If there's a major attack on this country, I'll grieve for the victims

[cali]

but I won't be surprised. Our policies invite it.

Honestly, what can you expect when you go around the world killing people with drones and bombing other countries, not to mention Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghrib, torture and the imperious assumptions that we have the right to do what we think is right whenever and wherever that leads us.

What can you expect? Sooner or later you can expect major blowback from those who feel aggrieved, who believe that this country has perpetrated great injustice on them.

I had hopes that Obama would alter our bombastic (no pun intended) foreign policy. And in the first couple of years, I think we saw some tentative steps in that direction, but it didn't last.

Maybe it's impossible to change our trajectory- law of the instrument, the power of the Military/Industrial Complex, etc.

I don't know, but sitting here on this fall like morning with the frost on the grass, I see no end in sight to our aggression and to the tragic cycles of war we perpetrate.

[liberal N proud]

1. The US does act like a bully

[malaise]

2. One word

Warmongers

[ejpoeta]

3. I like how when it comes to feeding families and helping the citizens of the US

we're broke. but when it comes to war and interjecting ourselves in other places we have plenty of money. I understand the desire to help people in these countries, yet are we going to go all over the world to every place people are being hurt by their leaders? We are going to be very busy. What is most interesting to me is how our history shows how we have put ourselves in the middle in the past to supply and train osama bin laden in afghanistan and the taliban only to turn around and fight them years later. This seems to be a pattern. These dictators and regimes we look the other way when they are our 'friends', yet turn around and go after them when we don't like what they do. They aren't doing what we want, being our puppets. Sure, I hate to see people being treated so poorly by their leaders, yet we are already in the middle of two conflicts that are bleeding us dry. We are watching states cut back services for their citizens as we talk about spending even more money to place ourselves in another conflict. We risk hurting our elderly by chained cpi and cuts to social security while we talk about spending more money to go into yet another country.

[historylovr]

6. +1,000,000

[City Lights]

23. Well said!

[The Blue Flower]

36. THIS

thanks for putting it so well.

[wandy]

107. +1

[2naSalit]

116. It certainly seems to be the

objective to subdue a free thinking society (us) by robbing us of our national (ill-gotten I might add) wealth such that we can no longer feed or house ourselves. That way we can eventually wage war on ourselves as we have seen lately with militarized and brutal municipal police... We will have a war at home soon as the rest of the world will have been conquered and devastated and the only ones left to go and beat the shit out of will be we the people.

You're correct that there is a pattern, the end game is what we should be wary of as well as the means.

[Arugula Latte]

155. "desire to help people in these countries"

Well, for some politicians and some citizens, yes. But for the past several decades as a nation we've attacked and invaded for far more sinister reasons.

[ejpoeta]

207. oh i know.

we as people want to help the citizens of syria. the politicians want to help their campaign contributers. they will use helping the people as an excuse.... but the reality it is for oil or some other thing that they have that we want.

[leftstreet]

185. +1

[SomethingFishy]

191. Good post. I have been talking about this for awhile..

that in spite of being told we are broke there seems to be plenty of money for wars, for congressional raises, for weapons development, but not much for roads, schools and health care.

[Enthusiast]

204. We only have to listen to the words of the far right.

They demonize the less fortunate continuously. They do this despite the fact that their policies created this massive group of less fortunate. It harkens back to the language of the 20th Century Fascists and their demonization of who they called useless eaters.

The far right is the far right. They haven't changed.

[ejpoeta]

208. they sure do love their wars though, don't they.

like bullies that want to prove to everyone they are bigger and tougher. then they complain about the deficit. and taxes. cognitive dissonance.

[Junkdrawer]

4. If there's a major attack on this country, I'll suspect synthetic terror....

without Obama's approval, but also without Obama's investigation of who's behind it.

[newfie11]

5. Anything to convince the public to go to war

Nothing surprises me anymore. The real history of what we have done to other countries is despicable.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

16. x2

[agent46]

68. Yeah. When you look at it now

The playbook is pretty damn transparent and simplistic, isn't it.

What do you give it? Two? Maybe three months?

Will America fall for it again? Hope not - but probably.

Either way, we're screwn and it's going to take a lot of us pulling together for the duration to get unscrewn.

[bobclark86]

119. OK...

AM Coast to Coast called. They want their conspiracy theory back.

[Junkdrawer]

127. Get back to me AFTER there's an attack.

No conspiracy yet.

[bobclark86]

132. Exactly...

so stop insinuating there will be and the president wants it.

[Junkdrawer]

134. I don't think the President wants it.

But if it happens, will he have the ability to publicly question, say, Saudi Arabia? The Senate didn't after 9/11.

[progressoid]

7. Maybe he needs another Nobel Peace Prize.

[HardTimes99]

10. Some wag yesterday suggested that maybe the Nobel Committee not

award the prize in advance

[CrispyQ]

55. Have they ever revoked the prize?

I think it would be appropriate.

[polichick]

8. "You reap what you sow" comes to mind...

But really, cali, what are you thinking!? They hate us for our freedoms!!

[cali]

11. I avoided using that phrase, but yes, it came to mind

sadly.

[ejpoeta]

209. yep, for sure.

[HardTimes99]

9. I will be attending my first-ever protest against a Democratic president tomorrow

at the Federal Building in Westwood. I've protested publicly against every Republican president, dating back to Reagan, but this will be the first time I've ever protested against a Democrat.

In addition, I have been calling and emailing my Rep (Maxine Waters) and two Senators (Boxer and Feinstein).

Short of getting arrested for civil disobedience, I'm not sure what else any ordinary citizen can do. But I share your discontent and unease.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. Good luck. It may be different this time with the police using more sanctioned violence.

[HardTimes99]

22. Gulp! Wasn't planning on getting my head bashed in tomorrow, but having seen the LAPD

in action with other anti-war protests and with Occupy Los Angeles, I suppose the possibility exists.

[Hydra]

143. Follow your heart, but keep safe

You getting injured doesn't help the cause

[RevStPatrick]

12. Ouch! A "chickens coming home to roost" post.

Those don't usually go over very well, and rightly so.

We need a plan.
A plan to get ourselves out of this mess.
Nobody seems to be working on that.
It's just status quo, status quo, status quo.
I'm constantly finding myself disappointed in my country and my species.
For some pretty smart critters, we are amazingly fucking stupid.

Chickens coming home to roost isn't going to solve anything...

[ProSense]

13. What a disgusting post. n/t

[cali]

14. why? what do you find so "disgusting"?

[ProSense]

19. It reminds me of the RW claims that the country will be attacked if...

You will "grieve"? You will do nothing if you're one of the victims of your hypothetical "major attack on this country" that "our policies invite" as you claim.

[cali]

29. well, that makes as little sense as I expected

What the heck could I do if I was one of the victims of such an attack?

Do you understand that the fact that 80% of Pakistan's citizens view the U.S. as an enemy didn't arise out of a vacuum? Do you grasp that such deep antipathy poses a threat of of attacks? Do you acknowledge that that view is directly related to U.S. policies including drone killings?

gad. when it comes to doing anything but posting self-referential links, you seem awfully limited.

