From what we all know to be true now and even right after 9/11, shouldn't

[hector459]

we have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq?

[Last Lemming]

1. That kind of thinking is

soooooo Sept. 10th

[DrWeird]

2. Should we have bombed the midwest

after OKC?

[JAbuchan08]

3. No

because that would be an act of revenge that wouldn't solve anything. Probably the most effective response would have been a police action against who ever was responsible for the attack + some sort of sanction against countries who support and fund Wahabism and other forms of islamic fundamentalism.
Assuming that we "should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead" is buying into the same sort of logic that justified the war in Iraq, that all out military interventionism is the only rational response to a terrorist attack.

[rzemanfl]

5. I am sorry, but on September 12, 2001 revenge was foremost on

my mind. Tell me how you feel after the next attack.

[DrWeird]

6. Yeah, revenge was first and foremost on the minds...

of the 9-11 hijackers too.

[htuttle]

8. "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."

-- Confucius

[oppositionmember]

12. Well 9/11 made my sister a widow

and I still felt it was a wake-up call for America. Unfortunately Bush & Co. hit the snooze button & still haven't woken up. They're still dreaming of American might equals right & let's kick some ass.

Unfortunately (or not) they're getting their asses kicked.

Go you Iraqis!

[TankLV]

15. You are part of the problem - not the solution.

That kind of thinking has gotten us where we are today.

You should be ashamed.

[rzemanfl]

19. I'm not. I haven't evolved to the point where I can look upon the

murder of 3,000 people, and say "I understand, you were oppressed...and it is all our fault."

You are probably a better person than I am, but if you had had the misfortune to be on one of those planes, it wouldn't have made the slightest difference to the hijackers.

I do not believe the theories that explosives were planted in the WTC, that the Pentagon was hit by a rocket, not a plane, and that Barbara Olsen and the other passengers are in hiding somewhere, or that the Jews did it or any of that. I do believe that Bush allowed it to happen through conscious neglect to legitimize his stolen Presidency.

[JAbuchan08]

21. Wow that was a really unsound rhetorical leap there

who said "I understand, you were oppressed ... and it is all our fault?"

While I can't answer for the person you are responding to, I do know that MY post simply adovocated justice over revenge. Not only is justice more ... just... but it also has a tendency to be quite effective when it is properly applied.


And while I take every 9-11 conspiracy theory with a grain of salt it is as plain as the nose on your face that 9-11 WAS a conspiracy. It is even referred to as that by the press and the government. I wouldn't care to generate any theories of my own, but who could be more natural allies than fundamentalist muslims and Dominionist Christians. After all the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So there you have it, Bush utilizing the deaths of his people the same way terrorists utilize the deaths of their people at the hands of Americans, to make war and continue the cycle of revenge. In the end we just keep on punishing the weak and powerless for the sins of the powerful. In that way it kind of doesn't even matter if we had attacked northern Ireland in response to 9-11.

[rzemanfl]

22. Huh?

Bush took the natural (human) desire of Americans for revenge and put it to use for his own purposes. For the most part, justice is somewhat like revenge and vice-versa. The difference is between "we will kill you" (justice) and "we will kill you, your parents, your brothers and sisters, your wife, your children, all your neighbors and the horse you rode in on" (revenge).

The person I was responding to said I should "be ashamed" for wanting revenge after 9/11. Don't figure I was alone on that score and can't bring myself to be ashamed about it.

Justice would have been getting Bin Laden like Bush promised he would after he finished "My Pet Goat" and stopped running away on 9/11. The fact that Bin Laden is still alive and Bush is still President is beyond my comprehension.

[JAbuchan08]

23. And to GET Bin Laden, we have to invade, Iraq, Syria, Iran

Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia - take your pick. Cast the net wide enough and you can be sure to get someone who at the very least approved of 9-11.

Maybe in some weird way it makes me as cold as someone willing to kill for geopolitical reasons, but I've always been proud of being able to control my worst instincts, and that includes the blind pursuit of revenge at the cost of a real solution to our problems. I guess I kind of consider a real solution to our problems a kind of revenge in itself.

I'd say you've either been outed or you need to learn a little bit.

