Sept 11 and the concept of blowback

Ancien Régime

Ancien Régime

washed gay RSE player
is a Top Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
After 9 years, most people have no fucking clue WHY those Arabs flew planes into our buildings - hint: it's not that they "hate our freedom", it's that they hate that we're taking a shit in their lawns.

Our "guardians of freedom" (read: we can go anywhere we want, take your shit, rape your women, and steal your oil for our powerful interests) outlook makes people hate us, because most people don't take kindly to being oppressed by a foreign superpower. Just ask Rome.

Now, I am not at all saying that the people who died 9 years ago today "deserved" it or "had it coming" - unlike most, I realize that the state does not represent the people, nor does it speak for them, and the people cannot be held complicit for the crimes of the state. However, most states require at least passive acceptance in order to function, so it is at least partially incumbent on us to demand that the American State stop its criminal activities overseas so that angry Muslims stop trying to fly planes into our buildings.
 
Doesn't this belong in firebot? What sort of discussion do you really hope to start by making a thread like this? Is it really too much for me to just say fuck off when you make a thread celebrating the death of thousands of people?
 
This isn't a joke thread, it's a "let's discuss the disasterous impact of American foreign policy on national security rather than blindly waving the flag"

And if you don't believe me, just ask the CIA and the 9/11 commission.
 
Man, remember when Jack Bauer had to face down a member of his old unit who had gone rogue and wanted to destroy the united states? And Jack was all "there must be some deeper character development explaining all this". But then there wasn't. He was just some fucking moron who talked about how evil America was and how greedy we are without any substance. Season 3 sucked ass. Really wished it had a decent villain.

You know what was bad foreign policy on Al'Qaeda's part that endangered Afghanistan's national security? Blowing up one of our buildings.
 
yes, to the hypernationalist, no reason for not liking america has any "substance".

the fact is, 3000 people died 9 years ago as collateral damage for American imperial ambitions (and our ruling class probably didn't shed a tear as long as they got what they wanted, despite the made-for-tv crocodile tears). But almost nobody bothers to think "maybe stop the empire-building, and people will stop dying"; instead, we go all "HURR AMURRICA STRONG" and try do to more of what got us in trouble in the first place.
 
What the hell. Besides your out-of-scope view of this issue, this thread is really offensive. Between the tone in the title (happy blowback day? why would you name the thread that?) this thread shows insensitivity and mockery. And to make it worse you did it on 9/11. I have friends who lost parents that day, and I'm sure many other users do too. You really need to make a sarcastic thread of this nature?
 
Would you care to expand on how America was violating the Middle East BEFORE 9/11? In actuality we put up with tons of oil embargo shit for decades when we easily could have just walked in and taken it (as evidenced by the aftermath of 9/11). America cut the Middle East a massive amount of slack in the hopes of them reaching out to us in return, and all we got was thousands of dead and two of the most distinctive, monumental buildings in our nation destroyed. Also fuck you for being so uncaring when thousands of innocents die.

Besides, if the Middle East had had problems with us they could have just gone to the United Nations, who is basically holding America's ballsack when it comes to foreign policy for god knows what reason.
 
I agree that what is the notion of "America" had some retaliation coming in whatever form due to our MANY egregious crimes oversees.

I recently joined a Middle Eastern group (initially for the food cause I fucking love bakalava lol), and there were two students from Iraq, 2 from Afghanistan, and 3 from Syria who had particularly horrifying stories about what out military really does in these countries.

Our imperial-like policy (and face it, it's imperialism) is often littered with innocent beatings, house invasions, and freedom-sucking actions that would make anyone in the States cringe in fear.

That said, Ancien Regime, what the fuck. There is a way to say things...you kinda fucked that up. This isn't pokemon policy where you (read I) say shit bluntly and sometimes abrasively to prove a point.

Yes, America (the West really) has committed heinous crimes on Middle Eastern soil...and yes, a pragmatist can see that some sort of retaliation from extremist crazies was inevitable...what's your point?