[ProSense]

32. "What the heck could I do if I was one of the victims of such an attack? "

"Do you understand that the fact that 80% of Pakistan's citizens view the U.S. as an enemy didn't arise out of a vacuum? Do you grasp that such deep antipathy poses a threat of of attacks? Do you acknowledge that that view is directly related to U.S. policies including drone killings?

gad. when it comes to doing anything but posting self-referential links, you seem awfully limited."

So the 9/11 attacks were justified? Are you saying that if 9/11 happens again, we deserve it?

"Gad" is right.

[choie]

37. justification doesn't equal explanation

Were the 9/11 attacks justified? Of course not. Was there an explanation for them? Of course. Shit - the US can't do murderous crap around the world and not expect a reaction. Maybe if you thought more about that then how to defend the Obama administration at every turn, you'd be able to see (or admit) the obvious.

[ProSense]

41. "Of course. Shit - the US can't do murderous crap around the world and not expect a reaction."

The Iraq invasion was illegal and atrocious. It was launched in 2003.

I supposed that comment means the U.S. government is justified in keeping vigilante. After all, an attack is to be expected.

I see this a fear mongering.

[cali]

46. what is fear mongering? discussing the possible ramifications of

U.S. foreign policy? But JK's dire warnings and Hitler/Nazi rhetoric are what, reasoned?

With you, up is down and bombing by the Obama administration is admirable and humanitarian.

I see that as utter nonsense.

[ProSense]

50. You said it

what is fear mongering? discussing the possible ramifications of U.S. foreign policy?

...yourself, we're attacked regardless of our policies in reference to 9/11:

"I do think that U.S. policies and intervention in the middle east played a role in the minds of those who perpetrated the attacks and those who supported them."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023608867#post39

"But JK's dire warnings and Hitler/Nazi rhetoric are what, reasoned? "

I don't agree that referencing past events related to World Wars in relation to a chemical attack is inappropriate. Like I said, it's more appropriate in relation to gassing people, than it is to the NSA debate.

Alan Grayson: IT'S NOT OKAY WITH ME - "We are not North Koreans. & We don’t live in Nazi Germany."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023028119

[cali]

60. well that was a garbled mess of a post, pro

again, try something other than parroting back my words that don't in any way support your argument- whatever the fuck it is, pro. c'mon, pro, try to actually think.

inane and banal as well as garbled.

blind support is not a reasoned position.

And the rhetoric about Hitler is hysterical and contemptible. Trust you to admire it.
'
empty is what your posts are. empty of reason, empty of compassion, empty of anything but blind support for the President.

[ProSense]

63. The "garbled mess" is the OP, especially since you stated 9/11 had nothing to do with policy. n/t

[cali]

65. I never stated that 9/11 had nothing to do with policy. Never.

you are losing it, pro.

and the OP was written in plain serviceable English- unlike your barely literate posts, pro.

[cali]

39. parroting back does not a cogent argument make, pro

and it's just as limited as self-referential links.

I did not say that the 9/11 attacks were deserved. I've never said that, and I don't think in those terms.

I do think that U.S. policies and intervention in the middle east played a role in the minds of those who perpetrated the attacks and those who supported them.

Hardly a leap.

[ProSense]

44. So you believe

"I do think that U.S. policies and intervention in the middle east played a role in the minds of those who perpetrated the attacks and those who supported them."

...we're also attacked regardless of our policies? If that's the case, what is the basis for your "major" hypothetical attack?

Wishful thinking? I mean, you're justifying it by saying:

"If there's a major attack on this country, I'll grieve for the victims but I won't be surprised. Our policies invite it."

[cali]

49. yeah, I wish for people to be killed and maimed. that's the ticket.

your post is lame and dishonest as the day is long.

Are you actually saying "they hate us for our freedoms"?

Do you think that's the motivation behind 9/11? Do you think it happened in a vacuum and had nothing to do with U.S. policies and actions?

No, I'm not justifying it. Not even a little bit. That's just a pile of shit false accusation.

[ProSense]

56. ""If there's a major attack on this country, I'll grieve for the victims but I won't be surprised.

...Our policies invite it."

You then went on to say that the 9/11 attacks were not about policy:

"I do think that U.S. policies and intervention in the middle east played a role in the minds of those who perpetrated the attacks and those who supported them."

I repeat: If that's the case, what is the basis for your hypothetical "major" attack?

[cali]

61. ack, pro. I said nothing of the sort pro.

you are losing it, pro. do step back from the ledge, pro.

[ProSense]

66. You didn't say

this in reference to 9/11:

"I do think that U.S. policies and intervention in the middle east played a role in the minds of those who perpetrated the attacks and those who supported them."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023608867#post39

[cali]

69. Yes. I said that. NO IT IS NOT REMOTELY THE SAME FUCKING THING

AS SAYING U.S. POLICY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 9/11 ATTACKS.

Wow. That you think it is the same thing, really does demonstrate that you have no connection to reality, pro.

[bobduca]

45. Everything on this board reminds you of the right wing boogeymen

There's Rand Paul, There's Rand Paul!!!!111

[ProSense]

57. Rand Paul is the RW, and

"Everything on this board reminds you of the right wing boogeymen"

...yes, there are reminders:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023605219

[cali]

72. I don't see you as ideological at all. simply an absolute loyalist with

no beliefs extending beyond your fealty to the President.

[City Lights]

123. !

[NuclearDem]

54. Bullshit.

The GWB mushroom cloud "we can't appear weak" shit is not the same as acknowledging that blowback happens.

Jesus, Pro, you sound like one of the fucking right wing nationalists that got us into these wars.

[ProSense]

58. Spare me the

"The GWB mushroom cloud "we can't appear weak" shit is not the same as acknowledging that blowback happens.

Jesus, Pro, you sound like one of the fucking right wing nationalists that got us into these wars.'"

...the bullshit rationalization.

The OP states:

""If there's a major attack on this country, I'll grieve for the victims but I won't be surprised. Our policies invite it."

The poster then went on to say that the 9/11 attacks were not about policy:

"I do think that U.S. policies and intervention in the middle east played a role in the minds of those who perpetrated the attacks and those who supported them."

If that's the case, what is the basis for the hypothetical "major" attack?

This is bullshit fear mongering.

[NuclearDem]

70. And cali was absolutely right.

That's how extremist recruitment works. Demagogues with agendas point to whatever injustice they can find and promise the people affected by it they can have revenge for it.

So there you go. Our policies not only create the conditions for extremism to flourish in the Middle East, but they also serve as handy recruitment tools for demagogues.

Historically, when we've armed insurgents in that part of the world it has led to terrorist attacks against the US. The mujahideen in Afghanistan formed the core of al-Qaeda, and the presence of American influence in Saudi Arabia served as Osama's key recruitment tool throughout the 90s.

It isn't fear mongering, it's acknowledging that actions have unintended consequences when we don't think things through.

