Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Woman Profiled on 9/11
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
Uh.....No
"We" were attacked by Saudi Arabians
Yes Indeedy
Step One was to expedite the escape of roughly one hundred members of the alleged mastermind's immediate family out of the US and back to Saudi Arabia without even cursory questioning by US law enforcement authorities
Step Two was to continue selling lots of shiny new high-tech weapons systems to Saudi Arabia, not to mention help them finance their purchases by continuing to buy every drop of the oil that they care to sell us
Step Three was to invade a country that didn't have diddly to do with 9/11 in any way shape or form.
Not particularly
The residents of Falluja, Iraq (among quite a few other places in the Middle East) would probably disagree
When they tried to bomb Glasgow Airport, they got a swift beating
We have our own religious wars going on in Glasgow thank you very much!
Wait a second. That site points out the cold blooded murders
being performed every day in the name of Islam and you're
calling the site bigoted, hateful and ignorant!? You most
certainly have it backward. You are an example of relativism
gone wild.
+ 1
With study of history out the window, we are all doomed to repeat it, and those who do have an idea will be ignored by those who are willing to go along to get along.
Your site is an Internet compilation of alleged deaths put
together by Marc W. Herold, who opposed the American
bombing campaign. Attempts to substantiate his report
found it "biased and methodologically weak" and called it
an unsubstantiated "opinion piece." There were
undocumented incidents, incidents sourced from Islamist
journals filled with extremist rhetoric and unconfirmed
Taliban numbers.
Obtaining accurate accounts of civilian deaths is one of the
most difficult challenges of war reporting. Journalists must
weigh conflicting information, exaggerations and lies.
For Herold, if the data made the U.S. look bad, it was good
enough for him.
Read more about that here:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Yes. We were attacked by Saudi Arabians who were
terrorist-trained in Afghanistan.
Read and learn:
Hijackers in the September 11 attacks
This woman may not be a terrorist, but she sure is an idiot. Men with automatic weapons board a plane and give her commands, and she's worried about her PHONE!!!! Moron.
Just because no one was charged doesn't mean there wasn't something going on.
Just because no one was charged doesn't mean there wasn't something going on.
I'll go a step further and suggest that if the story is even true, that there would have been no actions of the sort taken without some sort of information suggesting that something was going on.
I actually find her story more than a little suspect and love how innocently she depicts herself, but the prejudices shown in more than one of her own statements.
Bob Lee (QSC)
In case you missed it, I work for QSC Audio!
- Jul 3, 2001
- 12,668
- 2,036
- 67
- Disclosures
- Former Technical Communications Developer, QSC Audio
+1 She was in on something. Unfortunately for her, she was found out before she could commit a terrorist act!
First: It's not "my site". The reason I linked to it is to show that there are plenty of statistics for and against the arguments both sides, and which are being used by both sides for their own ends.
Second: I'm not defending any position. I'm just trying to get you to see that in this type of conflict good/bad depends very much on the observer. From a British perspective the IRA were pure evil, from the Noraid one - not so much. When the Mujehadeen were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan they were heroes. The Nazi's were even regarded as "good" in Norway when they fought against the Red Army.
Third: It does not matter what you or I think of civilian casualties. It matters what the civilian casualties and those related to them think. A village deliberately bombed by the Taliban or accidentally by NATO is still a bombed village, and will increase hatred against whoever bombed them, regardless of the bomber's intent.
Fourth: "Done in the name of" is not the same as "is responsible for." Put the blame where it should be - on the perpetrators themselves, who are terrorists and criminals. As I said before, I don't recall seeing websites of this type decrying the IRA for being Catholics.
Fifth: The Religion of Peace website only gets away with it because it is against Muslims, who all get tarred with the same brush (as all Westerners do on the websites run by Al-Kaide, and for the same reason: "they're all the same - they all want to oppress/kill/destroy you - you should be with us and against them"). Try putting up something similar but with Afro-American gangsters or Mexican drug dealers as being similarly representative of their respective cultures and see how far you get, if you don't believe it's bigoted. If all 1.5bn Muslims were really bloodthirsty, fanatical extremists, we wouldn't be here to discuss the matter.
Tegsza - good post, I agree with you with much of it but that last sentence is pretty much an issued challenge to send this thread spiraling into goofiness.
