Was Al-Qaeda moral in executing 9/11, as well as the 1993 attacks

[Black Wolf]

I've seen this rhetoric quite a bit, and I'm not sure what exactly to think of this.

Leonard Piekoff believes that it's okay to treat an civilian of an enemy country as if he's a threat, because that's an act of self-defense.

I've been confronted with the argument that American Aggression has been initiated against people: It's been initiated against Saddam Hussein, in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Saddam didn't initiate aggression against us, they initiated aggression against Kuwait. Al-Qaeda formed in response to our attack against Saddam.

Was Al-Qaeda moral in crashing planes into the twin towers after a failed attempt?

[Iudicious]

I've seen this rhetoric quite a bit, and I'm not sure what exactly to think of this.

Leonard Piekoff believes that it's okay to treat an civilian of an enemy country as if he's a threat, because that's an act of self-defense.

I've been confronted with the argument that American Aggression has been initiated against people: It's been initiated against Saddam Hussein, in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Saddam didn't initiate aggression against us, they initiated aggression against Kuwait. Al-Qaeda formed in response to our attack against Saddam.

Was Al-Qaeda moral in crashing planes into the twin towers after a failed attempt?

Was Saddam Hussein moral in invading Kuwait? If not, then he had no moral defense against our invading him, and Al-Qaeda had no moral defense for 9/11.

[2046]

I've seen this rhetoric quite a bit, and I'm not sure what exactly to think of this.

Leonard Piekoff believes that it's okay to treat an civilian of an enemy country as if he's a threat, because that's an act of self-defense.

I've been confronted with the argument that American Aggression has been initiated against people: It's been initiated against Saddam Hussein, in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Saddam didn't initiate aggression against us, they initiated aggression against Kuwait. Al-Qaeda formed in response to our attack against Saddam.

Was Al-Qaeda moral in crashing planes into the twin towers after a failed attempt?

This question offends all reason, but as far as I know, the roots of AQ go back as far as the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion, with CIA help. The opposition bin Laden had was not that the US was attacking Iraq, he in fact offered King Fahd of Saudi Arabia the assistance of his mujahedin fighters to protect the Holy Land from Hussein. It was rather that the Saudis rejected bin Laden's offer and instead invited US troops to protect the kingdom.

(both quotes from Wikipedia)

The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was banished and forced to live in exile in Sudan.

It wasn't until 1996 that bin Laden issued his fatwa:

al-Qaeda announced its jihad to expel foreign troops and interests from what they considered Islamic lands.

The point is here that Peikoff is making is that there can be no double standard in ethics. Just as I cannot steal your car and then claim any type of logical opposition against the police showing up and taking it back, a dictatorship, especially one that initiates wars of aggression, cannot claim a “sovereign right to its territorial integrity.” Also bear in mind that the US trades with Kuwait, and that during the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq (and Iran) had targeted both American and Kuwaiti vessels, until we started to defend ourselves. Of course the United States has a right to defend its merchants in Kuwait, including restoring Kuwait's independence for totally selfish reasons, although I can't agree with the way the US went about it, or the results necessarily, or the reasons that were given, but let there be no illusions that AQ is acting moral by slaughtering anyone.

Edited July 9, 2010 by 2046

[SapereAude]

I've seen this rhetoric quite a bit, and I'm not sure what exactly to think of this.

Leonard Piekoff believes that it's okay to treat an civilian of an enemy country as if he's a threat, because that's an act of self-defense.

What is being referred to here is the concept of "Total War"

Notably in modern warfare it was used in the French Revolution

In a quick highly generalized nutshell "Total War" is when an army decides to make war as though at war with every aspect of the enemy's society. It no longer disciminates between combatant and civilian. Along with killing civilians it is acceptable to raze cities despite lack of military importance or presence, theft and appropriation of non military private property, destruction of non military targets such as farms, non military factories etc.

In our US civil war Total War was advocated by Sherman. Lincoln resisted for some time but eventually caved.

[Black Wolf]

Was Saddam Hussein moral in invading Kuwait? If not, then he had no moral defense against our invading him, and Al-Qaeda had no moral defense for 9/11.

DAMNIT! That was totally a thought that crossed my mind.. but never had the courage to voice. Thanks.

2046, is the ship you're referring to the USS Stark?