[cali]

71. no one in their right mind could possibly believe that

this:


"I do think that U.S. policies and intervention in the middle east played a role in the minds of those who perpetrated the attacks and those who supported them."

says this:


The poster then went on to say that the 9/11 attacks were not about policy:

Utterly ridiculous steaming pile to claim that I said the 9/11 attacks weren't about policy. I neither said that they were or that they weren't. I simply said that those perpetrating the attacks believed that U.S. policy played a role.

I can only assume that you're being deliberately dishonest in so mischaracterizing what I said or that you are completely out of touch with reality, pro.

I have no idea whether it's the former or latter.

[L0oniX]

180. ^^^^this^^^^

[heaven05]

38. disgusting?

no. Truthful, with great probability? yes. Your kind of truth does not want to be seen or heard by the head in sand crowd. They feel we have a moral obligation to invade countries for oil, lithium or any other natural resource needed by our MIC/government. The kind of grief we've caused untold numbers of people around the world in the last 10 years has made this country many enemies. The subject of your post has been on my mind for years and has created concern for myself and a lot of others out here. Your truth cannot be diminished by words such as "disgusting".

[cali]

42. thank you. I honestly don't see how we can discuss our foreign policy

if we refuse to discuss the potential ramifications of those policies and actions.

[YvonneCa]

114. Playing the fear card. It's what Republicans do. Constantly. It's time we Americans...

...stand up for our values, and stop letting fear rule the day.

[cali]

122. lol. how ironic. there is nothing remotely related to playing the fear card in my op

I realize that some of you would prefer for the possible ramifications of U.S. foreign policy to remain taboo.

and yet you eager little war beavers don't have a problem with the real fear mongering that's coming minute by minute from the President and his emissaries.

Hitler, Nazis, threat to world peace, and on and on.'

ridiculous to accuse me of playing the fear card in the OP.

[YvonneCa]

126. You don't know me. I have yet to decide....

...about Syria. I don't like fear-mongering from any side.

[awoke_in_2003]

199. That you are not fawning over the president. nt

[HERVEPA]

53. What a stupid post.

[ProSense]

59. No, it's a response to a "stupid" assertion.

The OP states:

""If there's a major attack on this country, I'll grieve for the victims but I won't be surprised. Our policies invite it."

The poster then went on to say that the 9/11 attacks were not about policy:

"I do think that U.S. policies and intervention in the middle east played a role in the minds of those who perpetrated the attacks and those who supported them."

If that's the case, what is the basis for the hypothetical "major" attack?

It's bullshit fear mongering, but popular, I guess.

[RevStPatrick]

86. I live in New York Fucking City...

...and I could walk to Ground Zero from my apartment in about 45 minutes.

I was wiping dust off my windowsills for a year after 9/11, and you could smell the death from the office where I worked back then. My cousin had a 1pm job interview in WTC2 that day, which she obviously missed, and her husband walked home over the bridge covered in deathdust. Miraculously, I personally didn't know anyone who died that day, although there were a half dozen cops and firemen in my neighborhood who died there, and several friends who lost friends. This is not some abstract shit to me.

Cali lives in Vermont, and I don't know where ProSense lives.
Chances are you don't live in a place that still has a fucking target painted on its back.

And it's really pretty goddamned simple:

"If there's a major attack on this country, I'll grieve for the victims but I won't be surprised. Our policies invite it."

If you don't fucking see how that works, you're too fucking brain-dead to even bother attempting to have even a semblance of a conversation with.

Jesus, this place is filled with maroons sometimes.
Alert and remove this post, I don't give a fuck.

Sorry for the foul language, but I'm sick and fucking tired of idiots putting my city and my livelihood and my life and my friends and family in danger all for the sake of winning some fucking argument with strangers on the internet. Particularly the partisan cheerleaders who are supposedly ON MY SIDE!!!

Sheesh...

[NuclearDem]

96. The only thing wrong with this post is that I can't rec it.

[ProSense]

103. A former co-worker

"If you don't fucking see how that works, you're too fucking brain-dead to even bother attempting to have even a semblance of a conversation with."

...lost his wife in the 9/11 attacks. He left the company six months before me, and I left one month before the attacks. Had I worked there still, I could have been on a train in the area. My mom was on the train at the WTC earlier that morning. It was a tragically surreal moment when I woke up disoriented as I watched, and then called my mom. My brother's childhood friend, who worked in lower Manhattan was late for work.

Here's the deal: Spare me this kind of thinking. I find it despicable.

[NuclearDem]

118. And here you are failing to learn any of the lessons of 9/11.

Just drive out and piss on her grave. It's the same damned thing.

And before the bullshit outrage comes, a friend who kept me sane during BMT was blown apart by an RPG in Baghdad, and a PJ I went through tech school with had his brains blown out by a Taliban sniper in Korengal. The difference here is I'm not helping bang the drums for more of it.

[ProSense]

120. Your comment is classless and disgusting. n/t

[NuclearDem]

124. And your sycophantic defense and blind nationalism you've demonstrated here is worse.

Let me be clear: the president you've chosen to unconditionally support is on the verge of putting another friend of mine, a marine attached to the Med fleet, in the same danger.

So fucking spare me.

[ProSense]

129. Bullshit, and nothing justifies what you just stated. It's classless. n/t

[NuclearDem]

133. Your blind willful ignorance of the facts is even worse.

Because it's that damn attitude that got my friends killed.

I'm going to stop here, because I know ok going to get a hidden post, and I should stop before I get banned.

[ProSense]

136. Your lame insults only reflect on you. n/t

[Puglover]

144. The pity is

you don't know the difference between an insult and the truth.

I doubt it would make a difference but read this:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/29/september11.afghanistan

[ProSense]

150. Actually,

"The pity is you don't know the difference between an insult and the truth."

...spare the pity. I mean, you apparently believe you know the "truth." From the link you provided:

The world will probably never know what motivated those particular hijackers who flew planes into those particular American buildings. They were not glory boys. They left no suicide notes, no political messages; no organisation has claimed credit for the attacks. All we know is that their belief in what they were doing outstripped the natural human instinct for survival, or any desire to be remembered. It's almost as though they could not scale down the enormity of their rage to anything smaller than their deeds. And what they did has blown a hole in the world as we knew it. In the absence of information, politicians, political commentators and writers (like myself) will invest the act with their own politics, with their own interpretations. This speculation, this analysis of the political climate in which the attacks took place, can only be a good thing.

But war is looming large. Whatever remains to be said must be said quickly. Before America places itself at the helm of the "international coalition against terror", before it invites (and coerces) countries to actively participate in its almost godlike mission - called Operation Infinite Justice until it was pointed out that this could be seen as an insult to Muslims, who believe that only Allah can mete out infinite justice, and was renamed Operation Enduring Freedom- it would help if some small clarifications are made. For example, Infinite Justice/Enduring Freedom for whom? Is this America's war against terror in America or against terror in general? What exactly is being avenged here? Is it the tragic loss of almost 7,000 lives, the gutting of five million square feet of office space in Manhattan, the destruction of a section of the Pentagon, the loss of several hundreds of thousands of jobs, the bankruptcy of some airline companies and the dip in the New York Stock Exchange? Or is it more than that? In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is worth it". Albright never lost her job for saying this. She continued to travel the world representing the views and aspirations of the US government. More pertinently, the sanctions against Iraq remain in place. Children continue to die.

