9/11 cause enough for war?

[Exarch]

ok, it's been going on for about close to 8 years now, but really i have to ask, and i dont mean to cause offence to anyone who had family in the WTC but really, did the 9/11 attacks in NYC really warrant a declaration of a War on Terror and justify all its resulting panic button pushings (patriot acts, clampdown on civil liberties, 2 offensive questionable wars)??

Dont look at it from the persopective of an american, but rather, as a citizen of the world. how many terrorist attacks have occurred in the world since yonks?

did we really have to invade afghanistan? invade a soverign country? it doenst matter whether or not u agree with its gov. was it really right to invade another country simply because some terrorists pulled off an attack? and if our target was osama bin lade, then why not do what the israelis did and send covert assassins after him, without stationing troops in a central asian hellhole where casualties are rising as months go by?

Do the 9/11 attacks justify all this war, all this carnage and loss in US creidibility?

[Astaroth]

Declaring war on Afghanistan has something to do with them openly supporting Al Qaeda who were responsible for 9/11. Not to mention that they were harboring bin Laden and refused to hand him over to American officials.

I'd say that's enough reason for a war, especially considering that the whole world (ok, Saudi Arabia didn't ), including NATO, Russia and China backed the war. Heck, even the UN did.

[Exarch]

Declaring war on Afghanistan has something to do with them openly supporting Al Qaeda who were responsible for 9/11. Not to mention that they were harboring bin Laden and refused to hand him over to American officials.

I'd say that's enough reason for a war, especially considering that the whole world (ok, Saudi Arabia didn't ), including NATO, Russia and China backed the war. Heck, even the UN did.

each country had their own reasons for supporting a 'war on terror' in the case of china and russia, it allowed them a freer hand to deal with inserrectionists and local terrorist groups. the whole saying 'someone's terrorist is another's freedom fighter' applies the world over.

i'd say the declaration of a 'war on terror' had more to do with the inept bush admin. wanitng to make itself look like it was doing somethign when it'd be caught sleeping at the wheel; as tragic as 9/11 was, many many more ppl have died in terrorist attacks in other countries without the need to invade another country.

there was no need to invade afghanistan, it was unnecessary and probably had more to do with cheney/rumsfeld's PFANAC's designs in central asia than justice for the 9/11 victims.
the USG could've attempted diplomacy with pakistan/afghanistan/turkmenistan/china into coordinaitng a worldwide manhunt for bin laden. special forces could've taken him out silently, without the need for this current military quagmire in afghanistan.

[motiv-8]

This isn't a serious enough discussion for the Academy.

[Exarch]

This isn't a serious enough discussion for the Academy.

and why is that?

u support the war i take it?
rather than addressing this thread, you're taking the coward's way out and attempting to have it silenced
interesting

[Da Skinna]

They messed up terrorism with Iraq. Simple as that.

[Nutsack]

I support the invasion of Aghanistan simply because their Taliban state obviously openly supported Osama Bin Laden. Iraq however, what happened there I do not know .

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Here's something that people almost always miss out and in some cases, deliberately so.

When the US was attacked on 9/11, whether it retaliated or not is not relevant to what I'm trying to say here. For just a minute, after 9/11, Americans, who have some of the best universities and intellectuals in the world, should have put their superpower arrogance in the cupboard for a couple of minutes and thought:

"Why were we attacked? We must have done something wrong to get this. After all, why would anyone want to commit murder, kill themselves in the process and plan with so much detail to do so? Is it possible that these terrorist attacks were in retaliation to our own perceived terrorist activities in the rest of the world, which we, by the way, were told are liberation and freedom operations?"

Unfortunately, that's not how it happened. Americans were immediately told to believe that they were attacked because the attackers believed in a violent book and their only motive in life was to kill. Many on this forum also adhere to that naive, simplistic and quite frankly, stupid assumption. When the Marriot was bombed in Islamabad last month, some people took a step back and thought, "holy cow, we've been inflicting this on these people everyday and finally, they've give us a taste of what we've been putting them through".

So if anything, after 9/11, the US should've thought long and hard about its foreign policy. Unfortunately, even to infer that 9/11 was brought about because of unsound American actions abroad is equated with Naziism, anti-semitism, terrorism and what not.

[Exarch]

Here's something that people almost always miss out and in some cases, deliberately so.

When the US was attacked on 9/11, whether it retaliated or not is not relevant to what I'm trying to say here. For just a minute, after 9/11, Americans, who have some of the best universities and intellectuals in the world, should have put their superpower arrogance in the cupboard for a couple of minutes and thought:

"Why were we attacked? We must have done something wrong to get this. After all, why would anyone want to commit murder, kill themselves in the process and plan with so much detail to do so? Is it possible that these terrorist attacks were in retaliation to our own perceived terrorist activities in the rest of the world, which we, by the way, were told are liberation and freedom operations?"

