Ronald Reagan is to blame for the 9/11 Attack

[ChristinaB]

from OBL transcript: (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/index.html)

And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.

But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.

During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.

And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.

So when Reagan threw the 6th Fleet in to support Israel's invasion of Lebanon, the ball started rolling towards the 9/11 attack.

No doubt some of GWB's actions in the past 4 years will drive some other Islamist kook to attack us in the future.

We need to end the cycle now!

[Victor]

Hi CHristina,

While I agree with your statements and the general idea of your post I think your title is misleading and inappropriate. RR's policies certainly contributed to extremist Islam but he is one of many who endorsed actions that put us in this situation.

[MMMMMM]

Don't you folks ever think of primarily blaming the Islamic extremists themselves?

It's always "our policies" this, or "our policies" that...I mean, these guys are extremists...what about THEIR "policies" of savagely attacking innocents in order to make their political points...jeez...some of you talk like we don't have the right to certain policies, but they DO have the right to butcher innocents in protest...I'm sure you don't actually think that, but are we not to do what we think is right and in our best interests, and in our allies' best interests, merely because it might make some crackpots mad and they might attack us???

Some of our policies may be arguably right or wrong, but their terrorist attacks are not arguable; they're clearly wrong...I think blame should be apportioned appropriately, which is probably about 90% that they are to blame.

Also, are we to allow ourselves be blackmailed by violent aggressive lunatic fanatics? The Left certainly seems willing to go down that road, despite the fact that appeasement has such a miserable success rate throughout history.

[ACPlayer]

WHile a credible case can be made for the 9/11 direct causal timeline starting with Lebabon, the real seeds were sown in 1948.

If America had not supported Israel we would not be under attack -- Period. Is it worth it? Perhaps -- but to deny a causal relationship is asinine.

[Victor]

Hello MMMMMMMM,

Do a search on Sabria and Santila, Qana, Sahla and Jenin. That their policies are extreme should not be a surprise as the policies used against them are no doubt extreme as well.

Lest you misinterpret this post as well I will give a disclaimer that I agree with and support neither of the 2 groups.

[MMMMMM]

Again, Israel is not al-Qaeda's principal gripe with the West.

To claim that sans Israel, Islamic fundamentalists would not be attacking the West in the 21st century, is simply without basis.

[MMMMMM]

The Palestinian terrorists didn't attack us on 9/1, al-Qaeda did--and the Israeli/Palestinian issue is NOT al-Qaeda's principal gripe with the West.

[ACPlayer]

.

[ACPlayer]

Lest you misinterpret this post as well I will give a disclaimer that I agree with and support neither of the 2 groups.

Sorry ol' chap .. .on this board if you say anything negative about Israel you a) stgand for everything the terrorists stand for including their tactics b) an anti-semite (actually the subset of semites that are jews) c) a lover of Arafat and his gang d) a liberal and/or a left winger e) against everything American

[MMMMMM]

No, you are wrong, and clearly so.

While without Israel, Islamic fundamentalists might not be attacking the West in the 21st century, they also might be. Therefore your claim otherwise is incorrect.

Also, al-Qaeda itself has made proclamations over the years as to their principal aims, as well as their gripes, and Israel, while being a listed gripe, is not at the very top of their lists. In fact you know this, and know that they are primarily Greater Jihadists rather than Palestinian terrorists.

[ACPlayer]

While without Israel, Islamic fundamentalists might not be attacking the West in the 21st century, they also might be

"they also might be" -- this is your entire basis for dismissing a clear link as has been self-described by AQ. On the basis of small maybe's you support a war that has killed tens of thousands and on a small maybe you insist on denying any causal connection in pursuit of you religious war.

"they also might be" --- four words that brilliantly illuminate your insights into the matter. Thank you for the clarity.

[MMMMMM]

You did not account for that possibility in your post; therefore your claim was wrong.

Given al-Qaeda's statements about "the duty of every Muslim to kill and plunder Americans wherever they may be found", and forcing all "infidels" to leave the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia, and warning America and the U.K. to "convert to Islam or face further attacks", and the many centuries old tradition of jihad against infidels...it is pretty remarkable that you would think that without Israel, Islamic fanatics would not be attacking the West. But as I said, they might not be.

As for Saddam Hussein I feel that we have rid the world of a beast who pleasured himself with the blood and torture of many thousands of his perceived enemies, and even that of innocents; who personally taught his sons the art of torture; an ogre, a fiend. And Iraqis now thankfully have the chance to establish a government based on democratic principles instead of widespread Stalinist-style-inspired fear and terror.