People rage on about war and being anti-war. When the topic comes up, they go on about how if this was about humanitarianism, why not provide aid instead of bombs. When no one is talking war, they work to cut and eliminate aid, leaving the ruins of policy judgments to the "not our problem" advocates.

The truth is that it's about hypocrisy, and that hypocrisy comes from everyone.

President Clinton explains Iraq strike; Also, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023607079

Sending Message to Iran, House Approves Tougher Sanctions

By RICK GLADSTONE

The House overwhelmingly approved legislation on Wednesday that would impose the toughest sanctions yet on Iran, calling the measure a critical step to cripple the country’s disputed nuclear program and brushing aside calls for restraint by critics who said the Iranian president-elect should first be given a chance to negotiate.

The 400-to-20 vote to approve the legislation, known as the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act, came four days before the inauguration of Iran’s President-elect Hassan Rouhani, a moderate cleric who won on a tide of dissatisfaction with the conservative hard-liners who have been in power in Iran for the past eight years. Mr. Rouhani, a former nuclear negotiator, has said he will seek to ease tensions with the United States.

<...>

There had been little doubt that the bill, which now goes to the Senate for consideration in September after the Congressional summer recess, would be approved, given the widespread antipathy in Washington for Iran’s government since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

But the timing of the vote had raised alarm among some lawmakers who contended it would be viewed in Iran as a blatantly hostile signal at a delicate time. Experts in Iranian politics said they feared the vote could embolden Iran’s hard-liners and weaken Mr. Rouhani’s ability to ease the estrangement with the United States.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/us/politics/sending-message-to-iran-house-approves-tougher-sanctions.html

Roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll427.xml

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr850/text

Why is it the U.S. responsibility to prevent Iran pursuing its nuclear program?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023587381

The 9/11 attack was terrorism, and in response, only one person voted against the original AUMF that launched the war in Afghanistan.

Barbara Lee

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

Ron Paul voted yes. Dennis Kucinich voted yes.

[Puglover]

156. My hats off to you Prosense.

Only you could skim an article by Arundhati Roy in 19 min. and cherry pick a few paragraphs to fit your narrative and crank out a response that both obfuscates and misses the entire point of Roy's piece. Which I love BTW.



Ugh how completely stupid of me to give you that link.

[Sheldon Cooper]

211. Jesus. What's next? I'm rubber and you're glue?

You should at least try to defend your point.

[L0oniX]

179. ^^^^this^^^^

[RevStPatrick]

121. OK, so you've got a stake in it.

And yet you'll rather casually support air strikes on other countries.
All so your fella doesn't "look weak."
That's what I'm getting from you.
And yet mentioning the possibility of blowback is also despicable to you.
I've got a target painted on my back, and pointing that out is despicable.

I'll let others here tell you, yet again, what's really despicable in all this, because I just don't want to say it out loud. I'll get permanently banned, and I'd rather avoid that...

[ProSense]

128. Nonsense

And yet you'll rather casually support air strikes on other countries.
All so your fella doesn't "look weak."
That's what I'm getting from you.
And yet mentioning the possibility of blowback is also despicable to you.
I've got a target painted on my back, and pointing that out is despicable.

...and if you really believe you have "a target painted" on your back, it's an admission that you're walking around in fear. You also have no clue about what I think.

There were arguments that intervention in Libya was not in the U.S. national security interest
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023606534

[RevStPatrick]

183. An admission that I walk around in fear?

Obviously, you have no clue about what I think either.

But, you know... whatever...
Please go ahead and have the last word.
I'm done with you now...

[Enthusiast]

205. Dang! I am with you! nt

[L0oniX]

178. ^^^this^^^

[noiretextatique]

91. it's the truth

Americans' belief in our exceptionalism is not going to stop people with REAL grievances against our government from attacking us. especially when we think it is perfectly fine to bomb the hell out of whomever we choose to, even if it means we violate international law.

[JackRiddler]

153. Does the truth hurt...

This is what the policies you advocate will predictably bring. Even by official story of 9/11, it happened after the U.S. bombed Middle Eastern countries and killed thousands of people over many years time.

The proposed U.S. aggression in Syria is based on lies, as with all prior U.S. initiations of aggression.

It has nothing to do with defending the U.S. That, in itself, should be sufficient to oppose it, all the more so when the U.N. and almost all other countries are against it.

But of course it's even worse than that. The proposed aggression invites attack on the U.S. where there was no threat whatsoever to the U.S. It is a gamble with our lies.

From you, what a disgusting case of denial.

[donheld]

202. Facts, many times are disgusting

Not a thing you can do except face them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. I know it's a very unpopular thing to say - but thank you for speaking the truth - no matter how

bitter it may be

[cali]

20. thanks. I know it's very unpopular too.

It's close to being taboo to speak of this. The more taboo it is, the more dangerous it is not to speak of. Submerging this particular reality doesn't help anything. We need to take a long hard look at how others around the look perceive us and why that perception is growing.

[oberliner]

210. No it's not very unpopular

Pretty much everyone responding to this post agrees with you.

You just get riled up by the handful who don't - and therefore exaggerate their numbers.

Put up a poll and I am quite confident you will find yourself in the very large majority here.

[sabrina 1]

17. We seem to be the only country in the world who has ever present enemies just waiting to destroy us.

Why is that?? All we hear about is how there are enemies everywhere so we must keep killing people in order to make ourselves 'safe'.

After a dozen years of killing people with bombs and guns and drones, apparently we are no safer than we were when it all began.

Why are other countries not living in this constant state of fear?

Isn't it time to start asking if maybe, just maybe we are doing something wrong?

One thing is certain, we 'can't kill our way to peace' as one anonymous member of the State Dept said after we took a short break from droning people in Pakistan, I believe, when we killed 24 of Pakistan's military 'by mistake'.

[MsLeopard]

35. Agree entirely

I just hope We the People are starting to wake up. K&R

[NCTraveler]

131. We seem to be the only country in the world who has ever present enemies just waiting to destroy us

The countries that would make that list is extremely long. That is a highly inaccurate statement.

[Saturday]

21. If there's a major attack on this country...

and it's done using chemical weapons will you remember you were against stopping the bullies of the world from using them?

[truebluegreen]

27. If we demonstrated an unwillingness to use them ourselves

or allow others to do so for our purposes, maybe then your statement would not sound so fatuous. And histrionic. Not to mention hypocritical.

[magical thyme]

28. and will you remember who supplied them with the chemical weapons to begin with?

Will you remember how we dropped Agent Orange and Napalm on Vietnam? How we dropped white phosphorus and depleted uranium on Iraq? How we supplied Iraq with sarin to use against Iran?

What goes around comes around. What part of that do you not understand?

[Celefin]

30. Will you remember then that in all likelihood it was done in retaliation?

Why is direct state terrorism (since it isn't war) morally superior to state sponsored terrorism?

See, anyone can post this kind of loaded question.

[cali]

31. I'll remember what I know: That this attack on Syria will not

prevent such an attack and that our policies have created a lot of hatred and implacable enemies.