True. However, hatred toward the west is being preached
in mosques to millions of Muslims. Millions of Muslims believe
in oppressive Sharia law. Millions of Muslims cheered when
thousands of Americans died on 9-11.
If those Muslim perpetrators were truly a minority within their
religion acting outside the religions beliefs for the overwhelming
majority of individuals who practice that religion, they would
be very much like the IRA. However, that is not the case.
Again, your relativism is far out of control by attempting to
equate these Muslims with Catholics. It's a poor analogy.
If for arguments sake your numbers are right, consider: There are something like 1.3-1.6bn (1,300m - 1,600m) Muslims in the world.
If hatred of the west is not only being preached to, but lets say for arguments sake it is very much believed by "millions", lets say, 10million, then you are still under 1% of the total population of Muslims in the word. I would call less than 1% a "minority" and the 99% left an "overwhelming majority". How would you classify them?
When you see world wide polls of Muslims that show support for suicide bombers or Al Quada at between 10-20% the statement that a large majority of Muslims disagree with the extremists is certainly true. And considering that most of the extremists are in places like Pakistan for the most part this isn't a Western Muslim problem. The problem is 10-20% of two billion is a very large pool from which to recruit terrorists. The other problem is how much the lie of Islamic extremism has permeated the Islamic world. A recent poll of post Arab Spring Egypt showed that a majority of the population believe "the Jews were behind 9/11" and that "OBL is still alive". The same poll also claimed that a majority "consider 9/11 a great victory for Islam". I won't even broach the logical disconnect in that one.
For comparisons sake, the worlds Christian population is still larger than the Muslim population. And yet I've never seen a poll where world wide Christian support for abortion clinic bombing or the IRA equaled 1% of the worlds population of Christians. I just think any one who equates the two is ignoring huge cultural reality differences.
Even if I were to accept "millions" as being a true figure, they are entitled to do so. We may not like or understand it, but that's our problem, not theirs. Millions of Muslims cheered when we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, many of whom also believe in Sharia law. People are capable of holding several viewpoints at once. They hate A because of this, but hate B and admire A because of that. Humans are complicated and fitting them into little boxes never works out.
But they do operate very much outside that religion's beliefs - killing innocents is a sin, killing without just cause is a sin (yes, we can argue about what "just cause" means to terrorists - but they are terrorists, so why do we accept their interpretation above all the others?), killing co-religionists is absolutely forbidden (who kill the most Muslims? Terrorists). As for the numbers, who can tell? We can bat numbers back and forth, but from personal experience (you can choose to take my word for it, or not as you see fit) I can tell you that an overwhelming majority have absolutely no truck at all with terrorists of any stripe or cause, and that includes quite a few from the more "fundamentalist" viewpoint. "Killing is a sin", they say. "No excuses." They may not like the West, but that's not the same as supporting terrorists.
As for the terrorists themselves: It's not the religion: it's them. They are separatists: they want the West completely out of the Middle East, so that they can have it all. The religion undoubtedly plays a part - but that isn't the fault of the law-abiding majority who just want to get on with their lives. Lumping them all in together because of this one factor is unfair and unhelpful.
And again, I'm simply pointing out how futile it is to lump people together according to ONE factor, particularly one that has such a nebulous meaning (from casual believer to outright fundamentalist). Most Muslims think about religion about as often as most western Christians, and in much the same casual way - it's just something that is part of their everyday existence. They do not deserve to be made in some way responsible for, or sympathetic to, a group of outright sociopaths because we are too lazy to differentiate.
Although I started this thread, I have not posted in it until now. I will simply say that Anti-Muslim bigotry in the USA cannot really be understood without taking into account political issues in America that cannot be discussed here because the rules of TB.
I'd like to pose an honest question: how do we know that millions of Muslims around the world cheered on 9/11? How do we know that hatred of the West is being preached in Mosques around the world? I'm not saying they're not and I'm not saying they are. I guess what I'm getting at is- do we have any evidence of this?
because the media tells us they do, and we take it all in like good little idiots...
OK, that was harsh, but IMO we're spoon fed a lot of stupidity these days that far too many take at face value, leading to some very skewed and incorrect assumptions.