The same students also told me that these crimes are definitely more the exception than the standard; large scale projects will inevitably have negative aspects fall down through the ranks. I'm not going to argue whether or not we're doing any "good" in those areas, but I am going to ask you to more explicitly make a point.

Are you just saying we should stop the exception cases altogether?

EDIT: Everyone responding to this topic in some sort of "holier than thou" "you're terrible for posting this" attitude with no substantiation really really needs to stop being silly. It's a fact we're in foreign soil uninvited, and it's a fact that some exception cases of brutality have occurred and are occurring. It is also arguable that our presence there is insulting itself. I would prefer if Ancien Regime would actually make a relevant / debate worthy point though. "Stop committing crimes" doesn't really mean anything.
 
I think the sarcastic tone is to satirize those who blindly hate the perpetrators of 9-11/Muslims in general. In other words, this thread's not offensive, although I hardly doubt it will cease to continue to garner negative criticism.
 
Starbuck said:
I think the sarcastic tone is to satirize those who blindly hate the perpetrators of 9-11/Muslims in general. In other words, this thread's not offensive, although I hardly doubt it will cease to continue to garner negative criticism.
Click to expand...

What do you mean blindly hate the perpatrators of 9-11/Muslims. You just linked them together for no reason. I hate the perpetrators of Sept 11 and that is completely justified. They murdered 2800 innocent people. On the other hand, I have nothing against non-extremist Muslims, so don't tie them together.
 
Starbuck said:
There are people who hate Muslims because of 9-11. I.E. Hear about that genius who wanted to burn Qurans today?
Click to expand...

Yes I did, Terry Jones. I don't live under a rock. But that is not reflexive of the average American, and arguing this will get you nowhere.
 
Aldaron said:
That said, Ancien Regime, what the fuck. There is a way to say things...you kinda fucked that up. This isn't pokemon policy where you (read I) say shit bluntly and sometimes abrasively to prove a point.
Click to expand...

I feel this is something that needs to be said abrasively, because today is a day where everyone mindlessly waves the flag and repeats the mantra of "THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM". And of course, I would never suggest that 3000 Americans deserve to die for the crimes of the government. But the fact is, many Americans believe in the idea that our rulers are good and benevolent and would never harm civilians on purpose, and in any case war is hell and shit happens, and that we need to stay on a permanent war footing to respond to minor/nonexistent threats, and this is an idea that needs to be countered, harshly if neccesary.

would prefer if Ancien Regime would actually make a relevant / debate worthy point though. "Stop committing crimes" doesn't really mean anything.
Click to expand...

That is an issue, only because of the incredible obviousness of the solution (if we're acting like imperialist oppressors, and people are trying to kill us because of that, then the solution is to stop acting like imperialist oppressors).

The main point is to highlight just WHY Muslim radicals feel the need to kill Americans, which is our insane foreign policy, or more to the point, why normal Muslims trying to survive in 3rd world countries feel the need to become Muslim radicals. I guess if we wanted to be specific as to solutions, we could at least start with pulling out of the Arab world (where we're really just there to secure our oil supplies and serve as backup for Israel's saber-rattling)

Of course, many people think the foreign policy status quo is just fine so I guess there's a debate to be had there (the problem is that they're fucking nuts)

Yes I did, Terry Jones. I don't live under a rock. But that is not reflexive of the average American, and arguing this will get you nowhere.
Click to expand...

uh

not really
 
Arguing anything on the internet gets you nowhere. Old news.

And all I'm saying is that the sarcastic tone in the first post satirizes people such as Terry Jones + tons of other rednecks who judge the Islamic based based on the events of 9-11. I look at the three places where I've lived: Washington, Florida, and California. Plenty of blind, ignorant, Muslim-hating people in all of those places.
 