Quo Vadis, thanks also. "Total War" makes sense to me, and even if we did initiated aggression against Iraq, what Al Qaeda did does not satisfy the criteria for Total War.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Black Wolf

[2046]

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm

Yeah, here is a good article about the Stark incident and the activities of the US during the Iran-Iraq War.

[Trebor]

"Total War" makes sense to me, and even if we did initiated aggression against Iraq, what Al Qaeda did does not satisfy the criteria for Total War.

Pray tell, what would?

[Black Wolf]

Er, in case anyone misunderstood me, I meant to say that Al Qaeda would not get to claim "total war" as a justification for what they did.

But I honestly wasn't really thinking about what I was trying to say. What I meant was - that wouldn't have been the appropriate action to take for "Total War". Crashing a plane into the Twin Towers - seems more like an act of vindication, than an attempt to end aggression as quickly as possible. Though, we didn't initiate aggression against Al Qaeda, so it's kind of m00t.

[Black Wolf]

I've actually been thinking..

People are against violence against civilians, and for good reason. But it comes to the point at which they would chose attacks against us over a potential death of an innocent civilian in an enemy country. But they're not against attacking the military of the enemy country? Why? I'm sure the military of the opposing country did not chose to join the military anymore than the civilians chose to be in that country.

[CapitalistSwine]

Though, we didn't initiate aggression against Al Qaeda, so it's kind of m00t.

You are right, we only had a great hand in making them into a robust organization that we and other nations constantly have to worry about.

People are against violence against civilians, and for good reason. But it comes to the point at which they would chose attacks against us over a potential death of an innocent civilian in an enemy country. But they're not against attacking the military of the enemy country? Why? I'm sure the military of the opposing country did not chose to join the military anymore than the civilians chose to be in that country.

Could you restate this more clearly. I have read this over twice and I do not feel comfortable giving a response with my inadequate interpretation of it.

Edited July 16, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Maximus]

The bottom line is, Al Qaeda is doing what they are out of a sense of religious zealotry, not any actual threat from the West. They want us to convert or die.

[Black Wolf]

Could you restate this more clearly. I have read this over twice and I do not feel comfortable giving a response with my inadequate interpretation of it.

Well, what is your interpretation of it?

[CapitalistSwine]

what I meant is I did not understand it. Something about not attacking civilians but they attack their military but their military did not choose to? /shrug

Al Qaeda is doing what they are out of a sense of religious zealotry, not any actual threat from the West. They want us to convert or die.

These terrorist organizations are not nearly that simplistic. I understand where you are coming from though as I used to view them in the same way. Since that time I have read several books on specific organizations as well as the middle east conflicts and I feel that this is a great oversimplification knowing what I do now. While religion is a large driving force in various aspects, so are economic and political foreign policy aspects. The reason for the 9/11 attacks was because of U.S. involvement in things where we should not have intervened, it was blowback as the CIA call it. This is not really debatable, this has been made quite clear, both from Al Qaeda's own messages as well as various intelligence agencies and other reputable sources. However, on the other hand, there are both religious, sect, and regional drivers for much of the overall Al Qaeda activity, and the blowback scenario takes a back seat in a lot of those cases. I suggest you get a hold of Sociology as a Life or Death Issue by Robert Brym and read the section on suicide bombers and what really motivates them (it also has a good section on the Palestinians in the Israel-Palestine conflict), or pick up any of Robert Baer's books, he was basically the #1 CIA operative in the Middle-East the last few decades. There are not many people that can write books about this kind of stuff that probably know more than him about these things.

Edited July 16, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[EC]

The reason for the 9/11 attacks was because of U.S. involvement in things where we should not have intervened,

WHAT?! Never thought I would read something so leftist and insane from someone with "Capitalist" in their name. This is not a personal attack. I just can't believe you really think that the U.S. brought 9/11 on itself. That's the same 'logic' used to come to that conclusion as when someone says some woman was raped because she wore too revealing clothes or something. No. It's because the rapist was EVIL. Same as the terrorists.

[Black Wolf]

what I meant is I did not understand it. Something about not attacking civilians but they attack their military but their military did not choose to? /shrug

Well, what makes it any less 'despicable' to harm a member of the military of an enemy country? We view the civilians as innocent, but it never really crosses our minds that the militaries of opposing countries are comprised of people who were more than likely drafted. That's what I'm saying: people who don't deserve to die will die in war.

I'm not really knowledgeable on Iraq's military, so I could be wrong.

