A serious question

[hyphenate]

for anyone who is interested. And I might add, I don't mean to be inflammatory with this question, I just want to ask this question to get a different perspective. It's the kind of thing I've been thinking of all along the past 4 years, and I know there IS no pat answer, nor can the question escape the entire emotionalism that it comes with. HOWEVER, having said that all, here is my statement and the question that goes with it:

When al-Quaeda struck on 9/11/2001, they killed over 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania with all four attacks. We, as a country, were horrified and aghast that we would be struck on our native soil. Because we had not been struck so close to home from a foreign nation in a surprise attack (even Pearl Harbour was in Hawaii, 3000 miles from the Pacific Coast), we were stunned into near disbelief. The toll of over 3000 civilians was a true and horrific nightmare, and justly so.

However, and here is my question: are we not ALSO terrorists in Iraq, killing innocent civilians by the tens of thousands, invaders to what might have been a more stable country before our vicious and unilateral attack? Are we not also killers without any moral compass simply by virtue of our preemptive strike, resulting in millions hurt or dead, and massive chaos in that place? And since we entered on false pretenses are we not the same as the members of al-Quaeda striking here in our own country?

Many will answer that because it's us, we have more moral right to go after Saddam than al-Quaeda had coming here after us. HOWEVER, and this is a point I reserve only for those intelligent enough to understand--we HAD no reason initially or otherwise, to INVADE IRAQ other than the lies of the administration, as there was no connection to al-Quaeda with Iraq. On the other hand, we DID have reasons to invade Afghanistan, as the Taliban was shielding the purported leader of al-Quaeda, Osama bin Laden, and we DID have reasons to make the pursuit of al-Quaeda and its terrorist cells a primary goal.

We all are patriots to our countries, but unwarranted jingoism only makes people look ridiculously naive if they can't look at the moves this administration has made and not find the comparisons to the terrorists themselves. and it ultimately makes US look increasingly like those we are opposing, when people outside the U.S. can not see the differences between the two groups. Our arrogance will be the one thing which weakens us in the end, not strengthen us as a country.

[FloridaPat]

1. Yes to most of your questions. On being terrorists, the definition

use to be someone without a country that terrorized civilians as a form of war. I think it now means anyone we don't like.

As for being the "same as members of al-Qaeda" there are some of us here that don't believe the Arabs actually did 9-11. And some more of us that think the US government did it. There is no proof that al-Qaeda actually did it. The proof is "classified". We just have the governments word on it.

[KerryOn]

2. I could not agree more.....

The only thing I disagree on is that WE are not the terrorist that invaded Iraq.

BUSH is.

[RagAss]

4. True..what's this "WE" stuff.....

The lies were not ours.....and many of us suffered for calling them lies way back when they were first being said.....

[Proud_Lefty]

10. That's my beef

It's being done in our name. If we don't stop it, it's "we", not just Bush or the administration.

[Sapphocrat]

3. You won't get any argument from me.

Well put.

[hyphenate]

16. Thank you

It often makes sense to me to look at our country as an outsider might, trying to discern if we have any grounds to be as pompous and arrogant as we often are. From the objective view, it is plain even to me that we don't have lily white hands by any means in the whole power scene.

There are many people who look upon the U.S. as somehow holier than thou insofar as our country's better points. There is no way to consider our country any more intrinsically better than any other nation in the world as long as men and women are in charge. By virtue of our physical and psychological makeup, we are bound to own emotions, traits and hangups as much as any other human, and therefore until we can train our minds to be more open and accepting, we can only claim "purity" to the extent that anyone else can do so. I like to think that liberals are far more capable of distinguishing between what is true and fair and what is false pride and sheer turpitude, but it isn't always true.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

20. Watched "In These Times" (Noam Chomsky) last week....

He says - 911 changed everything. Up until that time, no superpower had been damaged like we have been damaging smaller countries for years. Specifically mentioned the bombing of Panama, where we killed at least 2000 villagers...

from - http://www.san.beck.org/GPJ32-Chomsky.html

One real reason for the US turning against Noriega is that he was supporting the Contadora peace process the US opposed, and another was because he allowed trading with Nicaragua and Cuba. Of course the main reason was to maintain control of the Panama Canal that was to be turned over mostly to Panamanian authority in 1990. The invasion put back in power the white Europeans, who had been displaced when the reforming General Torrijos took control in 1968. Chomsky learned that the "US military sent hundreds of psywar specialists into Panama to 'spread pro-American propaganda messages throughout the country.'"9 He reported that the forgotten 1983 invasion of Grenada had left the island much worse off as the health care system was dismantled by Herbert Blaize, who had died just before the Panama invasion. F-117A stealth fighters were used for the first time in Panama, dropping 2,000-pound bombs with time-delay mechanisms. Chomsky found that casualty figures reported in the US media were ludicrously low; human rights groups had found that at least 2,000 Panamanians had been killed.