Ancien Régime said:
I feel this is something that needs to be said abrasively, because today is a day where everyone mindlessly waves the flag and repeats the mantra of "THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM". And of course, I would never suggest that 3000 Americans deserve to die for the crimes of the government. But the fact is, many Americans believe in the idea that our rulers are good and benevolent and would never harm civilians on purpose, and in any case war is hell and shit happens, and that we need to stay on a permanent war footing to respond to minor/nonexistent threats, and this is an idea that needs to be countered, harshly if neccesary.
Click to expand...


?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I remember 9/11 as a day to mourn those who lost their lives, not everyone in America has blind hatred and outrage towards muslims, actually very few do, its just the nutjob majority that gets heard, much the same way it works vice versa.

edit:
The main point is to highlight just WHY Muslim radicals feel the need to kill Americans
Click to expand...
because they are radicals? why did the IRA feel the need to bomb protestant churches? why did/does the KKK feel the need to lynch black people and other races? because they are radical.
 
Alan said:
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I remember 9/11 as a day to mourn those who lost their lives, not everyone in America has blind hatred and outrage towards muslims, actually very few do, its just the nutjob majority that gets heard, much the same way it works vice versa.

edit:
because they are radicals? why did the IRA feel the need to bomb protestant churches? why did/does the KKK feel the need to lynch black people and other races? because they are radical.
Click to expand...

the kkk developed from the North coming down to rape the South after the Civil War and the anger was directed towards blacks, rather than carpetbaggers.

That doesn't excuse their behavior by any stretch, but you need to have an understanding of why radical behavior develops and how to stop it, rather than doing what causes radical behavior then going in with guns blazing when it inevitably goes out of control.
 
I like this thread.

I'm just wondering, would you say there is any parallel between Americans passively accepting the rule of the government and some Muslims passively accepting the customs of their nation and extremist action?
 
Well, I might say so - I feel it is unfair to hold Muslims complicit for their extremists when we refuse to take responsibility for ours in government (especially since "we" vote them into office!)
 
If Ancien Regime is correct, and the 9/11 attacks really were ultimately caused by imperialism radicalizing Muslims, wouldn't Britain have been the target of the attack instead? Britain used a much more active imperial role in the Middle East than the US ever did. Just look at the creation of Israel and the way the Middle East was split up after World War I. The creation of Israel, for which Britain is responsible, was what started Islamic radicalism in the first place. British imperialism in the Middle East has been so much more extensive than any similar American interventions. Even the craziest terrorist could recognize that fact.

This means that past imperialism perpetrated by the US was not what caused terrorists to attack America. Instead, the creation of Israel by Britain caused some Muslims to adopt radical fundamentalist views. America's core values, such as capitalism and religious freedom, are the exact opposite of the beliefs of radical Muslims. While Britain has similar values, the US is more famous for having them. So to most powerfully express their condemnation of liberal democracy, terrorists attacked the US instead of Britain. While American actions did not radicalize those radical Muslims, the US became their target.
 
billy the mills said:
I like this thread.

I'm just wondering, would you say there is any parallel between Americans passively accepting the rule of the government and some Muslims passively accepting the customs of their nation and extremist action?
Click to expand...

The DIFFERENCE is that those Muslims passively accept the violent nature of their country because those rulers came into power through force, not by the approval of the people as a whole. Their rejection of the rule would result in their death, where the average American has the sense of power to stop any objectionable act of the government.
 
Ancien Régime said:
the kkk developed from the North coming down to rape the South after the Civil War and the anger was directed towards blacks, rather than carpetbaggers.

That doesn't excuse their behavior by any stretch, but you need to have an understanding of why radical behavior develops and how to stop it, rather than doing what causes radical behavior then going in with guns blazing when it inevitably goes out of control.
Click to expand...

Well, at the risk of going off topic (ish), the way I see radicalism is a combination of several factors. They are, listed in no particular order, society, positive/negative reinforcement and environemnt. These three factors, combined with several others im sure, but I don't really feel like making a gigantic post, lead and devlop radicalism in groups.