But when you say "U.S Involvement in things we shouldn't have been involved in", are you just referring to the training of terrorists? If not, I'm interested in what those things were.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Clawg]

Can morality be applied on non-entities (like "Al Qaeda")? I don't think so. Please be more precise what you mean with "Was Al-Qaeda moral in ...".

[CapitalistSwine]

But when you say "U.S Involvement in things we shouldn't have been involved in", are you just referring to the training of terrorists? If not, I'm interested in what those things were.

Osama Bin Laden's Message to America (Lists Reasons for the 9/11 attack:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

As you can see, they compiled quite a large list of "grievances" Some of them legitimate, others not (these are usually the ones with the heavy religious connotation, as they are criticizing our failure to follow their version of a moral code, perfect example being their criticism of our drug situation, and homosexuality)

Note that Osama bin Laden has said why repeatedly (in other letters/videos for instance) and he says that the attacks will continue UNTIL specific foreign policies (American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel) are stopped.

The letter I linked is from 2002, after the 9/11 attack.

This is quoted from a message of his in 1998:

"Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims. "

"For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed. And the strange thing is that any act on their part to avenge themselves or to lift the injustice befalling them causes great agitation in the United Nations which hastens to call for an emergency meeting only to convict the victim and to censure the wronged and the tyrannized whose children have been killed and whose crops have been destroyed and whose farms have been pulverized "

- Osama bin Laden May 1998

From 1999:

"The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal."

A German friend of Mohammed Atta(the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC) is quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."

These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."

It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley,Virginia in 1993 . Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel ." Mir Aimal Kasi once professed a love for this country, his uncle testified. "He always say that 'I like America, I love America and I want to go there,'" Amanullah Kasi said at a sentencing hearing for his nephew, Mir Aimal Kasi . Kasi's roommate, who had reported him missing after the shootings, told police that Kasi would get incensed watching CNN when he heard how Muslims were being treated. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Kasi said he did not approve of the attack on the World Trade Center because innocent were killed. He understood, however, the attack on the Pentagon, the symbol of government might.

The shoe bomber (Richard Reid) has said:"The reason for me sending you (a document he calls his "will") is so you can see that I didn't do this act out of ignorance nor did I just do it because I want to die, but rather because I see it as a duty upon me to help remove the oppressive American forces from the Muslim land and that this is the only way for us to do so as we do not have other means to fight them."

Abdullah Azzam authored Join the Caravan and he writes, "We then are calling upon the Muslims and urging them to proceed to fight, for many reasons, at the head of which are the following:" Then he lists 16 reasons. NONE of them state that the reason is just for the sake of attacking non-believers.In fact the first reason is: "1. In order that the Disbelievers do not dominate.""Do not dominate" Note that he does not write "just because they are disbelievers" or "in order to make them believe." none of the 16 reasons say "fight to make disbelievers into Muslims"In fact Osama bin Laden addressed the lying about motives for 9/11 SEE BELOW:

"... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003

in that same statement Osama bin Laden once again listed the motives: " ... in 1995 , the explosion in Riyadh took place, killing four Americans, in a clear message from the people of that region displaying their rejection and opposition to the American policy of bankrolling the Jews and occupying the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. The following year, another explosion in Al-Khobar killed 19 Americans and wounded more than 400 of them, prompting them to move their bases from the cities to the desert . Then in 1998 , the Mujahideen warned America to cease their support to the Jews and to leave the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning, so the Mujahideen, with the ability from Allah , smashed them with two mighty smashes in East Africa . Then again America was warned, but she refused to pay attention to the warnings, so the Mujahideen destroyed the American Destroyer, the USS Cole, in Aden, in a martyrdom operation, striking a solid blow to the face of the American military and at the same time, exposing the Yemeni Government as American agents, similar to all the countries in the region." -Osama bin Laden February 14, 2003

See video which shows the 9/11 Commission Hearing where the question "What motivated them to do it?" was finally asked. See FBI Special Agent Fitzgerald explain the motive:

How the CIA created Osama bin Laden

Mujaheddin

In April 1978, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized power in Afghanistan in reaction to a crackdown against the party by that country's repressive government.

The PDPA was committed to a radical land reform that favoured the peasants, trade union rights, an expansion of education and social services, equality for women and the separation of church and state. The PDPA also supported strengthening Afghanistan's relationship with the Soviet Union.

