thanks. I've always had a knack with ePeople :)

Originally posted by downside
I'm not doubting it was a good book. But the topic in which he chose to write about seems loose. The equivalent of the book that you are describing would be something like "Earthquakes: Why I Can't Stop Them". Why publish/read a book containing nothing more than a "why we should be punished" theme. But that's another topic.

Anyone can right a book about why they think these people hate us. The real answer lies, obviously, in their beliefs. I believe, for instance, that a variant of the religion, combined with their economic state and a hint of pure hatred caused the September attack. The most important part, of course, is the hatred. I give no merit to any person, group or Religion that agrees killing humans is acceptable.

The title of the book Blowback is a techincal term the CIA employs to name the none too rare phenomenon of them supplying and training some resistance group in a foreign country, that group either serving thier purpose or not, the CIA withdrawing support and losing contact with that group, and finally the group using said training and weapons against American targets. The part that blows my mind is that fact that it happens often enough for there to be a name for it. And as a point of reference we run a nationally sponsored terroist training camp right here in the good old US of A, It used to be called the School of the Americas but as that name began to carry some rather negative connotations it was changed to Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC). Whining "Why us?" and the sanctimoniously deciding it must be something they want, addresses none of the actions that directly lead to terrorism. When they serve our purposes they are called freedom fighters, when they don't they're terrorists. Case in point: We gave the Taliban 40 million dollars just last spring for the eradication of poppy fields that the CIA had orginally started. There needs to be a fundamental shift in how the average american looks at the world and one in the way our leader operate in it. Nothing short of that is going to have any long term results.

Originally posted by spinningfetus
There needs to be a fundamental shift in how the average american looks at the world and one in the way our leader operate in it. Nothing short of that is going to have any long term results.

I fully agree with the first part of this. I would have thought easier access to a variety of news sources on the 'net would make people smarter. But as they say, you can't fix stupid.

I'm not sure if our leaders can really change the way they operate, given the way our government structure is. Taking all the coverups and conspiracies out of it, I wonder if Bush might have been more aware of the possibilities if he didn't delegate so much. And I wonder if he takes more of a lead now in the aftermath of 9/11, though that doesn't appear to be the case.

Originally posted by spinningfetus

When they serve our purposes they are called freedom fighters, when they don't they're terrorists.

This was a truly exellent post. This is the best part of it, I think. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.

Originally posted by sycamore


But as they say, you can't fix stupid.

I wonder if Bush might have been more aware of the possibilities if he didn't delegate so much. And I wonder if he takes more of a lead now in the aftermath of 9/11, though that doesn't appear to be the case.

The question in my mind is CAN Bush take a greater leadership role? I don't know if he has the ability to do so. I was talking more of the cynical attitude of playing different groups off each other in order to gain the advantage for our country (or at least the business interests). I do understand that tough decisions sometimes need to be made, it just seems like we are always trying to get more out of any particular situation than we deserve.

But when Americans ask, "Why do they hate us?" and "Why do these Islamic radicals on the other side of the earth want to come over here and commit hara-kiri killing us?" we get responses that ought not to satisfy a second-grader. They hate us, we are told, because we are democratic and free and good, and we have low tax rates.

Well that is no longer enough. Before, not after, the next terror attack on this country, America's leaders should start telling the truth: Evil though they may be, Islamic killers are over here because we are over there. They are not trying to kill us because they dislike our domestic politics, but because they detest our foreign policy.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. They did not fly into those twin towers to protest universal suffrage or to advance self-determination for the Palestinian people. As Osama bin Laden said, they want us to stop propping up the Saudi regime they hate, and to get off the sacred Saudi soil on which sit the holiest shrines of Islam. They want our troops out of Saudi Arabia – and if we don't get out, they are coming over here to kill us any way they can.

That is reality. Now while America should use every weapon in her arsenal, from intelligence to diplomacy to war, to prevent terror and to punish terror, we must address the central issue: Terror on American soil, and eventual cataclysmic and atomic terror on American soil, is the price of American empire.

Is the empire worth it? French, Brits, even Soviets said no. They went home. And nothing over there – not oil, not bases in Saudi Arabia, not global hegemony – is worth risking nuclear terror over here. I may be the only right-winger in America who loves D.C., but then I grew up here. Washington is my hometown. It comes first, and empire isn't even a close second.

He's not my favorite political analyst but he's got a point here.

And in a photographic montage here, that was my point, too.

P.S. I don't know why I keep looking for this thread in Politics. I must remember: "There's no place like Home, there's no place like Home." -- Dorothy

If the answer is capitulating to anybody who might engage in nuclear terror against the US, I suppose we'd better get used to capitulating, because there's a *scrutload* of people out there willing to threaten that.

