The Path to 9/11 - docudrama or propaganda?

[AEON]

This is a new documentary done in conjunction with the 9-11 families. Watch it to see how much Bush did.

http://mediachannel.org/PressForTruth2.htm

Watching it now...claiming the WTC was not brought down by the planes...that they were bombed from the inside...yeah....

 

[Irvine511]

Do you know what really confuses me? I can't understand why the liberals aren't the ones LEADING this war. The Muslim extremists are the least "tolerant"and the most racist, violent, misogynistic, homophobic, close-minded people on this planet. They represent the total antithesis of everything the liberals claim to be about.

It is simply mindboggling…

actually, i take your point here.

i said it before, i'll say it again: they're coming for me first. i am well aware of this. and i agree that Bush got the big thing right -- these are very bad people who want us dead. and they are more lethal than i think the Clinton administration gave them credit for, initially, as well as the Bush administration. i think it took 9-11 to make us aware of their logistical capabilities.

now we know.

the difference is how we go about protecting ourselves and our freedoms, and i think you make a mistake in thinking that "liberals" somehow support the Islamofascists. we don't. not in the slightest, and i distance myself from those who would equivocate between the US (and all it's manifest flaws) and a government like the Taliban. Bush isn't the world's biggest terrorist. the USA isn't the root cause of all evil in the world. but what i think liberals do is that we are relentlessly critical of the US and how it is itself implicated in the creation of radicalism in various corners of the globe, but this criticism comes from what is seen as the failure of the US to live up to it's lofty ideals, and that what you see as a necessary "war" isn't best fought as a conventional war at all. the Iraq War was a COLOSSAL mistake. this is not a "war" that can be won like it's 1944 and we're pushing the Germans back through the Ardennes. it's about tedious intelligence work, and international cooperation, and the effective use of soft power. yes, hard power (the extremely judicious use of hard power) has it's place, and i think most people supported, initially, the invasion of Afghanistan because that seemed a clear case of a government supporting a man who had killed 3,000 innocent people.

in my opinion, to even call it a "war" gives "the enemy" a legitimacy and status they do not deserve. they are not the Nazis. they are not even the Viet Cong. this is something totally different, and simply arguing against the present course of action is not in any way an endorsement of the various ideologies of the enemy nor is it an underestimation of the lethality of the enemy.

 

[BVS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Usama Bin Laden was a multi-millionaire.

I love people who use this retort, it shows me how they really have no grasp of the whole picture. Yes Bin Laden has money, but do you really think all his recruits do? Bin Laden couldn't do all of this on his own, he needs troops. How many of his ground troops are educated wealthy individuals? How many would be there if they were?

Let's look at the whole picture here folks...

 

[AEON]

Irvine, since we do agree on who the enemy is - what should be done? What are some the bullet points of your course of action?

 

[BVS]

Do you know what really confuses me? I can't understand why the liberals aren't the ones LEADING this war. The Muslim extremists are the least "tolerant"and the most racist, violent, misogynistic, homophobic, close-minded people on this planet. They represent the total antithesis of everything the liberals claim to be about.

It is simply mindboggling…

When have you seen liberals killing or locking up the hate mongers here in the states?

A true liberal will stand up for the freedoms of the most closed minded individual. But it doesn't mean we support their views or especially their violent actions. Once again I find you twisting perspectives here.

 

[AEON]

I love people who use this retort, it shows me how they really have no grasp of the whole picture. Yes Bin Laden has money, but do you really think all his recruits do? Bin Laden couldn't do all of this on his own, he needs troops. How many of his ground troops are educated wealthy individuals? How many would be there if they were?

Let's look at the whole picture here folks...

PERFECT SOLDIERS

The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It


By Terry McDermott. HarperCollins. 330 pp. $25.95

Earlier this year the British writer Gerald Seymour constructed an exceptionally good novel, The Unknown Soldier , around the premise that the men who are drawn into the embrace of al Qaeda are not at all who we think they are. We believe, as one of his characters puts it, that they are "brainwashed," when in fact "Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants . . . have refined a skill in identifying young men of varying social backgrounds and economic advantage who are prepared to make supreme sacrifices for a cause." They are not necessarily loners but are attracted to "the excitement of being a part of that select fugitive family," they have strong "personal self-esteem," they seek "adventure and purpose."