[beerandjesus]

33. So what you're saying is, if there's an attack, you'll blame it on

...pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union, the People For the American Way, and CALI!

[Hydra]

146. The so many ghosts of of Falwell lately n/t

[heaven05]

40. ????

no clue. Just "full speed ahead and damn torpedoes". geez

[sabrina 1]

43. No, we will be demanding to know who is arming and funding these extremists in Libya and Syria

who have been brutalizing those populations for several years now. And who gave them access to CW?

I would rather we did that investigation NOW before they go stirring up then next phony 'revolution' perhaps in the next country on the PNAC, Lebanon, killing and torturing its population.

And maybe we can begin to show the world that we believe in the Rule of Law and rather than running around the globe killing people with bombs and drones, we start utilizing the LAW, the International Courts who have successfully prosecuted War Criminals without dropping bombs on their populations.

I will blame those who continue to push the lie that we can have to kill people to 'stop the killing' and all those who supported them.

[BlueJazz]

47. If there's a major attack on this country...

and it's done using chemical weapons will you remember you were FOR stopping the bullies of the world from using them?....and they did it anyway because we just pissed them off more.

[bobduca]

52. Idiocy trying to pass for Sophistry

And you know it.

[cali]

62. that's nothing compared to idiotic

NONsense that some are posting in this thread

[840high]

24. What? We are a country of peace - didn't

our President win the Peace Prize?

[magical thyme]

25. agreed.

[jwirr]

26. What really angers me is that we go in pretending to be the hero rescuers and end up the oppressers.

One of the reasons for that is that we almost always have an alterior motive for going in. Look at tha nations we have not gone into and ask how they are different than the ones we have. Almost always it is some kind of economic gain we are looking at. And all to often there is economic gain - for our 1% - and total destruction for the country we pretended to rescue. Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" is still the definition of what we are doing with our empire. We are still playing the same game introduced by the Chicago Boys in the 50s. It is not designed to make friends.

[CincyDem]

34. We fight with the technology available to us.

I think it was McChrystal who said it.

We use drones in the middle east because that's out technology.
They use c-4 with ball bearings in a backpack in Central Park because that's their technology.

People only fight with what they have so we shouldn't be surprised to see it land on our doorstep. The idea that we can be so aggressive and never have it come home to roost is nuts.

[HardTimes99]

76. It's not popular to quote Mao these days, but he is credited with one saying I find

quite instructive: 'All oppression breeds resistance'. Our forward-thinking policymakers would do well to consider and internalize this nugget of wisdom.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. The question is, will you condemn the perpetrators unequivocally?

"US policy makes it more likely that people will attack the US" is a perfectly reasonable position. It doesn't, of course, tell you anything about the ethics of US behaviour, because doing good makes bad people angry sometimes, but it is worth discussing.

"US policy means that we should equivocate about attacks on the US, rather than condemning them unambiguously and unequivocally, with no ifs or buts" is not a reasonable or forgivable position.

I should stress that I'm fully aware that all you've expressed here is the former view, so this is a genuine question rather than an accusation, but they go hand in hand often enough that I think it's worth challenging you to repudiate the latter.

[cali]

51. Yes, of course. Frankly, I think that's an offensive question and that nothing

I've ever said here would lead a reasonable person to assume that I would do anything but condemn it unequivocally.

but whatever.

[bobduca]

64. they gotta assume you are crazy...

to not love their Idol as much as them... that's the only explanation that resonates with their binary brains.

[cali]

67. I think it just enrages them

and that they know that there are valid points that they can't refute so they gallop off with the stupid lies and the insinuations that discussing this means you want terrorist attacks.

I have nothing but contempt for those tactics. That's all they deserve.

[msanthrope]

74. As a reasonable person, I think your OP lays the foundation for arguing that a strike against the

US is justified because it is understandable in light of US actions.

Right now, our President has only spoken of striking Syria. So if an attack happened tomorrow, would that attack be understandable, or just, in your view?

[polly7]

75. There's a huge difference between understanding the reasoning behind something and

condoning it or believing it's justified. Cause and effect. There's nothing emotional about it ... it's just how things work.

[msanthrope]

79. Absolutely. But the OP fails to demonstrate that point, IMHO. That Syrian

civilians were gassed by Assad is a fact. That the president has spoken of strikes is also a fact. Should Syria attack us tomorrow, would that attack be justified? That is the question I posed to the OP, and she hasn't answered it.

[polly7]

80. Attack you at home, in the U.S.?

Of course not.

Defend itself from bombs in its own country ......... who wouldn't?

(And, they fully expect that and are even hoping for it, imo.)

[msanthrope]

82. Well...that's the point that the OP simply didn't make clear.

You see, I think there is a benefit to acknowledging precisely what we are talking about.

Right now, our President has only spoken of military attacks. So you would agree with me that any military strike on the part of Syria--at this point--would not be justified?

[polly7]

88. She made herself perfectly clear!

I agree with her, it's not hard to understand why some in the world fear and hate. She's never once stated she condones violence of any kind, from anyone. How do you move forward without understanding ... unless you have no intention of it?

I think an attack on Syria is not justified, and any defense by them should there be one, would be completely understandable. Not sure how else to put that any simpler.

[msanthrope]

93. Any defense Polly? What if they use chemical weapons to 'defend' themselves? Would that be

"completely understandable?"

[polly7]

99. Why are you trying to put words into my mouth?

But here ..... I can play too. What about Fallujah, and DU in Iraq, and clusterbombs, and fucking drones that kill children and innocents every day? Should nations slated for the next new death game show the restraint you seem to demand? I don't know, that's not my call. I think all wars, bombs, WMD, chemical weapons are sick, evil and wrong. Doesn't seem logical to expect restraint when you can't show some yourself.

[msanthrope]

101. So Bashir Assad used Sarin gas on Syrians on behalf of the people of Iraq? I don't even understand

the argument you are making here.

[polly7]

104. When you twist what everyone else says, please do it in non-gibberish.

Sorry, you make no sense.

[msanthrope]

106. What is your argument against moving against the person(s) who used Sarin gas?

Honestly, I can't debate your reasons if I don't have a clear idea of what the heck they are.


What is your argument against moving against the person(s) who used Sarin gas?

[cali]

113. that's simply the go to ploy for

some people, polly.

hang in there.

[polly7]

140. Seems a little weak. Good thread, cali. nt.

[eridani]

203. Every bit as "reasonable" as our use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs

Which is to say not at all reasonable.

[msanthrope]

212. Sarin gas is reasonable??? nt

[eridani]

214. Sarin is far more reasonable than cluster bombs and depleted uranium

The death toll from the latter two is vastly higher than for the former.

[msanthrope]

215. What the hell? nt

[Whisp]

216. and this is why you are not President. nt

[HardTimes99]

77. Under existing international law, every sovereign nation-state has a right to

use force to defend against an actual attack or the threat of an imminent attack. As a corollary, threats to use military force against a sovereign nation-state are a direct violation of the U.N. charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

Are you suggesting Syria does not enjoy a right to defend herself against military aggression unsanctioned by the U.N. Security Council? You know, the same right to self defense you would assert that the U.S. enjoys?