In fact, based on that philosophy, we should have surrendered to the Soviets back in 1962.

Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong.

Stephen Decatur, April 1816

I can never join with my voice in the toast which I see in the papers attributed to one of our gallant naval heroes. I cannot ask of heaven success, even for my country, in a cause where she should be in the wrong. Fiat justitia, pereat coelum ["Let justice be done though heaven should fall" - anonymous, circa 43 B.C.]. My toast would be, may our country always be successful, but whether successful or otherwise, always right.

John Quincy Adams, August 1, 1816

Originally posted by MaggieL
If the answer is capitulating to anybody who might engage in nuclear terror against the US, I suppose we'd better get used to capitulating, because there's a *scrutload* of people out there willing to threaten that.

In fact, based on that philosophy, we should have surrendered to the Soviets back in 1962.

But is it really capitulating if we don't belong there? I don't like paying to protect the house of Saud, they aren't even the rightful rulers in the first place. And while bowing to terrorism is a mistake, if they are right on a point we should do the opposite just so it looks like we are being tough on terrorism.

Originally posted by spinningfetus


But is it really capitulating if we don't belong there? I don't like paying to protect the house of Saud, they aren't even the rightful rulers in the first place.

As I recall, the US Air Force is there to keep the Iraqis out, not to prop up the princes, who were doing OK on thier own until Iraq invaded Kuwait.

That's what ticked bin Laden off, he figured that Hussein's invasion threat was his ticket back into the good graces of the Saudi rulers (who were his daddy's patrons) ,and when they decided the US was a better ally, he became an opponent of the Saudi regime, who subsequently froze his bank accounts and stripped him of his citizenship.

Bin Laden assumed his personal army would be welcome in Saudi after the Afghan war against the Soviets (financed by the US and with the blessings of the Saudis, as well as the Pakis).

Guess he was wrong....whoda thunk it?

If the Saudis had decided that bin Laden would be their savior, imagine how *that* would have played out (however unlikely a scenario that would have been).

Then you have to ask where did Saddam get his arms? Why us, of course. There is the problem, we are willing to pour money on anyone we think is on our side regardless of what they are doing to thier own people. And there is the answer to the orginial question...

Originally posted by spinningfetus
Then you have to ask where did Saddam get his arms? Why us, of course.

"Us"? Are you perhaps thinking of the Iranians?

The vast preponderance of the stuff Saddam used on the Iranians, the Kuwatis and then on us was supplied by the Soviets, and paid for by the Iraqis themselves.

On a tangent, it's fascinating how as time goes on, fewer and fewer of the people engaging in political discourse actually *remeber* any of the the Cold War, and how totally fscking scary it was.

That's one reason 9/11 struck so many people to the core; we've routinely expected "thine alabaster cities" to remain "undimmed by human tears" ever since the US and the Soviets stepped back from the brink.

But the psychological impact of living every day in the quite reasonable fear that a limited or all-out global thermonuclear exchange could happen at almost any time has to be difficult to fully comprehend for those who weren't around then.

Originally posted by MaggieL


"Us"? Are you perhaps thinking of the Iranians?

Sorry, you have it backwards. The arms you were thinking about were the ones we tried to trade for hostiges, but the reigm (sp?) that deposed the Shah was most definitely NOT our ally. A google yeilded this site in which the GAO found that we were in fact supplying Saddam.

Originally posted by spinningfetus

Sorry, you have it backwards. The arms you were thinking about were the ones we tried to trade for hostiges, but the reigm (sp?) that deposed the Shah was most definitely NOT our ally.

Actually, much of what was up for trade in the Iran-Contra deal was spare parts for stuff we originally gave/sold to the Shah....notably F-4 and C-130s, which were slowly falling out of servicable status as parts-on-hand dried up after the Shah was deposed. After the Shah was gone, the Iranians got a lot of stuff from the Israelis.

A google yeilded this site in which the GAO found that we were in fact supplying Saddam.

While Iraq may have gotten some parts and helos from US sources (and computers, of course; who would be dumb enough to try to use Russian computers?), the LOC Iraqi "Country Study"reports:
<blockquote>
"Since 1959 the Soviet Union has been Iraq's chief arms supplier and its most essential foreign military tie. In April 1972, the two states signed a fifteen-year Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in which Iraq and the Soviet Union agreed to 'continue to develop cooperation in the strengthening of the defense capabilities of each.'".
</blockquote>
see: http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/iqtoc.html

One serious factor in the dissolution of the Soviet Blok was that the Iraqis, equipped with the flower of Soviet Military technology, got their butts so thoughly whipped by a numerically inferior force equipped with technically superior Western equipment. After that, the perceived value of Soviet equipment and training dropped precipitously.