How is it that people just don't understand? You reap what you sow. (blowback)

[Sapphocrat]

21. George Bernard Shaw said...

...(and I paraphrase), "Patriotism is the conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it." (And we all know what Samuel Johnson said about patriotism; i.e., "...the last refuge of a scoundrel." :) ) I think that idea could be improved upon by substituting the word "nationalism" for "patriotism."

I'd like to think the ability to see one's own country objectively comes with our "liberal DNA" -- but I know it takes a long time and a lot of painful soul-searching to get to that point.

The Dark Side's knee-jerk reaction -- "You're anti-American! Unpatriotic! Aiding and abetting the enemy! Part of the 'Blame America First' crowd!" -- signals to me nothing more than the lack of willingness (and maturity) to engage in such painful self-examination. (Which is why the RW never owns up to any mistakes!)

It can be argued that we're not all personally responsible for the evil deeds of our leaders, but I believe that's just a weak way of denying one's very real personal responsibility. No, I'm not personally responsible for sending bombers to Baghdad -- but I am very responsible for being asleep at the switch for so many years that I was not a good steward of my country's democracy. I didn't keep an eye on things the way I should, the way we all should. So the blood's on my hands, too.

In any case, the quest for true objectivity is an ongoing process, at least for me. As awake as I think I am now, I learn every day just how far I have to go. If things happen for a reason, I think there are many reasons I ended up with a life partner in a different country (Australia); hardly a day goes by that I'm not shocked, through comparison, by my own ignorance about my own country. (For example, before meeting my other half, I was not at all aware of the extent to which the U.S. has interfered in domestic Aussie politics... Heck, we unofficially occupy Oz -- and they're an ally!)

I can't remember who it was, but I was watching some news show yesterday, and a woman said the best thing we can do for our own country right now is to get the hell out of it -- that is, to travel to as many different countries as we possibly can, and get to know as many different people as we can, outside our own sheltered little cocoon. I couldn't agree more.

In three days, I leave for Australia again, this time for six weeks. I expect to come home more humbled than ever. :)

[PatrioticLeftie]

5. I don't necessarily agree...

It's not like every American did the killing or even approves of it. The deaths of civilians are unintentional (Granted, some soldiers may have killed in rage) but it's not like our society condones violence against innocents.

Bush used our sorrow and our anger after 9/11 to justify his war. We were worked up, determined to make those responsible pay. We were told those responsible were Saddam Hussein and his ilk by the Bush Administration (This was at a time we were not aware of all their corruption).

[RC]

6. Afghanistan was blow back.

If we, the US didn't have a long history of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries without permission, 9/11/2001 could not have happened.

[niallmac]

7. I would think to a large extent you are singing to the choir.

How many millions around the globe demonstrated with moral outrage against initiating this war to no avail?
I would add a preface to the 911 terrorist attacks. The terrorists didn't just crawl out of the
Koran like Jumanji Our corporate profiteering and support of bone crushing governments
that provide stability for our treasure grabs tend to foster resentment. Those who have lived overseas do many times get an insight into what it is we do in other countries and how it is percieved by those who do not profit from our capitalist adventurism.
Killing thousands with high tech soldiering in a country that could just as well have been monitored as was the case until the invasion is not a noble cause.
Further: Abu Grahib, unkown torture cells in other countries. What kind of monsters are we percieved as now? Oh yeah, some great war on terror. Couple more sniper shots and the bad guys will all be dead. Sure.

[evilqueen]

8. Yes.

State-sponsored terrorism is little different than guerilla terrorism by extremist religionists (either here or abroad)... the results for the victims are the same. Narrow-minded people, however, refuse to empathically put themselves in the shoes of the victims in order to understand all viewpoints, and usually see the victims as less than human, or somehow deserving of whatever happened to them. People like that find it nearly impossible to think of the reality that there are innocent victims in these acts of terrorism, no matter who sponsors these acts. For many, on whichever side of the terrorism event they are, they also fail to see that violence begets more violence.

Many people in the U.S. like to believe in the great American Dream of our country being a "model example" of freedom and democracy, but I would say that most of these people are completely unaware of this country's long history of interventionist terrorism in nearly every corner of the globe. And this is not a Dem v. Rep issue, it's happened under the presidencies of both Dems AND Reps.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is a media that does not think it is its job to educate the people, but seriously, it needs to do so. Education should not stop at 12th grade or even university graduation. I do think that our citizens should hold themselves responsible for educating themselves as to our history of foreign policy throughout the years, but I also think the media could engage the public in thoughtful discourse.

One of the most educational websites online in terms of getting a grip on the reality of America (and past the Myth of America) is, imho, The National Security Archive at Geo. Washington University.

[WiseButAngrySara]

9. Beautifully expressed, and I agree with you on all points, as does

Cindy Sheehan. And she is expressing what MANY have believed about this war, and it is ringing true for so many people, because it IS true. It's not BS covered propaganda and lies. She is verbally accusing B* of being a liar and a terrorist. This is wonderful! Thanks so much for the post.