Soceity is probably one of the biggest factors because it is man's evolutionary desire to be included and accepted. The easiest way, as I'm sure many of us are aware, are to follow the crowd. That is not to say that everyone in the middle east is a radical, nor every muslim, nor every non-muslim. However, lets us take an example, Frank, is raised or introduced early enough on to a society of radicals than they are likely to adopt their viewpoints and traditions. It will help them be accepted. Now as to the question I am likely to hear as a response to this point, "where did those people before come from or how did they get those ideas?" fuck knows. They read Locke or some shit, lets just go with that.

Positive/negative reinforcement is also a key factor in developing radicalism because it teaches user Frank that doing activity y is acceptable, and approved or encouraged, whilst simultaneosly showing young Frank that activities x and z are not permitted and will lead him to recieve punishment. Naturally, unless Frank is a masochist, which for the sake of argument he isn't, he will continue to perform activity x and avoid or begin to punish others who do activities x and z.

The last factor I'm gonna talk about is environmental influences, which are not the same as society but are pretty similar. Society I use to talk about people who surround Frank. The environment is his daily happenings, what he sees or experiences on a day to day basis. If Frank lives in Kahbul, (Kabul?) Iraq and he sees American troops coming into town, raping mosques and burning women, than he is going to get upset. (DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT ACCUSING TROOPS OF ACTUALLY DOING THESE THINGS ITS FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT) Similarly, if you are in Germany in 1927 and you see Jewish families being successful and das poor german menchen getting poorer and someone comes along and tells you they are stealing all your shit than you are likely to believe them because of whats happening around you.

So, you guys are probably reading this like, "what the fuck is this (BAN ME PLEASE) talking about? This has has nothing to do with the thread its just his P.O.V. on where radicalism comes from. Das some bs." Well hold on there skippy. Basically what I'm trying to say is people do not act. They react. Some people overreact and that is where we get radicalism from. People overreact, albeit for good reason sometime, and then shit goes down. I kind of lost my train of thought because football is on TV so yeah. I think you guys can fill in the blanks. Sorry. :/
 
Staraptor Call said:
If Ancien Regime is correct, and the 9/11 attacks really were ultimately caused by imperialism radicalizing Muslims, wouldn't Britain have been the target of the attack instead? Britain used a much more active imperial role in the Middle East than the US ever did.
Click to expand...

Technically true, but the United States has been the primary driver of global foreign policy since World War II, and it has been the primary supporter of Israel.

Furthermore, while it was British intervention that created Israel, Islamic radicalism did not develop in the late 40s and early 50s, it developed in the late 60s and early 70s (marked mostly by Israeli land-grabs) culimating in the Iranian Revolution against the U.S. backed Shah. It was our foreign policy obsession with creating buffer states against the Soviet Union (even if said buffer states were tyrannical) that radicalized Muslims.
 
So... refresh me again on how America has imperialized the middle east? And i'd like to see some sort of numbers somewhere for our barbaric treatment of the civilian population through our armies. Anecdotal evidence is hardly worthwhile. Granted soldiers commit barbarous acts but it certainly is not an army policy. Also if anyone can show me any shred of oil for blood evidence connected to iraq or afghanistan i will literally shit my pants.
Not to mention it wasn't just america creating terrorism. Terrorists created themselves. I hardly think we should be responsible for the actions of religous extremists. People should let things go. There was absolutely no call for the 9 11 attacks. Period. ..
And even if terrorism in the form we see it today didn't happen until the 60's it's not like this violence hasn't been going on for over a millenia... The middle east had been screwed up long before any western influence reached it's lands. Nor did America deserve the attack it received from AlQaeda. I hardly see how we did anything to Afghanistan. Last i checked we helped Afghanistan out from under the Soviets. Israel was a necessary inconvenience for Pakistan. And if you really want to get down into it it was Israels land way back in the day. So even if the allies made some people upset allowing the recipients of the Holocaust and victims of pretty much everywhere they resided a little piece of land then that is those people's fault. Not ours. And hardly america's 50 years later. There's something about holding grudges that the middle east is really good at.
So basically in a short form you are pretty insensitive. Bad taste man and you are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top