The Iraqis did still have some leftover Brit gear (of 1950s vintage) in small quantities, and did manage to get some small quantities of stuff past a US embargo, as your GAO report shows.

But the idea that *we* gave/sold Saddam any significant part of his military equipment is just plain wrong...the stuff cited in the GAO report is chump change next to what they bought from the Soviets. Just take a look at the tables in the appendix to that LOC country report and you'll see what I mean.

for anyone really interested on this topic, Benjamin Barber a world reknowned politcal scientist and now at the University of Marlyand wrote a book a couple of years back called "Jihad vs. McWorld"

Man, 6 pages in less than 2 odd days, this shoudl be my thread and i missed it ;)

Just to start off with i don't 'hate' america, hell, i don't hate anything, there are jsut aspects, often understandable aspects i dislike. I may as well list.

a: Abuse of power
i: Military: its either belated bullshit (rawanda), pointless (Iraq 1 and deffinately 2), ego boosting (grenada)
ii: Economic: Trade protectionism from someone who preaches free trade to everyone else, everyone's response: Fuck Off.

b: Backward and destructive attitudes, exported
Culture of litigation, economic rationalisation, commercialisation and commuerisation of just about everything.

c: arrogance

2 words, closed mind, closed fist.

The only empire in all of recorded history not hell-bent on imperialistic conquest.

an empire of influence, not control, which is why pax americana will never work.

You think control would work better...?

Originally posted by jaguar
2 words, closed mind, closed fist.

Three words: "Learn to count". :-)

If it wasn't for the *last* big arrogant, militaristic "Pax Americana", Jag would be counting like this: "Ichi, ni, san..."

As you may or may not know, some 'prominent' US-Americans have issued the following statement regarding the 'war on terror'. Try to look at the situation through their eyes, as they see it, and you may understand why others hate America.

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,737060,00.html">Not in our name</a>

Thought-provoking, even if you happen to disagree.

X.

What a bunch of whiny bleeding hearts.

At least we have a list of names to look into. ;)

Brian

If it wasn't for the *last* big arrogant, militaristic "Pax Americana", Jag would be counting like this: "Ichi, ni, san..."

Things have changed in the last 50 years, hate to break it to you.

Originally posted by jaguar
Things have changed in the last 50 years, hate to break it to you.

Not as much as you might think; there's *always* been people happy to sneer at the very things whose benefits they enjoy. :-) Even given how much things have changed, if AU had become part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere fifty years ago, I think it likely you'd still be there today.

Originally posted by Xugumad
As you may or may not know, some 'prominent' US-Americans have issued the following statement regarding the 'war on terror'. Try to look at the situation through their eyes, as they see it, and you may understand why others hate America.

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,737060,00.html">Not in our name</a>

Thought-provoking, even if you happen to disagree.

X.

I'm glad people are getting the courage to speak up. And while I agree with the message, the signers are pretty much who I would expect to see on such a letter. Is nobody right of Ralph Nader even alittle concern over our country's actions? The amout of ire poured down on dissent right now is a little frightening. Oh well, I guess nothing is new... Anybody know where the signups are for the Committee to Re-Elect Joe Mc Carthy???

Anybody know where the signups are for the Committee to Re-Elect Joe Mc Carthy???

@ freerepublic.com

they're makin' an updated hollywood blacklist.

Not as much as you might think; there's *always* been people happy to sneer at the very things whose benefits they enjoy. :-) Even given how much things have changed, if AU had become part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere fifty years ago, I think it likely you'd still be there today.

Its 50 years ago, the fundamentals of international relations ahve changed twice since then, and are changing again, what the heck is your point? That we are somehow indebted to you for the rest of history, that europe is? That germany shoudl never critizise jews becase of the holocost? That kind of mentality? Its *history* now, move on.

Originally posted by jaguar
That we are somehow indebted to you for the rest of history, that europe is?

Every good Australian and European should have a shrine built to the US. Failure to have one should amount to treason in any country.

It should include busts of FDR, Truman, Patton, and MacArthur. The backdrop should be a 48-star flag, although a 50-star flag is acceptable. Red, white, and blue candles should adorn it...at least 10 of each. While lighting the candles, all should recite,

"The United States is the rock upon which I build my life. There is no greater god than the United States. I am insignificant in comparison to the United States...ommmm..."

All things considered atm i woudl ahve thought a bust of macarthy would have been more appropiate =p

Originally posted by jaguar
All things considered atm i woudl ahve thought a bust of macarthy would have been more appropiate =p

Or J. Edgar Hoover....

Originally posted by spinningfetus


Or J. Edgar Hoover....

The FBI probably still has his bust, too....44D