Unfortunately, that's not how it happened. Americans were immediately told to believe that they were attacked because the attackers believed in a violent book and their only motive in life was to kill. Many on this forum also adhere to that naive, simplistic and quite frankly, stupid assumption. When the Marriot was bombed in Islamabad last month, some people took a step back and thought, "holy cow, we've been inflicting this on these people everyday and finally, they've give us a taste of what we've been putting them through".

So if anything, after 9/11, the US should've thought long and hard about its foreign policy. Unfortunately, even to infer that 9/11 was brought about because of unsound American actions abroad is equated with Naziism, anti-semitism, terrorism and what not.

excellent points

War against the Al-Qaeda was most definitely warranted as a result of 9/11. So was the war on the Taliban.

i disagree, it should've never come down to boots on the ground, in afghanistan.

[jman47]

Here's something that people almost always miss out and in some cases, deliberately so.

When the US was attacked on 9/11, whether it retaliated or not is not relevant to what I'm trying to say here. For just a minute, after 9/11, Americans, who have some of the best universities and intellectuals in the world, should have put their superpower arrogance in the cupboard for a couple of minutes and thought:

"Why were we attacked? We must have done something wrong to get this. After all, why would anyone want to commit murder, kill themselves in the process and plan with so much detail to do so? Is it possible that these terrorist attacks were in retaliation to our own perceived terrorist activities in the rest of the world, which we, by the way, were told are liberation and freedom operations?"

Unfortunately, that's not how it happened. Americans were immediately told to believe that they were attacked because the attackers believed in a violent book and their only motive in life was to kill. Many on this forum also adhere to that naive, simplistic and quite frankly, stupid assumption. When the Marriot was bombed in Islamabad last month, some people took a step back and thought, "holy cow, we've been inflicting this on these people everyday and finally, they've give us a taste of what we've been putting them through".

So if anything, after 9/11, the US should've thought long and hard about its foreign policy. Unfortunately, even to infer that 9/11 was brought about because of unsound American actions abroad is equated with Naziism, anti-semitism, terrorism and what not.

i simply have to say to this that 2 wrongs dont make a right.

just because our foreign policy sucks in no way means attacks on innocent civilians are part of the solution. may i also point out that there hasnt been a major terrorist attack in america since 9/11, or even a small one i can think of.

its easy for the world to say americas war on terror is unwarranted, but until a plane crashes into the Eiffel tower, or possibly buckingham palace, or the kremlin, ect, ect, countries cannot say that they know what its like to lose a symbol of national identity to extremist terrorists, and have no right to tell us what to do.

as for the 'violent book' theory, most americans are smart enough to know better, you just dont see them in the news because they dont make an interesting story, the idiots are the ones who get the airspace. many americans know the difference between muslims and islamists, knowing them more though as 'civilians' for muslims and 'terrorists' for islamists.

finally i believe that the action in afganistan is well warranted enough, due to the large amount of time it would take to organise a diplomatic effort to capture bin laden. also an israli special forces strike, even if successful, would have caused major unrest in the muslim world since they already hate israel and israel moving around spec ops in muslim countries would do little to endear them any at all. however iraq was a blunder that is credited to the average american when it was bush, cheney, and rumsfeldt that laid that goose egg, leading to the recent failures in afganistan, as well as causing this war to drag on for almost eight years.

[Viking Prince]

Here's something that people almost always miss out and in some cases, deliberately so.

When the US was attacked on 9/11, whether it retaliated or not is not relevant to what I'm trying to say here. For just a minute, after 9/11, Americans, who have some of the best universities and intellectuals in the world, should have put their superpower arrogance in the cupboard for a couple of minutes and thought:

"Why were we attacked? We must have done something wrong to get this. After all, why would anyone want to commit murder, kill themselves in the process and plan with so much detail to do so? Is it possible that these terrorist attacks were in retaliation to our own perceived terrorist activities in the rest of the world, which we, by the way, were told are liberation and freedom operations?"

This is like asking a rape victim to do an intraspective on why she had put herself in a position to get raped. Or the idiots who suggest that "she was asking for it" with her dress and mannerisms.

The attack was not provoked. Such acts are never ever justified under any circumstances.

Unfortunately, that's not how it happened. Americans were immediately told to believe that they were attacked because the attackers believed in a violent book and their only motive in life was to kill. Many on this forum also adhere to that naive, simplistic and quite frankly, stupid assumption. When the Marriot was bombed in Islamabad last month, some people took a step back and thought, "holy cow, we've been inflicting this on these people everyday and finally, they've give us a taste of what we've been putting them through".

So if anything, after 9/11, the US should've thought long and hard about its foreign policy. Unfortunately, even to infer that 9/11 was brought about because of unsound American actions abroad is equated with Naziism, anti-semitism, terrorism and what not.