[msanthrope]

85. So Syria would be justified in attacking us, right now? I am not sure what you are saying.

Right now, all we've done is spoken of striking Syrian military targets....would Syria then be justified in attacking us pre-emptively?

[HardTimes99]

213. I am not an attorney and, at some point, am reminded of Mao's observation that

&quot political) power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

However, based on my understanding of international law and precedent and leaving aside the all-too-pertinent question of whether Syria has the means to attack us or our ships right now, I would have to say that we are perilously close to the moment where Syria will be fully justified in attacking us in self-defense to ward off an imminent attack. And, it should go without saying that, should the U.S. attack Syria without a U.N. Security Council resolution, Syria will be fully justified under international law in retaliating against us as she sees fit.

In short, international law expressly forbids the kinds of saber-rattling in which Obama and his acolytes have been engaging. And international law allows nation-states to act preemptively in their self defense against such saber-rattling.

The proper venue to resolve disputes between sovereign nation-states is the U.N. Security Council.

[cali]

78. I think you just demonstrated that you and reason aren't acquainted at all.

I argued nothing of the sort. It's insane to state that I did. and putrid.

Right now our President is working hard to get the green light from Congress to bomb Syria. Are you going to deny that?

As for this:

So if an attack happened tomorrow, would that attack be understandable, or just, in your view?

Rephrase it into a coherent question please.

[msanthrope]

81. I asked you a very clear question, and you did not answer it. So I'll rephrase.

Assad has gassed Syrian civilians.

The president has spoken of military-targeted strikes.

If Syria were to attack us tomorrow, would the attack be 'understandable?'

[polly7]

84. It hasn't been proven who gassed civilians. If you have it ..

I'd love to see it.

[msanthrope]

89. Alright--assume it in arguendo.

[polly7]

90. No thanks. nt.

[msanthrope]

95. Okay--assume the rebels did it. Because you aren't suggesting it wasn't a

chemical strike, right?

[polly7]

100. Nah. I'll just wait for the evidence.

Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2013, 01:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Because you aren't suggesting it wasn't a chemical strike, right? ........ uh, that would be .... "RIGHT".

oops ...

[msanthrope]

102. Well, why not give two answers, then? You admit it's a chemical strike.

Give one answer as if Assad did it, and one, as if the rebels did. Easy.

[polly7]

105. How can I give one answer when the inspectors haven't proven anything?

Kind of simplistic and idiotic to ask that of someone isn't it?

[msanthrope]

108. I asked you to give two, then. If you aren't sure who did it, give one answer if it is

Assad, and one, if it is the rebels.

[polly7]

111. I'm sure you think your brilliant questions will get you some sort of

response you can jump all over, but I've explained myself pretty well and don't see how to help you out any further.

Gotta go get my mail.

[Saturday]

139. It's quite clear if you have no answer you leave.

You asked a good question. She had no answer (so it's your fault). lol

[polly7]

141. Wtf are you on about?

It hasn't been proven where the gas came from or who used it. I, personally would rather wait until I condemn someone for it. It was a horror and my heart goes out to all of the victims. Dropping bombs, especially without knowing the facts, that are guaranteed to kill innocents - whether directly or indirectly by escalating fear and retaliation by either side ... is just insanity. Or brilliant ..... depending on how you look at it and if as some of us do ... see this civil war and the people of Syria as being used as yet another opportunity to cross one more nation off the shopping list.

[msanthrope]

149. No one's asking you condemn anything. You're being asked to answer a question, and you can vary

your answer based on whether you think Assad did the bombing, or rebels did.

Other than Assad, or rebels, who could have done it?

[polly7]

151. Trick questions are so

tricky.

The tooth fairy?

[cali]

94. "has spoken of" I find that use of passive language fascinating.

I don't believe I spoke in terms of "undertandable".

I spoke in terms of U.S. foreign policy and blowback to those policies. When I do so, I'm referring to the totality of the past 60 years or so of U.S. foreign policy re the Middle East. What I'm saying is that if you overthrow people like Mosaddegh, support brutal dictators, launch bombings and start wars under false pretenses, there will be widespread animosity which expresses itself in violence.

[msanthrope]

97. Can you tell us, please and precisely, just how Bashir Assad has been oppressed by the

US? Tell us what US action made him use chemical weapons against Syrians?

I'm fascinated--because I really want to hear what US policy made Assad use Sarin gas on his own people.

[cali]

110. can you tell me where I ever claimed that Assad was oppressed by the U.S.?

that would be such a neat trick seeing as I've never said any such thing.

good grief. stop making shit up. It's contemptible.

I'm fascinated by such flagrant dishonesty. Is it something you've ever made any effort to stop engaging in, dear?

[msanthrope]

115. Well, you seem to be making some point about US policies leading to all sorts of bad things.

And that it's all understandable, and blowback, and all that.

I'm just wondering what policies of the US caused Bashir Assad to use Sarin gas on Syrians.

[cali]

135. this isn't rocket science.

are you denying the reality of blowback??

I never said that the Assad's use of gas was caused by U.S. policies? Could you please try to get that into your beautiful little mind?

But I would like to note, in the hopes of a response, that the U.S. used Assad to torture terrorism suspects. Did you know that there are conventions barring the use of torture? Ever hear of Maher Arar?

Maher Arar (Arabic: ماهر عرار (born 1970) is a telecommunications engineer with dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship who has resided in Canada since 1987. Arar's story is frequently referred to as "extraordinary rendition" but the U.S. government insisted it was a case of deportation.[1][2][3][4][5]

Arar was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis. He was held without charges in solitary confinement in the United States for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The US government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him, not to Canada, his current home and the passport on which he was travelling, but to Syria, even though its government is known to use torture.[6] He was detained in Syria for almost a year, during which time he was tortured, according to the findings of a commission of inquiry ordered by the Canadian government, until his release to Canada. The Syrian government later stated that Arar was "completely innocent."[7][8] A Canadian commission publicly cleared Arar of any links to terrorism, and the government of Canada later settled out of court with Arar. He received C$10.5 million and prime minister Stephen Harper formally apologized to Arar for Canada's role in his "terrible ordeal".[9][10]

As of December 2011, Arar and his family remained on the US No Fly List.[11] His US lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit, Arar v. Ashcroft, which sought compensatory damages on Arar’s behalf and also a declaration that the actions of the US government were illegal and violated his constitutional, civil, and international human rights. After the lawsuit was dismissed by the Federal District Court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal on November 2, 2009. The Supreme Court of the United States of America declined to review the case on June 14, 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

[msanthrope]

148. Maher Arer is why Assad gassed his own people? I'm just trying to nail this down, cali, your

theory of how blowback to US policies makes bad things happen.

Let me know--what is the thing that made Bashir Assad gas his own people?

[cali]

162. I give up. you have done nothing but make false claims about what I've said

it is despicable and worthy of nothing but contempt, honeypie.

bye bye.