Such policies enraged the wealthy semi-feudal landlords, the Muslim religious establishment (many mullahs were also big landlords) and the tribal chiefs. They immediately began organizing resistance to the government's progressive policies, under the guise of defending Islam.

Washington, fearing the spread of Soviet influence (and worse the new government's radical example) to its allies in Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf states, immediately offered support to the Afghan mujaheddin, as the “contra” force was known.

Following an internal PDPA power struggle in December 1979 which toppled Afghanistan's leader, thousands of Soviet troops entered the country to prevent the new government's fall. This only galvanized the disparate fundamentalist factions. Their reactionary jihad now gained legitimacy as a “national liberation” struggle in the eyes of many Afghans.

The Soviet Union was eventually to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989 and the mujaheddin captured the capital, Kabul, in 1992.

Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured at least US$6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin factions. Other Western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more.

Washington's policy in Afghanistan was shaped by US President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and was continued by his successors. His plan went far beyond simply forcing Soviet troops to withdraw; rather it aimed to foster an international movement to spread Islamic fanaticism into the Muslim Central Asian Soviet republics to destabilize the Soviet Union.

Brzezinski's grand plan coincided with Pakistan military dictator General Zia ul-Haq's own ambitions to dominate the region. US-run Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe beamed Islamic fundamentalist tirades across Central Asia (while paradoxically denouncing the “Islamic revolution” that toppled the pro-US Shah of Iran in 1979).

Washington's favoured mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The West's distaste for terrorism did not apply to this unsavory “freedom fighter”. Hekmatyar was notorious in the 1970's for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.

After the mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992, Hekmatyar's forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city — killing at least 2000 civilians — until the new government agreed to give him the post of prime minister. Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction.

Hekmatyar was also infamous for his side trade in the cultivation and trafficking in opium. Backing of the mujaheddin from the CIA coincided with a boom in the drug business. Within two years, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border was the world's single largest source of heroin, supplying 60% of US drug users.

In 1995, the former director of the CIA's operation in Afghanistan was unrepentant about the explosion in the flow of drugs: “Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets... There was a fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.”

Made in the USA

According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).

John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims” were taught “sabotage skills”.

The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained “bin Laden's operatives” in 1989.

These “operatives” were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar's forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army's elite Green Berets.

The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called “ Operation Cyclone”.

In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin factions by an organization known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services — MAK).

MAK was a front for Pakistan's CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK.

Among those trained by Mohammed were El Sayyid Nosair, who was jailed in 1995 for killing Israeli rightist Rabbi Meir Kahane and plotting with others to bomb New York landmarks, including the World Trade Center in 1993.

The Independent also suggested that Shiekh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian religious leader also jailed for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was also part of Operation Cyclone. He entered the US in 1990 with the CIA's approval. A confidential CIA report concluded that the agency was “partly culpable” for the 1993 World Trade Center blast, the Independent reported.

Bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, one of 20 sons of a billionaire construction magnate, arrived in Afghanistan to join the jihad in 1980. An austere religious fanatic and business tycoon, bin Laden specialized in recruiting, financing and training the estimated 35,000 non-Afghan mercenaries who joined the mujaheddin.

The bin Laden family is a prominent pillar of the Saudi Arabian ruling class, with close personal, financial and political ties to that country's pro-US royal family.

Bin Laden senior was appointed Saudi Arabia's minister of public works as a favour by King Faisal. The new minister awarded his own construction companies lucrative contracts to rebuild Islam's holiest mosques in Mecca and Medina. In the process, the bin Laden family company in 1966 became the world's largest private construction company.

Osama bin Laden's father died in 1968. Until 1994, he had access to the dividends from this ill-gotten business empire.

(Bin Laden junior's oft-quoted personal fortune of US$200-300 million has been arrived at by the US State Department by dividing today's value of the bin Laden family net worth — estimated to be US$5 billion — by the number of bin Laden senior's sons. A fact rarely mentioned is that in 1994 the bin Laden family disowned Osama and took control of his share.)

Osama's military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime. His close working relationship with MAK also meant that the CIA was fully aware of his activities.

Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, “Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did.”

In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built “training camps”, some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them.

These camps, now dubbed “terrorist universities” by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism — car bombing and so on — so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.”

Al Qaeda (the Base), bin Laden's organization, was established in 1987-88 to run the camps and other business enterprises. It is a tightly-run capitalist holding company — albeit one that integrates the operations of a mercenary force and related logistical services with “legitimate” business operations.