[hyphenate]

15. It is often the most simply put statement

(Cindy) that is the most eloquent. As long as we remember our point and stick to it, we are more apt to be be telling the truth.

[kliljedahl]

11. But But But.................

Last throes, dead enders, weapons of mass destruction related activities. Did you miss the memo?

[wli]

12. al Qaeda was a CIA operation n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. We are ...

...the aggressor, occupying nation in an illegal, preemptive invasion that turns out to be without any solid justification. The only meaningful difference I can see between our violence and al-Quaeda's is that we don't actually try (at least I hope) to kill large numbers of civilians. I say "at least I hope" because much of what I read about what we did in Fallujah makes me wonder.

http://www.karlandkinggeorge.com/Fallujah.html

[radwriter0555]

14. Al queda never took credit for 911. Nor did OBL ever claim any credit for

the operation.

We were not attacked by Al queda, we were attacked by thugs hired by the bush regime and the PNAC to stage an epicenter of reason for the US to become the terrorists in iraq.

There are more serial killers loose in the world than there are terrorists who's aim is to attack the USA.

[SouthernDem2004]

17. Yes they did and yes he did.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7183.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=211112&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/23DAA5DE-7073-4F7A-9109-8C153B41A716.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3966817.stm

[Balbus]

22. That's just one thing I don't quite understand about this speculation.

Whether anyone believes he did it or did it alone or whatever, why do people deny that he has never taken credit for it? On more than one occasion, he's said he did it, he's glad he did it, and he wants to do it again. So even if anyone else doesn't think he was involved, he believes he was... :shrug:

[SouthernDem2004]

23. Facts and conspiracy theories do not mix. :) /nt

[Sgent]

18. While I agree with you

on Iraq in many ways, I don't think its particularly useful to cross that line (of us being terrorists) until we are no longer in Iraq.

As for the "we" if you have american citizenship, its "we" -- like it or not.

On Afhganistan, I have elss of a problem. OBL definately had assaulted American Embassys and Naval Vessels in the recent past, thus was the prime suspect almost immediately for 9/11. Whether or not he casued 9/11, in my opinion, there was sufficient justification to invade a foriegn country who refused to turn him over to us.

[hyphenate]

19. Yes, I meant the colloquial "we"

as in our country--our general identification as a whole.

And as you noticed, yes, I said Afghanistan was a different bird than Iraq.

I will continue to disagree with you on the point of our being "terrorists" in Iraq, however. While collateral damage is something we've had to live with in the 20th century at least with modern warfare, how many innocent civilians in Iraq must die before they are no longer "collateral damage" and the product of intentional, deliberate strategy? If we are keeping score, our total of deaths between 9/11 and those who have died as a result of our invasion of Iraq is just under 6000; the civilian death toll of innocents in Iraq is over 100,000. How can we justify that number even under the best of circumstances?

It's not the first time, however, and I understand that. By that, I refer to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the dropping of an atom bomb on those two cities. However, to be fair, we had been invaded by Japan and these bombs--well, actually the first one on Hiroshima, had helped to end the Pacific Theater conflict. Nagasaki, however, was probably unnecessary, just showing one more instance in which the United States was the sponsor of overkill. It is obvious to even the least intelligent member of society that 6000 does not equal 100,000 in modern days, nonetheless.

Regardless of numbers, however, what is really the point is that to many Americans, the dead from 9/11 and from the Iraq invasion are identifiable as human beings to us. We know their names, even if we don't see the bodies, and we know who they were by virtue of the press and the anecdotes. However, we (as a nation) have not seen many pictures of the many thousands of Iraqis killed, maimed or tortured....even in the photos from Abu Graib, Gitmo and other places, and thus these throngs of people do not even have some sort of identification of them as human beings.

Instead, the press has failed miserably on that score, using images of the Iraqi aggressors and killers instead. The perception that the Iraqis are killers without remorse, that they are religious fanatics bent only on the destruction of the United States and its allies, is what is stressed here in the U.S. Even small attempts to show otherwise are knocked down and pulverized in the vainglorious attempt to paint all Moslems as evil people. So what if we have killed all these Iraqis? They're Moslems for Christ's sake! :sarcasm:

Many Christians are being taught and told that the Islamic God Allah is really the devil. That he is a "dark" god, without light, without good and without redemption. Looked at in that light, it isn't surprising to see that there has been no moral outrage at the deaths of all these civilians.

But if one looks at it from the point of view that a human being has worth simply because it is a human being, then it becomes clear that this war is anything but just, anything but an attempt to bring Iraq's government into a democratic entity. It is all about power, all about our current government's desire to shove itself down the throats of the Iraqi people. And that is a form of terrorism that is downright sick, wrong and reprehensible.