[rzemanfl]

25. You mentioned a "police action." As I recall, the Korean War was

a "police action." After 9/11 we should have had a "police action" to get Bin Laden-not an invasion, no "regime change," no permanent bases, no "planting the flag of freedom"-just go in, get the bastard and get out, but brook no resistance and honor no boundaries or borders in pursuing the guy. Starting with using the Prince Sultan military base as our center of operations whether the Saudis liked it or not. Remember back then, the World, particularly NATO, was on our side.

Outed as what? Learn a little bit of what? What is the "real solution?" I'm glad your "worst instincts" are so under control. Knowing all the answers must help with the instinct thing.

[JAbuchan08]

26. Glad to see you didn't lay down on me

I just think that you're jumping to conclusions based on the number of Saudis on the 9-11 aircraft. You had made what I assume to be an off-the-cuff suggestion based on a knee-jerk emotional response to a tragic event and I felt I should say something about it.
I don't think I "know all the answers," but what exactly IS justified by a terrorist attack?
Let's get down to brass tacks on this one, a terrorist atttack is basically collective punishment of a population because of the actions of their leaders. So what do you call launching an all out war that you KNOW is going to have a huge impact on a civilian population?
But I suppose that would be better than "swatting flies" in a "police action," right? :shrug:

The "real solution" since I know "all the answers" is to deputize whole "death squads" to assassinate the enemies of "freedom and liberty," and since I'm a liberal they should involve the UN as well.... or something else .... but an invasion of Saudi Arabia, I disagree with that myself. :eyes:

[bvar22]

24. And it really doesn't matter who dies!

As long as they have brown skins!!!

[rzemanfl]

4. Of course. It was Saudis who attacked us and Saudis that

financed them.

[quiet.american]

7. What was the first reaction from Bushco?

James A. Baker III called the Saudi grand pooh-bah and asked, "Got a lawyer, yet?"

Ain't that America.

[11 Bravo]

16. Wasn't there a Yemeni in there?

Let's nuke them fuckers, too! Seriously, Dude. When you post that shit, you should at least close with a YEE HAW!

[pberq]

9. Suadia Arabia? Maybe, but no one followed the money trail

Check out Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" for an extensively documented ananlysis of the 9/11 attacks.

Here's a small sample of the information that has been kept from the public and ignored by the 9/11 Commission:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html
<snip>
December 6, 2001 -- On October 9th, FTW broke a story on insider trading connected to the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center that sparked worldwide controversy. In that story we reported how the Israeli Herzliyya Institute for Counterterrorism had documented that unknown individuals -- with accurate foreknowledge of the attacks -- had purchased an obvious and unusually large number of "put" options on United and American Airlines shortly before the attacks.

[rzemanfl]

17. I think they followed the money trail to Saudi Arabia. Then

we never heard about that trail again.

What do you think is in the 27 pages they classified? To quote that jerk Hell Miller "spitballs?"

[Sterling]

10. We should have invaded Washington DC and Crawford Texas.

Pretty clear at this point.

[clem_c_rock]

11. Only if you believe the official story

Which is probably one of the most pathetic conglomeration of ridiculous coincidence theories every put together by mankind.

[yurbud]

13. if Saudis blindsided Bush wouldn't he distanced himself at least?

He didn't even miss a heartbeat or pause to consider any ways of going after them--he just went straight to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Did his friends knowingly stab him in the back or do him a favor?

It looks a hell of a lot like the second, and it was no surprise gift either.

[spooked911]

14. the fact is-- we don't know WHO the hijackers were---

a lot of them were using fake IDs and several of the so-called hijackers have turned up alive.

[RBHam]

18. No...Crawford. TX. Langley, VA. maybe Kennebunkport...

More to the point...

[codswallop]

20. We should've invaded Canada...

at least we would've had a chance.

[No Exit]

27. I used to think that,

but now I realize we shouldn't have invaded anyone--considering that our invasion of Afghanistan was REALLY about an oil pipeline, and that our invasion of Iraq was REALLY about just raw imperialism.

Besides, what would "Bandar Bush" say if we invaded saudi arabia?? He might not keep on being close friends with our Imperial Family.