Now, in Perfect Soldiers , Terry McDermott provides the hard facts behind the fictional picture that Seymour so persuasively draws. A reporter for the Los Angeles Times who has been on the story of the September 2001 terrorist attacks since the day they occurred, McDermott has talked to everyone -- everyone who will talk, that is -- and read everything, the result of which is what may well be, for now at least, the definitive book on the 19 men who brought such devastation and terror to this country nearly four years ago. Clearly written in good, plain English, Perfect Soldiers is a group portrait of ordinary men who were driven to do a surpassingly evil thing.

McDermott takes his title from Dashiell Hammett: "He was the perfect soldier: he went where you sent him, stayed where you put him, and had no idea of his own to keep him from doing exactly what you told him." The last part of that equation is not wholly true of these young men -- Mohamed Atta, for example, was a planner of the Sept. 11 attacks as well as an instrument of al Qaeda's will -- but the overall description is accurate. Having discovered a cause for which they were ready -- indeed, often eager -- to sacrifice their own lives, these young jihadists followed orders as precisely and dutifully as the most assiduously trained U.S. Marine.

They were not born to be soldiers -- none seems to have come from a military background -- and there was little in their early lives to suggest that they would become what they did. The pilot of the first plane to hit the World Trade Center, Atta, came from "an ambitious, not overtly religious middle-class household in Egypt" and had led "a sheltered life" until he arrived in Hamburg, Germany, in 1992 to do graduate study in architecture. The pilot of the second plane, Marwan al-Shehhi, was an amiable, "laid-back" fellow from the United Arab Emirates who had joined the UAE army, "not the world's most effective fighting force but one of its most generous, paying [its scholarship] students monthly stipends of about $2,000," which may have been his primary reason for enlisting; this enabled him to go to Hamburg, though there is little evidence that he "had any serious scholarly ambitions."

Hani Hanjour, the Saudi pilot who flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, "had lived in the United States off and on throughout the 1990s, mostly in Arizona, intermittently taking flying lessons at several different flying schools." He was, in the view of one of his flight instructors, "intelligent, friendly, and 'very courteous, very formal,' a nice enough fellow but a terrible pilot." He finally got a commercial license from the FAA but was unable to find work here or in the Middle East. As for Ziad Jarrah, the pilot of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, he was "the handsome middle child and only son of an industrious, middle-class family in Beirut," a "secular Muslim" family that "was easygoing -- the men drank whiskey and the women wore short skirts about town and bikinis at the beach." At university in Germany he met Aysel Sengün, "the daughter of conservative, working-class Turkish immigrants"; eventually they got married, but he disappeared for long periods, usually without explanation, leaving her frantic.

His disappearances, like changes in the other men's lives, were traceable to his discovery of radical Islam and jihad -- not jihad as "the individual's daily struggle for his own soul," but jihad as a Muslim's " obligation to fight on behalf of his beliefs, against nonbelievers and corrupters of belief." Eventually he too found his way to Hamburg, where he joined many other young Muslims in prayer and discussion, sometimes at a mosque called al Quds (the Arabic name for Jerusalem), sometimes in one of the various group houses where the men lived austerely and piously: "The Hamburg men who joined their plights to that of fundamentalist Islam chose not simply a new mosque or religious doctrine but an entry to a new way of life, the acquisition of a new world view, in fact, of a new world." To Atta and a friend who called himself Omar (ultimately he became the backstage coordinator of the 2001 attacks under his real name, Ramzi Binalshibh), "no matter where they fought, their real enemies were the Jews, and ultimately the Americans. 'One has to do something about America,' Omar said."

