• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

9/11: The Price Americans Paid For Apathy

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I remember my time after coming home from Bosnia. I wanted to go on this big campaign to talk about the horrible injustices in Bosnia and how the US government acted as accomplices to the genocide of Bosnia's Muslims. I wanted to come home and make the case against the Clinton Adminstration like Clarence Darrow would before my fellow Americans. I wanted to discuss the bridge blown apart at Mostar, the hotel which we darkly called the "**** and Chuck" where Muslim women were taken, raped, had their throats slit and was tossed off the side into the Drina River from the cliff that the hotel sat on in Zvornik. I wanted to talk about Sniper Alley and the Seige of Sarajevo, the Sarajevo Marketplace bombing and the Sarajevo "rose petals." I wanted to discuss Osmaci, Zevencia, Tuzla and especially Srebrencia where I patrolled. 8,000 people murdered in the worst massacre in Europe since World War II.

However, what I discovered was that Americans never heard of many of these places and that the news media kept them so clueless as to what happenned that they didn't understand or know the massive scale of what happenned in this country. And even after discussing some of these things, what I found was that alot of Americans could care less what happenned and that their was alot of apathy. I did alot of research on the actions of US foreign policy from the US supported coup in Indonesia that brought a dictator to power who killed 500,000 of his own people with US support. Yet, their was little outrage from the American people. Or Argentina or the wars in Central America that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Still, no outrage from the American people. So long as it didn't directly affect the American people, the American people didn't care.

However, September 11 was a day of reckoning for the American people. You can't remain apathetic forever. You can't expect to allow your government to act with such impunity without paying a serious price. The truth of the matter is that the American people got a very tiny dose of what their government has been dishing out to other people and that by being apathetic, it costed the lives of 3,000 Americans. I think some Americans have finally woken up and learned a hard lesson from September 11. That you cannot be apathetic and that their is a very dangerous world outside of the United States. That their are people who have a vendetta against the US and are very determined to do whatever it takes to destroy America and not only that, that America was no saint and brought some of these attacks on itself. I think some Americans are beginning to learn and understand what drove these terrorists to attack them. That terrorists do not wake up one day and decide to attack a nation for no reason and though these terrorists certainly need to be brought to justice, that governments are not innocent either.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"We make no apology to those who would find it more convenient if we would just disappear rather than serve as a constant reminder to them of their betrayal of principles" -Muhamed Sacirbey, Bosnian Foreign Minister.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yea and I get he feeling that the general population in USA are ok with the fact that their “war” against terrorism after 9/11 have killed a lot more civilians than all terror attacks on the US combined…..

Furthermore please don’t call the killing of US troops terrorism. However immoral it may be its still not terrorism.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Herophant said:
Yea and I get he feeling that the general population in USA are ok with the fact that their “war” against terrorism after 9/11 have killed a lot more civilians than all terror attacks on the US combined…..

Furthermore please don’t call the killing of US troops terrorism. However immoral it may be its still not terrorism.
War is terror my friend, no matter how you try to avoid calling war for what it really is. The killing of US troops is terrorism just like the bombings of cities with warplanes. Modern warfare is very efficient, destructive and impersonal at times. The September 11 attacks was a method of warfare and it was a war declared on the US with the goal of ultimately destroying the US. The US government calls this action a "crime" but it is no crime. September 11 was an act of war. But the term "crime" is a better propaganda term for the US government, because calling it for what it really is, a war, would elevate these terrorists.

Of course, the US brought 9/11 onto itself, and those that committed 9/11 were merely following the example set by the US government along with the apathy of the American people to the rest of the world. I have heard that Bin Laden recieved training from the CIA but I am sure in the very least it was indirect support. The US government committed terrorist actions that the American people do not know about so the US became a target of terrorists. But the ignorance of the American people is no excuse. The cliche, that you reap what you sow, holds true for the case of 9/11. I speak in as truthful and objective terms as I can. I do not subordinate myself to the state or power or nationalist fantasies.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TimmyBoy said:
War is terror my friend, no matter how you try to avoid calling war for what it really is. The killing of US troops is terrorism just like the bombings of cities with warplanes. Modern warfare is very efficient, destructive and impersonal at times. The September 11 attacks was a method of warfare and it was a war declared on the US with the goal of ultimately destroying the US. The US government calls this action a "crime" but it is no crime. September 11 was an act of war. But the term "crime" is a better propaganda term for the US government, because calling it for what it really is, a war, would elevate these terrorists.

Of course, the US brought 9/11 onto itself, and those that committed 9/11 were merely following the example set by the US government along with the apathy of the American people to the rest of the world. I have heard that Bin Laden recieved training from the CIA but I am sure in the very least it was indirect support. The US government committed terrorist actions that the American people do not know about so the US became a target of terrorists. But the ignorance of the American people is no excuse. The cliche, that you reap what you sow, holds true for the case of 9/11. I speak in as truthful and objective terms as I can. I do not subordinate myself to the state or power or nationalist fantasies.
Sure war is war and all that, but can the killing of ca 3000 American civilians justify the 3800-5000 Afghan civilian casualties?

That’s just numbers from 2002 who knows what they are now…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm

If you want to count Iraq in the so called “war on terror” you can add 26690-30051 innocent lives.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

My problem comes from the fact that I perceive Americans to be totally ok with that. All life is equal, but American lives are more equal than others…
Of course not all Americans, but the way I perceive it from the media quite a lot of them…



As for the definition of terrorism I would like to preserve the word for; actions of violence against civilians with the purpose of reaching a political goal through fear. States can also do this, hence state terror.
Suicide tactics are often used in terror but all kinds of violence counts as terrorism in the context of my definition. The Japanese suicide bombers of ww2 were certainly not terrorists neither were the last defenders of the Alamo, who sacrificed their lives to fight the Mexicans; and therefore neither is the Muslims that are killing themselves to kill American troops. Not that I condone their actions, but I will not define them as terrorism.