Bin Laden has simply continued to do the job he was asked to do in Afghanistan during the 1980's — fund, feed and train mercenaries. All that has changed is his primary customer. Then it was the ISI and, behind the scenes, the CIA. Today, his services are utilized primarily by the reactionary Taliban regime.

Bin Laden only became a “terrorist” in US eyes when he fell out with the Saudi royal family over its decision to allow more than 540,000 US troops to be stationed on Saudi soil following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

When thousands of US troops remained in Saudi Arabia after the end of the Gulf War, bin Laden's anger turned to outright opposition. He declared that Saudi Arabia and other regimes — such as Egypt — in the Middle East were puppets of the US, just as the PDPA government of Afghanistan had been a puppet of the Soviet Union.

He called for the overthrow of these client regimes and declared it the duty of all Muslims to drive the US out of the Gulf states. In 1994, he was stripped of his Saudi citizenship and forced to leave the country. His assets there were frozen.

After a period in Sudan, he returned to Afghanistan in May 1996. He refurbished the camps he had helped build during the Afghan war and offered the facilities and services — and thousands of his mercenaries — to the Taliban, which took power that September.

Today, bin Laden's private army of non-Afghan religious fanatics is a key prop of the Taliban regime.

There is plenty more material, easy enough to find, but I believe this is more than enough for the moment and for this discussion unless specific requests for information are made.

[DavidOdden]

There is plenty more material, easy enough to find, but I believe this is more than enough for the moment and for this discussion unless specific requests for information are made.

Let's focus on the question of what the US did that it had no right to do. I agree that the US played a significant role in the creation of the Taliban, and it was a particularly short-sighted and factually ignorant case of guessing wrong about which was the lesser of two evils. But that does not mean that the US had no right to oppose and act against the Soviet expansion of its empire. So where is the part about what the US should not have done?

Are you claiming that it is morally wrong for the US to support Israel?

Edited July 17, 2010 by DavidOdden
clarification

[CapitalistSwine]

Are you claiming that it is morally wrong for the US to support Israel?

In response to this comment:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=19571&st=0&p=253838&hl=flotilla&fromsearch=1&#entry253838

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=19777&st=0&p=255411&hl=flotilla&fromsearch=1&#entry255411

I think that explains my position on Israel well enough.

I.E. they should certainly be our allies, being a hub of civilization and individual rights in an otherwise barbaric region, being constantly attacked by terrorists and other illegitimate agitators. Although I do not feel we should be financially supporting them. This is the stance that I believe Yaron Brook has as well, last time I looked.

But that does not mean that the US had no right to oppose and act against the Soviet expansion of its empire.

To make things clear here, I am not saying we did not have the moral right to do any of this, I am suggesting that certain specific actions were not in our self interest. As an example, while opposing the Soviet expansion was legitimate, there were confrontations that were legitimate, and then there were others that were essentially moronic and zealoutous actions on the part of the U.S. in their fight against the "red threat" that were largely against our self-interest, unnecessary, and caused numerous problems both with our country and others. I cite the example of Vietnam, although there are many other examples, but I do not wish to look into the specifics at this time to further prove my point unless it is specifically requested. I am all for taking the fight to totalitarian Islam properly, as Elan Journo suggests (although I would probably make some changes to his suggestions, personally) of whose book, Winning the Unwinnable War I have read in full. However there is a difference between effective foreign policy and ineffective. 9/11 I suggest is a result of ineffective foreign policy decisions that had an unrelated (to an extent, at that time, as our focus was on the Reds) and opposite effect on those under our influence, which led to a bolstering of their strength and a retaliatory response, rather than submission, which would be the result of a proper and effective foreign policy.

it was a particularly short-sighted and factually ignorant case of guessing wrong about which was the lesser of two evils.

Agreed

Let's focus on the question of what the US did that it had no right to do.

Let us look at what I stated earlier:

CapitalistSwine: The reason for the 9/11 attacks was because of U.S. involvement in things where we should not have intervened.

Note that I did not say we did not have the right, I stated that we should not have, as in it was not in our self-interest to exercise that right in certain instances.