For all of them, radical Islam and jihad soon became obsessions, eclipsing everything else. Studies were abandoned, families ignored, the outer world denied as they plunged themselves into their fanatical version of faith. As a German investigator put it: "They are not talking about daily life stuff, such as buying cars -- they buy cars, but they don't talk about it, they talk about religion most of the time . . . these people are just living for their religion, meaning for them that they just live now for their life after death, the paradise. They want to live obeying their God, so they can enter paradise. Everything else doesn't matter."


Painting our enemy as poor and uneducated is misleading.

 

[AEON]

When have you seen liberals killing or locking up the hate mongers here in the states?

A true liberal will stand up for the freedoms of the most closed minded individual. But it doesn't mean we support their views or especially their violent actions. Once again I find you twisting perspectives here.

What are you saying here? I can't make sense of it. You have lost me...

 

[BVS]

What are you saying here? I can't make sense of it. You have lost me...

Your concept of liberals should be leading this war is ridiculous. Why?

I'm being rushed for I need to leave I'll eloborate on my last few posts later this evening...

 

[AEON]

Your concept of liberals should be leading this war is ridiculous. Why?

Are you saying that a liberal should not fight in ANY circumstance?

I think FDR, JFK, and LBJ would all disagree with you.

 

[Irvine511]

i think we need a working definition of what a "liberal" is before this discussion can continue

 

[AEON]

i think we need a working definition of what a "liberal" is before this discussion can continue

I agree - go ahead and give it a try

 

[Irvine511]

i really have no idea anymore. i think the word is meaningless.

i suppose i consider myself something of a progressive with a realist international perspective on foreign policy.

 

[AEON]

i really have no idea anymore. i think the word is meaningless.

i suppose i consider myself something of a progressive with a realist international perspective on foreign policy.

As a "progressive with a realist international perspective on foreign policy" - do you think that radical Islam should be stopped?

If you answer "no" - what do you think are some of the consequences of allowing it to spread? Are you willing to accept these consequences? (a Taliban like state where only Islam is permitted, gays are slaughtered, women must remain covered or they will be beheaded…etc)

If the answer is "yes" - then what methods are you willing to employee to stop it? What if pulling out of Iraq fails to stop it? What if creating a Palestinian state doesn't stop it? What if freeing every terrorist in Gitmo doesn’t stop it?

 

[Irvine511]

As a "progressive with a realist international perspective on foreign policy" - do you think that radical Islam should be stopped?

If you answer "no" - what do you think are some of the consequences of allowing it to spread? Are you willing to accept these consequences? (a Taliban like state where only Islam is permitted, gays are slaughtered, women must remain covered or they will be beheaded…etc)

If the answer is "yes" - then what methods are you willing to employee to stop it? What if pulling out of Iraq fails to stop it? What if creating a Palestinian state doesn't stop it? What if freeing every terrorist in Gitmo doesn’t stop it?

1. i don't think this is a meaningful question -- "stopped" isn't the correct word, perhaps "rendered irrelevant" or "strip it of it's seductive power." this is achieved through a variety of responses, the most meaningful of which would be to first address the Israel/Palestinian issue.

2. see above.

3. i am willing to provide our intelligence forces with all the tools they need, withing the boundaries of the Constitution and International Law, to effectively track and destroy certain terrorist ringleaders and i am willing to sacrafice a minimum of personal liberty in order to better ensure my own safety, to a degree. i do not think that the invasion of countries that have nothing to do with Islamic extremism makes us safer, in fact it makes us less so.

i also reject the questions you've laid out at the end of the question -- you're making the assumption that i'm making the assumption that Islamic extremism will magically disappear if we pull out of Iraq and free everyone from Gitmo. i don't. but i think a tenable resolution to Iraq is critical (we never should have ever been there) combined with what must be seen as fair legal proceedings for those who are in Gitmo is crucial to restoring America's standing in the world.

but, mostly, i think one of the best things we can do to combat the radicalization of much of the Muslmi world would be to get a brand new commander-in-chief who'll tone down the cowboy rhetoric, admit mistakes and work to rectify them, aggressively pursue the tiny minority of truly lethal radicals and their financers, and restore the respect once accorded to the US in both the Muslim world and in the minds of our allies.