Feel free to define terrorism yourself, that way I can know what you mean with the word
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Herophant said:
Sure war is war and all that, but can the killing of ca 3000 American civilians justify the 3800-5000 Afghan civilian casualties?

That’s just numbers from 2002 who knows what they are now…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm

If you want to count Iraq in the so called “war on terror” you can add 26690-30051 innocent lives.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

My problem comes from the fact that I perceive Americans to be totally ok with that. All life is equal, but American lives are more equal than others…
Of course not all Americans, but the way I perceive it from the media quite a lot of them…



As for the definition of terrorism I would like to preserve the word for; actions of violence against civilians with the purpose of reaching a political goal through fear. States can also do this, hence state terror.
Suicide tactics are often used in terror but all kinds of violence counts as terrorism in the context of my definition. The Japanese suicide bombers of ww2 were certainly not terrorists neither were the last defenders of the Alamo, who sacrificed their lives to fight the Mexicans; and therefore neither is the Muslims that are killing themselves to kill American troops. Not that I condone their actions, but I will not define them as terrorism.

Feel free to define terrorism yourself, that way I can know what you mean with the word
To me, terrorism can be committed by either a state (government) or group or organization or individual. It is the targetting of innocent civilians for politically motivated reasons. I noticed on the CIA website they define terrorism in the "subnational" context because they don't want the government to be held legally liable for their terrorist actions. It is a double standard in my view. Governments say it is OK for them to commit terrorist acts but it is not OK for anybody else to do it. The very reason why governments become the target for terrorist attacks is because these same governments have committed the very same crimes against civilian populations for political reasons. People will not accept being held to such double standards. The terrorists that struck the US on 9/11 had no intentions of accepting this double standard. It certainly did not make them right, but the US government also set a bad example with it's past actions.

I can understand your views on my fellow Americans because I sort of developed those same views after spending time in Bosnia. I also came home feeling that Americans simply didn't care what happenned in the rest of the world so long as it didn't directly affect them. It was this apathetic attitude that culiminated in a day of reckoning on 9/11.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The world is a small place and what happens in one part of the world affects us all. Americans seemed to have this attitude that it didn't affect them, but they were wrong and 9/11 proved that.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Reading over the CIA definition of terrorism is one of those "Do as I say and not as I do" kind of deals.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes I totally agree that the ”white cowboy hat” picture – I perceive – the Americans have of themselves is wrong. Therefore the 9/11 attack didn’t come to be only because of “them” (the terrorists) were evil. The USA has committed horrible actions of their own; there is a reason why they keep fighting international law.

Please don’t think that I believe the 9/11 attack were morally right, I don’t, but I do believe the causes of the attack were based upon American actions of an immoral nature.

TimmyBoy:
“ To me, terrorism can be committed by either a state (government) or group or organization or individual. It is the targetting of innocent civilians for politically motivated reasons”


Then how can the killing of us troops be terrorism
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Herophant said:
Yes I totally agree that the ”white cowboy hat” picture – I perceive – the Americans have of themselves is wrong. Therefore the 9/11 attack didn’t come to be only because of “them” (the terrorists) were evil. The USA has committed horrible actions of their own; there is a reason why they keep fighting international law.

Please don’t think that I believe the 9/11 attack were morally right, I don’t, but I do believe the causes of the attack were based upon American actions of an immoral nature.

TimmyBoy:
“ To me, terrorism can be committed by either a state (government) or group or organization or individual. It is the targetting of innocent civilians for politically motivated reasons”

Then how can the killing of us troops be terrorism
I guess I should expand my defintion to the killing of human beings for politically motivated reasons. I think war in general is terrorism.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TimmyBoy said:
I guess I should expand my defintion to the killing of human beings for politically motivated reasons. I think war in general is terrorism.
War is indeed terrible and the world would be better of without it. But can you really define the wars against Hitler and all kinds of revolutions to attain freedom as act of terrorism?
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Herophant said:
War is indeed terrible and the world would be better of without it. But can you really define the wars against Hitler and all kinds of revolutions to attain freedom as act of terrorism?
Sure, those fighting for their freedom inevitable become terrorized at the prospect of being killed. Even World War II soldiers fighting the nazis were scared out of their wits when getting hammerred by artillery strikes and trees being shredded on top of them.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Terrorism = War; War = Terrorism

Put it in a mathematical logical sense.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TimmyBoy said:
Sure, those fighting for their freedom inevitable become terrorized at the prospect of being killed. Even World War II soldiers fighting the nazis were scared out of their wits when getting hammerred by artillery strikes and trees being shredded on top of them.
I think we just have to agree to disagree on that one…

Personally I prefer to use terrorism on violence against civilians only, because I think it’s a better more limited definition. Soldiers killing soldiers already have a word; “war” . Sure you can have just wars – however rare – and morally wrong wars.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Herophant said:
I think we just have to agree to disagree on that one…

Personally I prefer to use terrorism on violence against civilians only, because I think it’s a better more limited definition. Soldiers killing soldiers already have a word; “war” . Sure you can have just wars – however rare – and morally wrong wars.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. War is terrorism.
 
Top Bottom