|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject: Re: What was the purpose of 9/11? |
 |
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| I'm going for the deeper (way deeper) purpose here, but I believe it happened on a fundamental level because the souls of those who died (and the souls of the attackers) pre-ordained that it happen before their physical incarnation as part of the process in their karmic development. But I have what most would consider a whack idea of the karmic system, and have come to see any actions as strictly amoral. |
Oh, I think we can all agree that this was a given.
| BJWD wrote: |
| 1) That is fair. But remember that he wants to resetabilsh the islamic empire. Saud is but one of many problem governments and also the one that hosts mecca and medina. |
Yes, but while there are no longer US troops in Saudi, the Saud regime is still firmly in place, and there are infidel troops all over the region. If the objective was (2) then it's more or less a failure - unless all he wanted was US troops off Saudi soil, which seems like a pretty lame goal to me.
|
Yes, but he may have believed the USA would cut and run from the region. He would have had evidence that that would have been the case.
With the Yankee troops gone, it gets much easier to hell-raise in the region.
I don't really know. I don't follow politics in the region closely anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| Can we really ascribe logic and reason to such a religious person...? |
Good point. Additional cause to continue to call my speculation "speculative."
And, Big_Bird: sorry. One does not turn one's cheek to such an attack. Projecting indecision and/or weakness would likely have led to worse results than what we now see.
As for myself, I simply would have carpet-nuked Afghanistan, salted the earth there, and then asked Iran, Syria, and, at the time, Lybia, "Any more takers...? No...? Then this *beep* stops now." No imperialism, no costly occupations, just a straightforward, unequivocal punitive operation.
Y ya se acab�. |
Firstly you agree with BJWD that his point (about the religious fundamentalists who committed the crime not being reasonable or logical) is a good one. I would also say that was a good point.
Yet, for the crimes of these crazy unreasonable illogical people, you wish to punish in their place ordinary sane people living simple lives in one of the poorest and most wretched countries in the world. Not one Afghani participated in 911. Yet you would punish every Afghani. You perhaps believe this would serve as a future deterent. Perhaps it would be a deterrent to nation states - run by sane rational and logical leaders - to make war on America, but would it be a deterent to crazy overly religious unreasonable and illogical fundamentalist terrorists? Are future crazy-overly-religious-unreasonable-and-illogical-fundamentalist terrorists going to factor in this punishment when they make their decision to bring mayhem on their (perceived or real) enemies? No. They won't give a damn. In their minds, you can blow up all the countries you like, the good in those countries are going to heaven, and the bad are going to hell. It's not their problem if other muslims/arabs/countrymen die. It's God's will. This is their 'reasoning.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
What do you think it would have cost the Bush administration to NOT attack Iraq? Do you think the American people would have been able to leave it at simply invading Afghanistan and catching Bin Laden? ( if they had )
It just seems to me that every terrorist attack hereafter is gonna be blamed on American being in Iraq. If they hadn't gone on ass kicking every single attack would have been attributed to America not standing up and sh#t kicking everyone who might be a potential enemy. All options the admistration had were bad.
The one thing the administration could have had any control over was how they reacted. It's disheartening the administration could f*ck that up so badly.
In my mind what happened after 9/11 is exactly what Bin Laden wanted. His only chace to really drive America out of the middle east was to create a conflict where Americans were seen as the transgressors.
Sadly, very sadly, I think we have to admit that Bin Laden is winning the PR war. Like it or not, America is getting played. I can't recall a time i've ever seen a people get played so bad. Thousands dead. Billions spent. All utterly surreal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: Re: What was the purpose of 9/11? |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| "they hate our freedom" analysis of the attacks. |
western propoganda.
What they hate is western arrogance and hypocrisy, especially when they have to pay the price for it.
There is a reason the west has enemies, a cause. Osama used to be an ally, remember? It was US policies that pis*ed him off. |
US policies my ass. Osama started Al Qaeda when we went to war against Iraq and left troops behind in neighboring nations . But the US wasnt the only nation in GULF WAR I yet Osama chose us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| Can we really ascribe logic and reason to such a religious person...? |
Good point. Additional cause to continue to call my speculation "speculative."
And, Big_Bird: sorry. One does not turn one's cheek to such an attack. Projecting indecision and/or weakness would likely have led to worse results than what we now see.
As for myself, I simply would have carpet-nuked Afghanistan, salted the earth there, and then asked Iran, Syria, and, at the time, Lybia, "Any more takers...? No...? Then this *beep* stops now." No imperialism, no costly occupations, just a straightforward, unequivocal punitive operation.
Y ya se acab�. |
Firstly you agree with BJWD that his point (about the religious fundamentalists who committed the crime not being reasonable or logical) is a good one. I would also say that was a good point.
Yet, for the crimes of these crazy unreasonable illogical people, you wish to punish in their place ordinary sane people living simple lives in one of the poorest and most wretched countries in the world. Not one Afghani participated in 911. Yet you would punish every Afghani. You perhaps believe this would serve as a future deterent. Perhaps it would be a deterrent to nation states - run by sane rational and logical leaders - to make war on America, but would it be a deterent to crazy overly religious unreasonable and illogical fundamentalist terrorists? Are future crazy-overly-religious-unreasonable-and-illogical-fundamentalist terrorists going to factor in this punishment when they make their decision to bring mayhem on their (perceived or real) enemies? No. They won't give a damn. In their minds, you can blow up all the countries you like, the good in those countries are going to heaven, and the bad are going to hell. It's not their problem if other muslims/arabs/countrymen die. It's God's will. This is their 'reasoning.' |
The US didnt punish Every Afghani. hell that war wasnt even that violent compared to other wars. most of the cities were taken without much of a fight, all by us giving aid to Afghanis.
See big bird, people like you like to spin.