Show me where the American public was told that they were attacked because of Islam. Just one single reference of the government making such an outragous statement.

Others may give you +rep for this and give you support in the thread. I ask for you to back this up.

War is always serious. It is and should be taken as a last resort. To suggest that Afganistan is in any way not such a case can be debated. To suggest or even hint at the garbage within your post is not excusable.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

This is like asking a rape victim to do an intraspective on why she had put herself in a position to get raped. Or the idiots who suggest that "she was asking for it" with her dress and mannerisms.

Incorrect analogy. It's more like the rapist crying after someone raped him. By raping others, the rapist was asking to get raped by someone back.

The attack was not provoked. Such acts are never ever justified under any circumstances.

The attack was most definitely provoked but I agree, it can never be justified. The slaughter of civilians, whether by the US, the IDF, HAMAS or anyone else can never be justified or excused. Slaughter by intent or indifference is abhorrent.

Show me where the American public was told that they were attacked because of Islam. Just one single reference of the government making such an outragous statement.

What I meant was the tv-media, the bloggers and the radio talk shows started talking about how evil Islam is. I never suggested the government said anything like that. In fact, Bush called Islam a "noble faith" although I doubt he meant it. If you want references of Americans being told Islam is evil and the cause of all the problems in the world, I can give you a lot of evidence.

With that said, people (especially Americans) rely heavily on the tv to give them their news and information. The media has more propaganda power than the government and when a nation believes it's not susceptible to propanganda at all, you know that the propaganda is pretty damn good. It's like what Howard Beale said:

Because less than three percent of you people read books! Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers! Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube! This tube is the Gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers... This tube is the most awesome God-damned force in the whole godless world, and woe is us if it ever falls in to the hands of the wrong people.....

Whether or not the US was doing anything wrong when it was attacked is irrelevant.

Not responding to the attacks, and in fact changing foreign policy to the wishes of the attackers as a result of the attacks, shows those responsible that attacking America is the means to achieve their goals.

A response was inevitable but instead of altering its flawed foreign policy, Bush and his band of criminals only spread more hate, confusion and fire in the world. Americans agree with me on this one as they overwhelmingly voted for change early this month.

[the_mango55]

A response was inevitable but instead of altering its flawed foreign policy, Bush and his band of criminals only spread more hate, confusion and fire in the world. Americans agree with me on this one as they overwhelmingly voted for change early this month.

And yet the person they voted in vows to continue the fight in Afghanistan.

The majority of Americans do not believe in the war in Iraq, but do believe in Afghanistan.

[Caelius]

When the US was attacked on 9/11, whether it retaliated or not is not relevant to what I'm trying to say here. For just a minute, after 9/11, Americans, who have some of the best universities and intellectuals in the world, should have put their superpower arrogance in the cupboard for a couple of minutes and thought:

"Why were we attacked? We must have done something wrong to get this. After all, why would anyone want to commit murder, kill themselves in the process and plan with so much detail to do so? Is it possible that these terrorist attacks were in retaliation to our own perceived terrorist activities in the rest of the world, which we, by the way, were told are liberation and freedom operations?"

Why would Americans choose to willfully subscribe to the victimhood mentality of propaganda that terrorists would want them to force on themselves?

Your talk of supposed American "arrogance" in response to an attack like 9/11 is nothing short of campaigning for an appeasement of terrorism.

Who's arrogant again?

What I meant was the tv-media, the bloggers and the radio talk shows started talking about how evil Islam is. I never suggested the government said anything like that.

They can do that in the US, its called Freedom of Speech.

But at least you were smart enough to make the difference between the US Media and the US Government in that case.

9/11 provoked a dialogue on the nature of how Islamic extremism has corrupted or hijacked parts of the faith when it comes to terrorism, yes.

But that doesn't mean that the general consensus formed by the American people is that Islam is evil.

A response was inevitable but instead of altering its flawed foreign policy, Bush and his band of criminals only spread more hate, confusion and fire in the world.

Please.

If anything Bush did what needed to be done, he gave Islamic extremism a real kick in the teeth. A kick that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are going to be hard pressed to recover from.

Senseless killing and fear tactics can only go so far.

Americans agree with me on this one as they overwhelmingly voted for change early this month.

Not in the foreign policy department.

Bush's secretary of defense is staying in, and US troops won't be leaving anytime soon from either Iraq or Afghanistan.

The majority of Americans do not believe in the war in Iraq, but do believe in Afghanistan.

A majority of American believe we're winning the War in Iraq actually. As well as the War on Terror.

[jankren]

Incorrect analogy. It's more like the rapist crying after someone raped him. By raping others, the rapist was asking to get raped by someone back.

Lol, thats hilarious. The rapist gets raped and whines about it.