WHAT?! Never thought I would read something so leftist and insane from someone with "Capitalist" in their name. This is not a personal attack. I just can't believe you really think that the U.S. brought 9/11 on itself. That's the same 'logic' used to come to that conclusion as when someone says some woman was raped because she wore too revealing clothes or something. No. It's because the rapist was EVIL. Same as the terrorists.

If you are incapable of having a mature conversation about this topic then I suggest you not engage in it, this is a highly sensitive subject and it gains nothing from illegitimate "red scare McCarthyism" claims. This is not leftist and insane, this is historical fact, you cannot disagree with any of this which I have posted. None of it is fake information. If you wish to make posts like these ranting in such an juvenile fashion instead of using proper counter-arguments then I simply will not respond to your commentary. This nation is great and I have a great love for it, but ignoring facts of history and treating America as if it has never done any wrong or otherwise incorrect referring to reality, of any sort is outrageous and something Ayn Rand never implied in any of her writing. The question is not did we have a moral right to take action, of which I have not contested, but if it were practical in the instances that were the greatest factors that led to foreign policy "blow back" which was the source of the 9/11 attacks.

Same as the terrorists.

One should not make unsolicited comments about organizations they obviously know very little about, as I explained before, terrorist organizations are more complex in their motivations than most people realize. A lot of it is foundationally religious, but there are other drivers, and those other drivers take precedence in various cases, being dependent on the organization we are speaking about, the time/event we are speaking about, etc. A perfect example of this is that chapter on the motivations of suicide bombers that I suggested earlier, but I guess you are too enlightened to read anything that may conflict with your whitewashing. I like that you suggest that they do not hold the same standard as other human beings in regards to their basic security. I have not once said they were moral in their actions, but to suggest that people, however messed up their beliefs are, will not respond in kind to actions taken upon them, whether they be right or wrong in actuality, and viewed differently from their side of things, is ludicrous. People are people, when they feel threatened they will take actions against the threatening party to try and bring themselves security. Whether those actions are moral or not is another matter, and I have stated those actions were not moral. However to expect them to be bombed and attacked, while they hold a different perspective on these events, and suggesting that they would just sit there and do nothing in response is outrageous and equally moronic. If someone hits you in the arm with a baseball bat, and you defend yourself by punching him in the face, you cannot expect him not to hit you with that bat again and just sit there letting you destroy them.

So where is the part about what the US should not have done?

As this is centric to the conversation that has developed I want to make sure I answer this correctly, in detail, and accurately, so please allow me some time to answer this particular comment.

As for everyone else that is reading my comments, notice that I never once suggested Al Qaeda was moral in executing 9/11 or the 1993. There is a difference between saying actions taken by groups was moral and saying that you understand why they took those actions.

Edited July 17, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[DavidOdden]

Let us look at what I stated earlier:

CapitalistSwine: The reason for the 9/11 attacks was because of U.S. involvement in things where we should not have intervened.

Note that I did not say we did not have the right, I stated that we should not have, as in it was not in our self-interest to exercise that right in certain instances.

I saw the "should": what I'm not getting is the things that were contrary to our interest to do, which caused the 9-11 attack. Surely our method of conducting the Vietnam War isn't a thing that caused 9-11. There is a difference between stating the truth "The US government has done a number of stupid things w.r.t. foreign policy" and "The US government caused the 9-11 attack, by doing X". As far as I can tell, the only thing that the US did which was not morally obligatory, and which had a real causal connection to 9-11, was the promotion of the Taliban as a means of getting the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. Does your argument go beyond that one fact? What specific improper foreign policy decisions (including "contrary to our interests") caused 9-11?

Anyway, whatever time you need to clarify.

Edited July 17, 2010 by DavidOdden

[Black Wolf]

Can morality be applied on non-entities (like "Al Qaeda")? I don't think so. Please be more precise what you mean with "Was Al-Qaeda moral in ...".

Huh?

[Black Wolf]

What is being referred to here is the concept of "Total War"

Notably in modern warfare it was used in the French Revolution

In a quick highly generalized nutshell "Total War" is when an army decides to make war as though at war with every aspect of the enemy's society. It no longer disciminates between combatant and civilian. Along with killing civilians it is acceptable to raze cities despite lack of military importance or presence, theft and appropriation of non military private property, destruction of non military targets such as farms, non military factories etc.

In our US civil war Total War was advocated by Sherman. Lincoln resisted for some time but eventually caved.

Is it contradictory to say "We need total war" and at the same time say "We need to end this war with the least amount of civilian casualties?"