I support no religious war, but al-Qaeda who are attacking us most certainly do, and they call it jihad. Your refusal to face the obvious is really most remarkable.

[tolbiny]

Just to be an ass-

Goerge Bush called our attackt on Al Queda a Crusade.

[MMMMMM]

I know lol.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to be an ass-

Goerge Bush called our attackt on Al Queda a Crusade.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is about one of the stupidest things he could of done.

It's so sad that Bush and Kerry are the "best our country has to offer".

[wacki]

Anyone have a link? I'm having trouble finding it in context. Tons of articles about "Bush's crusade", but none of them have it in context, let alone the whole sentence.

[Felix_Nietsche]

....quote and give credibility to a mass murdering religious fanatic. Nice try. Who are you going to quote next? Hitler?

I read the entire transcipt of Osama and he made a childish attempt to help Kerry by critizing Bush. The timing of his message was to help Kerry before the election. It won't help as much as the massive Democrat vote fraud which is occuring but it will fire up the "useful idiot" base of the Democratic party.

Why help Kerry by attacking Bush. Because Bush has been cleaning their clocks. 75% of al queda's leadership is dead or in jail. Of course John "I have a plan" Kerry would have gotten 76% of them with his "global test plan".

Osama of course lied about Lebanon. Lebanon was one big battlefied of Druse vs Maronites vs Shiites vs Palestinians. By the way, Palestinians killed more Lebanese than the Isrealis killed. In the 1980's, Lebanon was more like a mafia gang war than a civil war. The Plaestinians were just on of the mafia families that the Isrealis chased out.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
....quote and give credibility to a mass murdering religious fanatic. Nice try. Who are you going to quote next? Hitler?

I read the entire transcipt of Osama and he made a childish attempt to help Kerry by critizing Bush. The timing of his message was to help Kerry before the election. It won't help as much as the massive Democrat vote fraud which is occuring but it will fire up the "useful idiot" base of the Democratic party.

Why help Kerry by attacking Bush. Because Bush has been cleaning their clocks. 75% of al queda's leadership is dead or in jail. Of course John "I have a plan" Kerry would have gotten 76% of them with his "global test plan".


[/ QUOTE ]


Most of the following arguement was given by O'Reilly on his show friday I believe, I'm paraphrasing a little but I think this is the general point he made.

1. The Bin Laden tape does the following: It takes the news cycle off or Iraq and onto terrorism. This is good for bush since he is leading in the opinion polls about who people think will do a better job fighting terrorism. So by bring people's concerns back to terrorism in general and not the situation in Iraq the tape actually helps Bush.

2. Bin Ladin is not dumb: He realizes releasing this tape will help bush. So he wants bush to be re-elected. Possible reasons for this are that a Bush presidencey seems to alienate the United States from a large number of its European allies, and makes it easier for him to recruit new terrorists.

[anatta]

I thought he said they were to blame the other day. Anybody have anything on this?? Maybe GWB himself has the answer...

[ACPlayer]

....quote and give credibility to a mass murdering religious fanatic. Nice try. Who are you going to quote next? Hitler?

The only person I quoted in this thread is MMMMMMM. He is ignorant for sure /images/graemlins/laugh.gif; religious fanatic probably; but not really a mass murderer.

So, you are right on two of three.

[ACPlayer]

Bin Ladin is not dumb: He realizes releasing this tape will help bush. So he wants bush to be re-elected. Possible reasons for this are that a Bush presidencey seems to alienate the United States from a large number of its European allies, and makes it easier for him to recruit new terrorists

By jove he has got it. Bin Ladin wants to build his Caliphate, George Bush is his greatest recruiting weapon.

[MMMMMM]

Amazing that so many think bin-Laden is more concerned with his recruiting potential than with his safety, the safety of his operatives, and his access to resources.

He is on the run..let's keep him running 'til he drops. And let's get some balls and forget about "making them mad" and go crush their strongholds in Iraq.

[ACPlayer]

If we had spent the billions of dollars and thousand plus soldiers chasing him in Iraq, I would have voted for Bush.

We needed to do both, chase him down and review our policies. Instead we did the worst thing possibe at this time -- go on a boondoggle invade Iraq.

And yes, OBL would prefer a policy that continues to provide him with fresh fodder to throw at America (not the West but at America -- ho does not care about the west)

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing that so many think bin-Laden is more concerned with his recruiting potential than with his safety, the safety of his operatives, and his access to resources.