[kenny blankenship]

73. I used to think They've learned nothing from 9-11, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc..

just as many other people have said of our Dear Leaders. But in retrospect now, after we've gone and wrecked several countries, including but not limited to those listed above, what becomes clear from our Leaders' actions is that they DON'T CARE.

It's not that they can't or won't absorb the lesson you want them to understand - that our imperial aggressiveness destabilizes volatile regions and invites massive negative consequences for US civilians here and abroad. Their own military intelligence reports have pointed out this causal relationship explicitly. They're not stupid even though they seem to act that way. The hard underlying truth - and it's too harsh for most of us to come to terms with - is that our Leaders are so personally insulated from the consequences of their actions that they care no more about the blowback that innocent civilians in this country will suffer from their recklessness than they do about the suffering of innocent civilians in the countries they set out to break and pound into gravel. Indeed, the more hostility they inspire around the world, the tighter control they are allowed to exert here at home. You worry about the negative feedback loop of US punitive action creating more people out there with a willingness to try to harm the US - and rightly so. But our elites see & experience only a positive feedback loop: the more they antagonize those "other" peoples, the more they can tout their justification for extending and consolidating their Police State control over the US and over the subject nations we call "allies." As long as they get pushback from something they can call terrorism, they can push and consolidate the US military empire in oil rich central Asia. No wonder then that they keep at it.

They need Al Qaeda like a fire needs oxygen, and I'm sure more than a few of them are totally conscious of that, and are happy to do whatever is required to see that something they can call Al Qaeda always exists and always needs to be aggressively fought - including providing material support on the down low. Once Assad is gone, the vicious civil war in Syria will continue, with only a slight interruption, but now it will be fought between the rebel factions. We will recognize a government of secular elements (probably including officers prominent in the previous Ba'athist regime). The jihadist rebels will make war against the new government and we will ride the new gravy train of providing arms and training to the "forces of Syrian democracy". The process repeats itself, with careful nurturing and management, indefinitely.

The suffering of the people of (__________) is beyond comprehension, but the leaders we elected to end wars perpetuate the suffering there whenever possible. They never miss an opportunity to involve our name and incite foreign people against us. And when the blowback that you fear comes home, the potential suffering of the people of the United States will likewise be massive and unnecessary and assured. On top of the appalling incomprehensible atrocity which will be visited upon us that day, will be the stunning spectacle of our Dear Leaders whipping the people into yet another orgy of vengeance. And people will think to themselves, "Didn't they learn ANYTHING from the last time this happened? Don't they know how we will just breed more enemies by invading foreign lands? Were they sleeping for the last twenty years -WTFf???"

But the Leaders won't have been napping during that period or ignoring the lessons of that history. They don't care about you anymore than they care about the doomed people of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Syria. Instead they will have been learning well the subject matter which they wanted to master: how to increase their power and enrich themselves beyond any check from below.

[mick063]

92. I agree with every single word you wrote

In summary, terrorists are a crop to be harvested. We till the soil, plant the seeds, and nurture the fields to guarantee a bountiful harvest.

Perpetual terrorism is the goal. A war we can never win only because winning would end the huge infrastructure "required" to fight terrorism.

When have you ever heard of an exit strategy for the war on terror?

[Nye Bevan]

83. It sounds like you would want the perpetrators to receive a lesser sentence,

on the grounds that they were provoked.

BTW were you surprised by the Boston Jihadists? Or was your reaction more "I totally expected this"?

[cali]

87. no. only if you're dishonest about what I said.

I said no such thing. I hinted at no such thing. I would want no such thing.

Is that clear enough, dearie?

Good.

No, I can't say I was terribly surprised by the Marathon bombing, though I was surprised by who the perpetrators were.

[Catherina]

98. I'll grieve with you. And then lay responsibility for it where it belongs- our policies

and the blind support they get from fanatics of whatever politicians endorsed them.

Whoops! Good morning Cali

[cali]

112. Good morning, Catherina

I think it's a complex stew with lots of elements, but I don't think we can avoid the reality that the sum total of the history of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, plays a significant role.

[Rex]

137. +1

Fanatics is a good word for them.

[L0oniX]

181. +1 ^^^this^^^

[snappyturtle]

109. We reap what we sow. Some can not understand this!

[hfojvt]

117. "our aggression" - that is just stupid

You cry about drones. Which have killed what? 3,000 people in six years?

Wow, we are soooo bad. We're nationwide.

"This July, 1000 Iraqis lost their lives in the ongoing violence in the country, the United Nations has said July was had the highest monthly death toll in the country since 2008. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10235908/Iraq-death-toll-worst-since-2008-following-Eid-bombings.html

"TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

Let's see, 3,500 people in 8 years and two months versus 1,000 people in a month. 36 people per month versus 1,000 people per month.

Oh, if only US agression was not destroying the whole world.

Over those same 8 years, about 3,600 murders took place in America where the victim was under the age of 4. Interesting how one set of victims - American children, is a non-story. In 2011 alone, 1,187 Americans under age 18 were victims of homicide.

But never mind that. Let's rend our garments about 176 children killed in Pakistan over an 8 year period. Oh, that terrible awful US aggression.

[cali]

125. wait a minute; you're actually denying that there is such a thing as U.S. aggression?

and btw, there's more than a solid argument that the U.S. is largely responsible for the 1,000 deaths in Iraq that you reference.

and btw, I have neither rent my garments or cried over our drone murders. Why make up stupid shit?

Furthermore, it isn't only about the number of deaths. It's about the policies and the harm they do in a myriad of ways.

this is obviously beyond you, but it's not rocket science.

[hfojvt]

152. "Why make up stupid shit?"

It's not made up. It is a description of your OP.

An OP where you bemoan US agression, and how it means we deserve a terrorist attack.

"this is obviously beyond you"

funny, but rocket science is probably not beyond me. Or at least it wasn't back in the days I was taking quantum physics classes in college.

The US agression of drones is a very small thing compared to the US agression of invading Iraq, isn't it? But the US is largely responsible for the 1,000 deaths in Iraq? Well, thank goodness that the motherfuckers who actually created and set the bombs are off the hook. it's all America's fault.

[Rex]

138. So killing 3,000 people in six years is okay, because

it fits your narrative. Thanks for letting everyone else know where you stand on this subject.

[cali]

142. pretty distressing to see the kind of crap that comes

bubbling to the surface, isn't it?

[hfojvt]

145. What narrative?

You mean the big picture where 1,000 deaths a month is a bigger problem than 36 deaths a month?

That's my narrative.

Do you think 36 deaths a month is bigger than 1,000? That 176 children killed in 8 years of drone strikes is a bigger problem than over 1,000 children dead in a year?

And certainly, I would say this too - I would probably celebrate some of those 36 deaths. I think the world is marginally a better place without Al Alwaki and without Osama bin Laden.

[cali]

147. do you fucking grasp that U.S. actions are the proximate cause of the ongoing

violence in Iraq?


As for the drone policy, it's creating more enemies for the U.S. than the U.S. will ever be able to kill. duh.

[hfojvt]

157. in order to grasp that

I would have to step into an alternate reality where it is always America's fault.