Military interventions on behalf of US interests is not state terrorism. It's a complication of being the most powerful and influential country on the planet. We have a lot of interests to protect. Sorry if some people's toes get stepped on.

Lol bro, do you actually reread what you wrote? Imagine yourself as a non-American reading this 'unbelievable' statement.

Or okay lets just rephrase it:

Military interventions on behalf of Iranian interests is not state terrorism. It's a complication of being the most powerful and influential country in the Middle East. The Iranians have a lot of interests to protect. Sorry if some people's toes get stepped on.

Doesnt sound so nice now, eh?

Initially he did but in a tape he released in 2004 he claimed he was the one responsible. So, that's from the horses mouth...

I personally believe OBL is probably the one responsible for 9/11 but one has to wonder why he initially refused to admit his involvement in an event which he himself supposedly planned in order to gain worldwide spotlight for his cause? I mean just look at the latest terrorist attacks. They were always followed by groups scrambling to claim the credits you know. And also it took them 3 years to finally admit it. It came across as what they were doing was nothing but to take credits for something they didnt do.

I could probably be wrong though. But Im just curious.

[the_mango55]

Here's something that people almost always miss out and in some cases, deliberately so.

When the US was attacked on 9/11, whether it retaliated or not is not relevant to what I'm trying to say here. For just a minute, after 9/11, Americans, who have some of the best universities and intellectuals in the world, should have put their superpower arrogance in the cupboard for a couple of minutes and thought:

"Why were we attacked? We must have done something wrong to get this. After all, why would anyone want to commit murder, kill themselves in the process and plan with so much detail to do so? Is it possible that these terrorist attacks were in retaliation to our own perceived terrorist activities in the rest of the world, which we, by the way, were told are liberation and freedom operations?"

Unfortunately, that's not how it happened. Americans were immediately told to believe that they were attacked because the attackers believed in a violent book and their only motive in life was to kill. Many on this forum also adhere to that naive, simplistic and quite frankly, stupid assumption. When the Marriot was bombed in Islamabad last month, some people took a step back and thought, "holy cow, we've been inflicting this on these people everyday and finally, they've give us a taste of what we've been putting them through".

So if anything, after 9/11, the US should've thought long and hard about its foreign policy. Unfortunately, even to infer that 9/11 was brought about because of unsound American actions abroad is equated with Naziism, anti-semitism, terrorism and what not.

Whether or not the US was doing anything wrong when it was attacked is irrelevant.

Not responding to the attacks, and in fact changing foreign policy to the wishes of the attackers as a result of the attacks, shows those responsible that attacking America is the means to achieve their goals.

[Henry of Grosmont]

This is like asking a rape victim to do an intraspective on why she had put herself in a position to get raped. Or the idiots who suggest that "she was asking for it" with her dress and mannerisms.

+rep.

@OP.
If assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was enough to start WW1, and Gleiwitz incident WW2, then I say yes.

[fieldmarshal]

"Why were we attacked? We must have done something wrong to get this. After all, why would anyone want to commit murder, kill themselves in the process and plan with so much detail to do so? Is it possible that these terrorist attacks were in retaliation to our own perceived terrorist activities in the rest of the world, which we, by the way, were told are liberation and freedom operations?"

Yes why were we attacked, why were 3000 innocent people killed? where these 3000 people involved in some terrorist activities, that they deserved to die?
Retaliation to what exactly, how many middle eastern countries were attacked and invaded before 9/11? Bin Laden biggest gripe was US presence in SA, and that is justification for anything?, And if he hated Israel soo much he should have flown those two airplanes into Tel Aviv.

9/11 was a justification for war simply because the attacks targeted and killed civilians.

Unfortunately, that's not how it happened. Americans were immediately told to believe that they were attacked because the attackers believed in a violent book and their only motive in life was to kill.

Told to believe by whom? US media, US govt, or People who read from the Quran while they behead people?

So if anything, after 9/11, the US should've thought long and hard about its foreign policy. Unfortunately, even to infer that 9/11 was brought about because of unsound American actions abroad is equated with Naziism, anti-semitism, terrorism and what not.

Your right, a country's foreign policy is enough justification to slaughter its civilians who never took part or decided in any of the Govt's policies. If these people targeted the military, you can take a step back and say, i wonder why they are angry. But when it is innocent people who are killed, these people, who ever they are and what ever their cause is, must be bought to justice.

[C-Rob]

I don't think 3000 lives can ever be worth 4000+ soldiers dead, thousands of civilians, and economic ruin for all. We should have re-evaluated our air port security(we did that) and re-evaluated our foreign and domestic policies that can foster these terrorists' reasons. And never gone to war.

[PacSubCom]

I don't think 3000 lives can ever be worth 4000+ soldiers dead, thousands of civilians, and economic ruin for all.

For all? Where does all the money go?

9/11 cause enough for war?

Cause yes, reason no.