Blackmail: Obama Under Pressure To Declassify Secret 9/11 Report (cbsnews.com) 354
An anonymous reader writes: Families of Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack victims are pressuring Obama to support legislation allowing them to sue the Saudi government. A recent "60 Minutes" investigation has stirred up some controversy by looking at possible links between Saudi officials and the 9/11 hijackers, which revealed that new information may be hiding in a classified section of a Congressional report. The Saudis said in a report in the New York Times that they might sell "up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States" if the bill passes. The bill in question is being considered by Congress and it would permit lawsuits against countries that "contribute material support or resources" for "acts of terrorism." Van Auken, who is among those convinced that the 9/11 hijackers were helped by Saudi agents, said, "It feels like blackmail. The government, the president is siding with Saudi Arabia over the 9/11 families. If someone you loved was murdered and the person was just able to go away Scott free, would you be okay with that? I don't think anybody would." Last week the royal embassy of Saudi Arabia said, "The 9/11 commission confirmed that there is no evidence that the government of Saudi Arabia supported or funded Al Qaeda."
Remember, Obama promised "most transparent admin" (Score:5, Insightful)
The government, the president is siding with Saudi Arabia over the 9/11 families.
Is anybody really shocked by this? Obama has made it a habit of failing to live up to his campaign promise to "run the most transparent administration in American history."
I remember when he first ran and got elected. I thought, "I don't agree with a lot of his policy ideas, but if he lives up to his word on just that one point by making things transparent, I would be impressed and he will have proved that he's not a politician's politician." I don't think that promise even made it to the end of his inauguration speech. Oh well.
He delivered on that promise (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Article you linked explains the families are upset Obama lied to them and is continuing to lie to them about their family member deaths.
Perhaps you should READ the article you link before lying about it while you post. I wasn't going to read article, but remembered by liberal argument tactic. If they post something that can be factually checked, check it out. They usually lie every singe time, and you did.
Re:Remember, Obama promised "most transparent admi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Obamacare is decidedly NOT socialist. It was based on the healthcare reform Mit Romney instituted in his state as governor, with enhancements suggested by the Heartland Foundation - one of the most far-right uber-capitalist "thinktanks" (actually lobyists) in the United States. The guys who lead the climate-denial brigade wrote that damn healthcare law.
Its as far removed from socialist as you can get - it's far right ultra-capitalist healthcare with some regulatory reform thrown in.
The amazing thing has bee
Re: (Score:3)
Odd how Obama-care has done the exact OPPOSITE of bankrupting private insurance or destroying the health system. Having millions more people actually able to GET healthcare is the opposite of destruction and as for the insurance companies - they've been raking it in and scoring record profits under this newly regulated regime.
If there is a reason to be critical of obamacare it's the one the liberals have: it was a giant hand-out to the insurance companies and you could achieve a lot more a lot cheaper if yo
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't agree with a lot of his policy ideas, but if he lives up to his word on just that one point by making things transparent, I
That was the promise I was hoping he would keep, too. Would have been a lasting change in the world. Oh well.
Re:Remember, Obama promised "most transparent admi (Score:4, Interesting)
Obama has made it a habit of failing to live up to his campaign promise...
To be fair, it isn't only Obama. By now, Americans ought to have caught on to the fact that all politicians promise way more than they can realistically achieve. and as a consequence, they will without fail disappoint people. Perhaps enough people are now tired of this situation and want to change it, but will inevitably take much more effort and cost everybody much more than they imagine. All of the part of the establishment will have to be dismantled in some way to allow something better to grow up and replace it; and the danger is that you either end up with the same old crap with a fresh layer of paint, or something worse - a dictatorship, maybe.
We see much the same in Europe - in UK, people are listening to a guy like Jeremy Corbyn - not a hugely charismatic fellow, and his support for EU is clearly lukewarm at best, but I think that very fact rings true with people, because they feel the same way: nobody likes EU a lot, but staying is still better than leaving. I don't get to vote in the American election, but if I may offer a bit of advice, it would be this: whatever you do, think carefully and realistically about it first. Breaking things in a fit of anger is easy, building them up again afterwards is most definitely not. And who knows, after thinking carefully, perhaps you still find that you need to break things - but then you will know why and how, and what to do after that.
To get back to the topic: how much of a chance does one man have against an establishment that most certainly doesn't want him to succeed? I don't really know another country where big business can steer the public opinion to such a degree that even those who would benefit from a new initiative like public healthcare, are turned against it. In a climate like that, how much could Obama actually achieve? I'm not the least surprised that he is now trying to ram as many executive orders down the establishment's throat as humanly possible; at least it will take whoever comes next a while to unravel, and who knows, maybe some of it will survive.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the president has nearly unilateral power to declassify documents. There is a process but largely within the executive branch. Congress could take active steps to interfere, riders on bills that 'require documents to remain classified' they have not done that in this case and I am not aware of many others.