 

[BVS]

Are you saying that a liberal should not fight in ANY circumstance?

I think FDR, JFK, and LBJ would all disagree with you.

Wow, you really are one for twisting words.

The reasons you gave for liberals to be leading this war are ridiculous. Intolerance, close-mindedness? When have you seen liberals attack or lock up people in this country based on this? We haven't locked up the KKK, we didn't wage war on the conservatives who supported McCarthyism, segregation, or bans on interracial marriage. Your views of liberals is warped.

But this doesn't mean we supported these oppressive actions and doesn't mean all liberals are pacificts.

So honestly, I can't see where you are coming from with that logic.

 

[BVS]

What if freeing every terrorist in Gitmo doesn’t stop it?

Once again, who is asking for this?

 

[BVS]

have refined a skill in identifying young men of varying social backgrounds and economic advantage who are prepared to make supreme sacrifices for a cause." They are not necessarily loners but are attracted to "the excitement of being a part of that select fugitive family," they have strong "personal self-esteem," they seek "adventure and purpose."

This same exact quote can be said for members of the bloods, crips, KKK, neo-nazis, etc.

Painting our enemy as poor and uneducated is misleading.

Yes to paint any group with two words is very misleading. But to dismiss these things is completely naive.

 

[AEON]

Wow, you really are one for twisting words.

The reasons you gave for liberals to be leading this war are ridiculous.

How about this reason - your enemy wants to either convert you or saw off your head.

If freedom isn't worth fighting for - then what is? Is nothing worth fighting for? Your family? Your friends? The right to listen to U2?

Our enemy laughs at our disunity and is using it against us (like any wise enemy would). They see us as weak and unwilling to do what it takes to win. But they are only partially correct.

Men like me have drawn a line, and so have many others. I would rather die fighting than sit back and let my wife and kids suffer under Sharia law. For me (and my brothers and sisters in the armed forces as well as Homeland Security, Border Patrol, FBI...etc) it took a 9-11 to wake me up and make me sign on the dotted line - for the rest of country, it will unfortunately take something far worse.

There are some things worth fighting for, worth dying for. Freedom to NOT be Muslim is one of them.

 

[BVS]

AEON, I never stated nothing is worth fighting for. Maybe you should go back to the beginning and retrace your steps for you are clouding many many different issues into one.

 

[AEON]

AEON, I never stated nothing is worth fighting for. Maybe you should go back to the beginning and retrace your steps for you are clouding many many different issues into one.

Just so I understand - what do you feel is worth fighting for?

 

[BVS]

Just so I understand - what do you feel is worth fighting for?

There are a lot of things worth fighting for, but that isn't the question you should be asking. The question should be are we fighting the right fight, is this really the only way it needs to be done, will we gain more or lose more with this fight? These are the questions you should be asking.

You paint everything so black and white, we live in a grey world. Hate to break it to you.

 

[AEON]

There are a lot of things worth fighting for,

Please give us a few examples. Please help me from “clouding” – I want to understand your position clearly.

but that isn't the question you should be asking. The question should be are we fighting the right fight,

Preventing radical Islam from taking over the world (and only a fool believes that is not their goal) is absolutely the right fight.

is this really the only way it needs to be done, will we gain more or lose more with this fight?

No this is not the only way it needs to be done. We need to take this war as serious as World War II (even MORE serious).

You paint everything so black and white, we live in a grey world. Hate to break it to you.

Sometimes things are black and white. There is nothing “grey” about an army of men running toward you and your family to chop off your heads or evaporate you with a nuke.

 

[Irvine511]

If freedom isn't worth fighting for - then what is? Is nothing worth fighting for? Your family? Your friends? The right to listen to U2?

you should check out my appreciation thread.


[q]Our enemy laughs at our disunity and is using it against us (like any wise enemy would). They see us as weak and unwilling to do what it takes to win. But they are only partially correct.[/q]

then our enemy is stupid. the huge debate over how we deal with "the enemy" is a sign of the strength and robustness of our democracy. for all of us to march in lock step -- as Cheney would like us to do -- would be evidence that they have won, that they have destroyed the freedoms we enjoy.