But In afghanistan we didnt send thousands of troops who attacked the nation, all we did is lend air and limited ground support to a group of AFGHANIs who had been fighting to overthrow the Taliban for years.
But you dont mention that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: What was the purpose of 9/11? |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Julius wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| "they hate our freedom" analysis of the attacks. |
western propoganda.
What they hate is western arrogance and hypocrisy, especially when they have to pay the price for it.
There is a reason the west has enemies, a cause. Osama used to be an ally, remember? It was US policies that pis*ed him off. |
US policies my ass. Osama started Al Qaeda when we went to war against Iraq and left troops behind in neighboring nations . But the US wasnt the only nation in GULF WAR I yet Osama chose us. |
we were the only country to leave troops in Saudi however.
No, I'm not being an apologist or excusing OBL, or anything like that. Just clarifying that one bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| ...we were the only country to leave troops in Saudi however. |
But there are "troops" and then there are combat or occupation troops, Bucheon. Let us clarify fully, then, what these troops were that we garrisoned in Saudi...
| GlobalSecurity.org wrote: |
U.S. forces flooded into Saudi Arabia in fall 1990, after Hussein's troops invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia welcomed the troops, and its own forces fought to push Iraq out of Kuwait.
After the war, about 4,000 uniformed Americans--mostly Air Force members--stayed in Saudi Arabia as part of the no-fly patrol operations, and as a check against further Iraqi offensives [emphasis added]. However, they became a rallying point for Muslim fundamentalists, who charged the U.S. was trying to increase its influence over the Saudi royal family and the nation's oil reserves.
"The presence of the U.S. forces gives a lot of fuel to the virulent, anti-American Islamic forces that certainly command an audience in Saudi, and in the broader Arab world," said Jamil Khoury, an Arab specialist and business consultant who teaches at the University of Chicago. "It's become a real sore point in our relationship with the royal family, because it has become too burdensome to them."
For the U.S., the presence in Saudi Arabia was also yielding diminishing returns, even before the host country refused to participate in the second war against Iraq. U.S. personnel were under constant threat of terrorist attack after the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment complex, which killed 19 service members.
Increasingly, the U.S. presence had become a central irritant for those pressing to reform the royal family's strong-armed rule and the fundamentalists who want to replace that government with a religious regime... |
Source
That is, there has been much talk on "pretexts" in foreign affairs recently. These "troops," then, seem to have been bin Laden's pretext to make his own Fundamentalist-inspired power-play in the Gulf (and beyond). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| Can we really ascribe logic and reason to such a religious person...? |
Good point. Additional cause to continue to call my speculation "speculative."
And, Big_Bird: sorry. One does not turn one's cheek to such an attack. Projecting indecision and/or weakness would likely have led to worse results than what we now see.
As for myself, I simply would have carpet-nuked Afghanistan, salted the earth there, and then asked Iran, Syria, and, at the time, Lybia, "Any more takers...? No...? Then this *beep* stops now." No imperialism, no costly occupations, just a straightforward, unequivocal punitive operation.
Y ya se acab�. |
Firstly you agree with BJWD that his point (about the religious fundamentalists who committed the crime not being reasonable or logical) is a good one. I would also say that was a good point.
Yet, for the crimes of these crazy unreasonable illogical people, you wish to punish in their place ordinary sane people living simple lives in one of the poorest and most wretched countries in the world. Not one Afghani participated in 911. Yet you would punish every Afghani. You perhaps believe this would serve as a future deterent. Perhaps it would be a deterrent to nation states - run by sane rational and logical leaders - to make war on America, but would it be a deterent to crazy overly religious unreasonable and illogical fundamentalist terrorists? Are future crazy-overly-religious-unreasonable-and-illogical-fundamentalist terrorists going to factor in this punishment when they make their decision to bring mayhem on their (perceived or real) enemies? No. They won't give a damn. In their minds, you can blow up all the countries you like, the good in those countries are going to heaven, and the bad are going to hell. It's not their problem if other muslims/arabs/countrymen die. It's God's will. This is their 'reasoning.' |
The US didnt punish Every Afghani. hell that war wasnt even that violent compared to other wars. most of the cities were taken without much of a fight, all by us giving aid to Afghanis.
See big bird, people like you like to spin.
But In afghanistan we didnt send thousands of troops who attacked the nation, all we did is lend air and limited ground support to a group of AFGHANIs who had been fighting to overthrow the Taliban for years.
But you dont mention that. |
NAVFC, are you quite the full quid? Is English your native language? Because you appear to struggle with aspects of its grammar. Please reread both my post and the post written by Gopher to which I was responding. Certain sentences have been highlighted for you. You might notice that we were using conditionals (Gopher using the third conditional and I the second). Assuming you are an ESL teacher, this is something you should be quite aware of, but here is brief description of the conditional I was using, in order to jog you memory:
The second conditional: often called the "unreal" conditional because it is used for unreal - impossible or improbable - situations. This conditional provides an imaginary result for a given situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
English_Ocean
Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Location: You don't have the right to abuse me!
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps :
To quickly get rid of thousands of renters.
Destroy Enron documents.
Build a stronger scientific community.
Build a stronger military force.
Boost your slagging economy.
Curb the flow of immigrants.
Gain a stronger control over US citizens and other nations.
Just a thought or two.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| English_Ocean wrote: |
Perhaps :
To quickly get rid of thousands of renters.
Destroy Enron documents.
Build a stronger scientific community.
Build a stronger military force.
Boost your slagging economy.
Curb the flow of immigrants.
Gain a stronger control over US citizens and other nations.
Just a thought or two.
|
| gang ah jee in the OP wrote: |
| if you believe that the US government had any conscious involvement in the attacks, do not post here. You conspiracy softheads have enough threads as it is. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