He is on the run..let's keep him running 'til he drops. And let's get some balls and forget about "making them mad" and go crush their strongholds in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order for what we are doing to be keeping Bin Laden running this assumes that he is in Iraq. I really doubt this is the case, and what in fact is probably going on is Bin Laden is off in hiding in some other country where there aren't U.S. soldiers everywhere. While the Iraq occupation has freed the people of Iraq from Hussain it has also had the side effect of creating a lot more people inside Iraq intent on commiting acts of violence against American soldiers, and we are stuck with those soldiers in Iraq and they can't actually be off trying to find Bin Ladin in other places.

In effect what the Iraq occupation has done is increase the risk of loss of life to americans. I do however believe that the actions the United States has taken to find terrorist camps in general, either by our own forces in other countries other than iraq, or by pressuring other countries to crack down on terrorists within their borders has been effective and is what we should have been doing.

[ACPlayer]

and go crush their strongholds in Iraq.

If these are AQ strongholds then our Iraqi invasion has succeed in giving OBL's a toehold to establish a presence in Iraq.

If this is an insurgency the we have outstayed any welcome we MAY possibly have had.

Either way we haave hurt us and helped OBL. Terrible war initiated by nuts and supported by lemmings.

[MMMMMM]

I don't agree; I think we just didn't crush them in Fallujah and near that shrine when we had the chance-- hopefully we still will. It would take a lot of the starch out of them.

[ACPlayer]

Perhaps the iraqi population would like us to announce a time as warning and we could just drop a nuke on Fallujah. Make that a final solution to the Fallujah problem.

[MMMMMM]

We had Fallujah surrounded and the women anmd children had left the city. That would have been the time to go through the city and kill or arrest every militant, and disarm the city entirely, even of light arms. With tanks patrolling the streets and airstrikes on any structures that fired on us, and a curfew, we could have certainly done it. Maybe there were good reasons we didn't at that time. Regardless, we paused for negotiations and ended up withdrawing. Now the city is a hornet's nest again. When are we going to learn that you don't negotiate with fanatical militants when you have them surrounded.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
We had Fallujah surrounded and the women anmd children had left the city. That would have been the time to go through the city and kill or arrest every militant, and disarm the city entirely, even of light arms. With tanks patrolling the streets and airstrikes on any structures that fired on us, and a curfew, we could have certainly done it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How on earth do you tell who the militants are, its not they look any different from the normal males in iraq when they aren't holding a gun. And I doubt they are dumb enough to go around holding a gun and announcing to the world they are are terrorist.

[MMMMMM]

Well a lot of them would probably be shooting at us as we would be going through Fallujah.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
Well a lot of them would probably be shooting at us as we would be going through Fallujah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive me for my bluntness in this comparison, but I don't think that its a correct assumption that these guys will act like characters in a video game. I mean terrorists are capable of waiting for a better time to strike, what would have prevented these militants from just waiting until later when there wasn't an overwhelming number of american troops.

[MMMMMM]

Fine, if they're not going to shoot at us as we go through Fallujah and search and disarm every house and person in it--that would be super!

[Felix_Nietsche]

This is an assinine argument.

[Cyrus]

"While a credible case can be made for the 9/11 direct causal timeline starting with Lebanon, the real seeds were sown in 1948. If America had not supported Israel we would not be under attack -- Period."

Actually, and this may surprise those people who don't know what happened in history before Ronald Reagan, the United States was NOT the keenest supporter of new-born Israel in 1948. If anything, the US was highly suspicious of a new country, created by some unreliable (and un-controlled) ideologues smack in the middle of oil-rich Arabia, an area which was ripe to be inherited by the US from battered Britain. Moreover, those leaders of the new state of Israel were decidedly ..socialist!

The most ardent supporter of Israel's creation at the time was the Soviet Union! The US was reluctant and suspicious. Amidst all the "reactionary regimes" of corrupt sheikhdoms, maintained by Great Britain to serve Her Majesty's interests in the region, was to be created a pesky, little socialist state?! Why, it might jeopardize the whole Arabia, ruled by fiercely anti-communist and pro-western leaders!

Of course, as time passed, and the United States was assured that socialism "Israeli-style" was for domestic consumption only (it was the nationalist socialist variant, actually, i.e. socialism reserved only for the "ruling race") and as soon as domestic politics in America started getting affected by the various AIPACS, the balance shifted decisively and resolutely in favour of unqualified support towards Israel.

That the blind, unqualified American support of Israel has been a strategic disaster for the supporter (but a glorious success for the supported) cannot be seriously disputed. It's a non starter. Every time I have tried to argue the matter, I was confronted typically, sooner or later, with some pathetic moral arguments.