The proximate cause of those deaths is some group of a$$holes who made a bomb, and placed a bomb somewhere in order to kill people.

Sure you could make a case that each attack is revenge for a previous attack which was revenge for a previous attack which avenged the attack before that and it's turtle attacks all the way back to when Bush invaded Iraq. But there are a lot of turtles, and a lot of people making conscious choices, between that cup and that lip. Far, far too many to call it a PROXIMATE cause. It would be more like a fundamental cause.

And as for enemies. Those are funny things. We killed far more Germans and Japanese than we have Russians or Chinese. And yet the first group are NOT enemies and the second group ARE.

[Paper Roses]

130. Well said.

[hrmjustin]

154. We invite nothing. If there is a terrorist attack it is the fault of the terrorists and not this

nation nor the victims.

[PDJane]

158. That's not at all true. You can only push people so far before they retaliate.

Oppression doesn't last forever. And frankly, yes, terrorism breeds terrorism; the US is overdue.

[hrmjustin]

159. We do not deserve an attack and if we are the terrorists are to blame, not us.

[PDJane]

161. Just keep on saying that to yourself, at least you'll believe it.

[hrmjustin]

164. Are you saying we deserve a terrorist attack? or am I reading this wrong badly?

I want to be fair so what exactly are you saying?

[PDJane]

184. The US has been attacking other countries for reasons of money and treasure

since the end of WWII. Consecutive administrations have bombed civilians, used chemical weapons, dropped tons of DU litter all over the planet, stolen resources from other countries, and supported Israel in her illegal occupations.

The fact that the US hasn't been the target of more than terrorist attacks is astounding.

[hrmjustin]

186. Do you think we deserved 9/11?

[PDJane]

187. I think 9/11 was a false flag attack. Did you deserve it?

That's a question for the ages. I'm not saying you deserve these things, I'm saying it's the inevitable end of policies.

[hrmjustin]

189. Oh lord! False flag?

[PDJane]

192. Sigh. Never mind, go back to your rock.

[hrmjustin]

193. No please tell me who you think did 9/11?

I don't live under a rock.

[BeyondGeography]

194. This should save you some time

9/11 truthers believe a lot of really stupid things that have either been debunked or are far beyond conceivable and always require that scores, hundreds or thousands of people, have successfully kept these things completely secret for more than a decade without a single whistle-blower coming forward.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/11/16/what_do_9_11_truthers_believe.html

[PDJane]

201. Don't assume you know what I think.

I will tell you that the commission admits that the only scenario they looked at had a low probability.

The so-called 'debunkers' haven't hit it yet either. That's a problem, because no one is looking at the actual business. I don't presume to know who did it; what I do know is that the whole damn thing is highly suspicious. If there were no explosives involved, how come there was molten metal underneath for months? Why did building seven crimp? There's lots of questions, and no one is coming up with reasonable answers.

And no one has credibly debunked anything.

[treestar]

196. What attacks were those?

That is false. The US has not done any such thing.

[PDJane]

198. Oh, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations. This is a list from the beginning of the country, but it's been increasing. The next theatre is liable to be Africa; there are bases being built there, and lots of them.

You've not looked carefully at your own history.

[polichick]

160. So, no matter what we do in the world, it's never our fault when someone strikes back?

That's crazy.

[hrmjustin]

165. I live in NYC and we are the number one target. If I get killed or injured in an attack who should

I blame?

[polichick]

167. Depends - if the attackers are from a country we've bombed many times...

then you have to hold our gov't (which is actually pretty much the mic) responsible for creating the enemies that have attacked.

Bottom line, it's way past time for the U.S. people to say no to our gov't/mic.

[hrmjustin]

168. Killing US citizens to make a political point is not a legit way to make a statement. It is evil!

[polichick]

169. And what we do abroad isn't evil? It's ALL evil...

That's why it's great that the people are saying no - finally.

[hrmjustin]

171. War by it's nature is evil. Terrorist attacks are evil.

[bettyellen]

177. I'm holding all the dumb ass non- NYers who wanted a war after the terrorist attacks.

And there were lots of them. In NYC, not as many.

[cali]

163. OK. forget the word "invite". instead I'll just say

U.S. foreign policies in the mideast, including deposing Mosaddegh in 1953, looking the other way when Iraq gassed Iranians, bombing, nations, drone killings, illegitimate war, supporting dictators when they serve our purposes, have created a large well of enmity and that some people act on that enmity or use it.

That isn't excusing it. It's explaining it.

[hrmjustin]

166. There are many reasons people hate our policies but killing people to make a statement is

not a legit way of doing things. I understand your point.

[cali]

174. right. not saying it is legit. I am saying that it is connected to

actions that this country has taken.

[treestar]

195. +1

I'm a little disturbed at this blame the victim mentality in this fictional attack.

Whatever we do in foreign countries does NOT deserve the "blowback" of a terrorist or other attack.

And how much money do we send abroad for humanitarian purposes? The right wingers are forever complaining about that.

The U.S. Derangement Syndrome is getting a little scary.

[WatermelonRat]

170. And if in the aftermath of such an attack

somebody shot up a mosque for revenge, would you be singing the same tune? Would you be giving your same token condemnation and sympathy while saying that they invited it?

[cali]

172. a mosque doesn't have foreign policies.

it's a spurious comparison.

as for my condemnation, what should I do? rage? call for revenge and attacks on another country? Haven't we done that before?

gad.

[WatermelonRat]

175. Neither do office workers or flight attendents

But they can apparently still "invite" it.

[treestar]

197. Thank you

Welcome to DU!

[WatermelonRat]

218. Thanks

[CakeGrrl]

173. The ignorance toward what it takes to wind down wars is stunning.

It's not the so-called "Obamabots" who think the President should have waved the magic wand.

It's those excoriating him incessantly because they can't see the complexity of the situation.

[cali]

176. no one thinks Obma should have "waved the magic wand"

and it's perfectly possible to see the complexity of the situation and come to the conclusion that the President's push to bomb syria is the wrong route to take absent a strong international coalition.

Not that that's terribly germane to the op.

[CakeGrrl]

206. I beg to differ. Speaking of the OP,

Would you stand by your opinion enough to say that to the faces of people who lost a loved one in such an attack?

[frylock]

217. so it's safe to assume that you're in the "they hate us for our freedom" camp?

[BeyondGeography]

182. Easy for you to say up in the boondocks of Vermont

Let's put it this way, dearie, to take a page out of your book, if you've ever seen an attack up close, you would never have written this post.

[JI7]

188. most Terrorists are not people who have had something bad done to them

personally.

terrorists are more likely to be people who are upset by things such as girls being provided an education.

looking to the terrorists in the US none of them did it because some horrible thing was done to them. they were just thugs with shitty likes like the older tsarnaev brother or have some shitty ass beliefs like the fort hood shooter and mcveigh.

[Jamastiene]

190. I really wish he had changed things.

You'd think getting the Nobel Peace Prize would have inspired him to make more changes to our foreign policy of bomb first, wonder why it made people angry with us later.

[AverageJoe90]

200. I'd be far more worried about domestic terrorism, TBH......nt