[q]Men like me have drawn a line, and so have many others. I would rather die fighting than sit back and let my wife and kids suffer under Sharia law.[/q]

do you really think it comes down to this? either we fight with tanks and bombs and guns or your wife is in a birka and i get beheaded in RFK stadium to a cheering crowd? isn't this exactly Bin Laden's worldview -- either one way or another?



[q]For me (and my brothers and sisters in the armed forces as well as Homeland Security, Border Patrol, FBI...etc) it took a 9-11 to wake me up and make me sign on the dotted line - for the rest of country, it will unfortunately take something far worse.[/q]

and everyone thanks you, and appreciates, the work you are putting in. but please keep in mind that there are many, many ways we can all participate.

 

[Irvine511]

Preventing radical Islam from taking over the world (and only a fool believes that is not their goal) is absolutely the right fight.

but do you see what a slippery slope this is? this is a far less credible line of thought than the notion that communism was going to take us over and make us all atheists. is there a threat? yes. but this deliberate overestimation is precisely what the administration wants, as it helps them consolidate executive power and write massive no-bid contracts. they did this in the 1970s with the USSR -- the threat was intentionally overblown so that we might justify greater military spending.

 

[BVS]

Please give us a few examples. Please help me from “clouding” – I want to understand your position clearly.

You're clouding the war on an ideaology with Iraq, you're clouding the fact that some see this as a piss poor planned war as being sympathetic to terrorists, you're clouding the fact that some would have liked to see other alternatives to war as not believing anything is worth fighting for...

Preventing radical Islam from taking over the world (and only a fool believes that is not their goal) is absolutely the right fight.

Yeah, and you missed my point. Will this war actually stop that? Will it be a lifetime fight? Will continuously fighting the way we are allow for recruiting and the spread of radical Islam? Would spreading education, working with Muslim groups to speak out against radical Islam, and target terrorist cells be better in the long run?

Sometimes things are black and white. There is nothing “grey” about an army of men running toward you and your family to chop off your heads or evaporate you with a nuke.

Where are these armies running up to your family, where do you live? Who has a nuke? Come on, if you are going to prove to me life is black and white, use real examples.

 

[AEON]

BVS - You still haven't listed what you would fight for.

The militants are only being kept in check by the US and its allies' military and intillegence agencies. Otherwise, things would be far worse.

9-11 proved that our enemy is willing to kill innocent civilians. Not only willing, but actually targeting innocent civilians.

And if you don't think Islam isn't spreading like wildfire in Western Europe you need to do some quick Google searches.

Iraq is only a part of the global war. I agree it is being conducted like a soup sandwich, and we need to either step it up or get out.

 

[AEON]

the threat was intentionally overblown

Do you seriously think it is possible to overestimate Islamic extremists after 9-11?

 

[deep]

I would fight to throw invaders (occupying troops) out of my country.

 

[AEON]

and everyone thanks you, and appreciates, the work you are putting in. but please keep in mind that there are many, many ways we can all participate.

I absolutely agree - I just listed a few examples. The police and firefighters that responded to the WTC and the Penteagon are prime examples of heroism. So is my wife - who is strong enough to run our family when I'm needed outside the country.

One day, when my infant son is enjoying the freedom to choose his religion, he will ask me what I did in the war - and I'll be able to answer proudly that our family responded to the call, like so many families before us; that our family understood that freedom sometimes requires sacrifice.

 

[Scarletwine]

Preventing radical Islam from taking over the world (and only a fool believes that is not their goal) is absolutely the right fight.

Then many people are fools. Most studies and Osama's own words point to the elimination of occupation of Muslim countries by the US, Israel, stop the proping up of brutal regimes (with oil) like the Saudis, and get US troops out of sacred lands.

Not excusing their action in any way! They

Read Professor Papes book on suicide bombing "Dying to Win". He has great statistical info.