Call them obstructionist if you like but this is a case where Obama and his people actually clearly are allowed to act without resorting to any really imaginative interpretations of the law and t
Are you a sympathizer to the terrorists? (Score:3, Informative)
Who is an 'ally'?
Someone who help us when we need their help, or someone who backstab us whenever they got the chance?
The Saudis have backstabbed America many, many times --- 9/11 is only one of the more glaring ones
Over three thousand people had perished in 9/11, and someone has to pay for the crime
So far the 'characters' we have gotten are the 'donkeys', those who took part in the act, but we have yet to apprehend any of those who have bankrolled and/or sponsored the terrorist act
There was a 'summit' orga
Re:Are you a sympathizer to the terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Over three thousand people had perished in 9/11, and someone has to pay for the crime
Given the body count in both Afghanistan and Iraq (which, as was evident even when the war began, had fuck all to do with 9/11, but hey, collateral damage), it can be argued many people already have.
Groped by the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Over three thousand people had perished in 9/11, and someone has to pay for the crime
Given the body count in both Afghanistan and Iraq (which, as was evident even when the war began, had fuck all to do with 9/11, but hey, collateral damage), it can be argued many people already have.
Yes. Every person who flies on an airplane in America pays for it, as well as every kid who is easier to recruit as a terrorist because we bombed countries rather than building schools in them.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They learned from the best. The US has backed many jihadist and terrorist groups in the past, e.g. the Taliban or Mujahideen as they were known back then (same people). The US has been fighting proxy wars that way since WW2 ended, supporting various factions and nations when it suits them.
Can't really blame SA for doing the same, I mean it's clear that the US would if your positions were reversed.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to get a Calendar and some history books, because the US Politicians have been in bed with the Saudis since I was a kid in the 70s. Oddly we have a "travel at your own risk" warning for anyone going there, they are one of the most oppressive tyrannies on Earth, have a worse human rights record than China and close to the DPRK, and have a history of undercutting US businesses attempting to compete in the Oil business.
Did we know about the Saudis and 9/11? Well the Government gave people a fairy tale and the public eats it up. Nobody wants to believe that their own government would fuck them over, so the delusion is incredible. The brain washing around the event is still very strong, with the populace having an irrationally strong emotional reaction to any mention of 9/11, FDNY, or the Twin Towers.
Be prepared for nothing to happen and nothing to change. Remember, if you question anything the Government tells you about anything related to 9/11 you are a "Conspiracy theorist". (queue the *dun dun dun* music).
A Conspiracy Theorist Walks Into a Bar (Score:2)
Remember, if you question anything the Government tells you about anything related to 9/11 you are a "Conspiracy theorist". (queue the *dun dun dun* music).
Um... no, not really. If you go off concocting wild theories on the loose conjunction of facts not inconsistent with those theories, which is what most people who get labelled as conspiracy theorists do, sure. But plenty of people can bring up one inconsistency and ask why did X happen. If it's a question rather than a part of a grand theory involving a conspiracy of secret actors, it will be listened to by most intelligent people.
So people who say "jet fuel doesn't ordinarily burn hot enough to ignite s
Re: (Score:3)
This is either blackmail or a confession. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let them sell the bonds. Who's gonna buy 'em? Lots of people. It can only hurt the Saudis. However, in our game of empires, we need them desperately, so I doubt anybody is going to seriously ruffle any feathers.
Re:This is either blackmail or a confession. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say "Sell them, and you'll never buy another piece of American military equipment again, and there won't be a single US soldier within your borders within six months."
As oil's importance fades, I think the response to anything from Saudi Arabia should "Fuck you, fuck you very very much."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? We don't want them going to the Russians or the Chinese... Oy! The things we do for love [youtube.com]...
Re:This is either blackmail or a confession. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger problem is that Saudi Arabia has $750 billion in US assets!
How is this a problem? Assets can be nationalized with the stroke of a pen, which is a much bigger problem, I assure you... but also the solution to any problems with furriners buying up the land we killed the natives for
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Buying US bonds and securities do not equate to "owning" the country. Foreign countries buying US bonds and securities do so because they are the most risk free and stable investments they can buy. But those investments are only safe and stable if they are on good terms with Washington. And this bill is non-sense. International terrorism will not be stopped by lawfare. The only ones who benefit from this bill in question are the lawyers who handle these types of lawsuits.
Political Posturing (Score:3)
Exactly, this is how Sanders and various other so-called "liberals" play their game. These people accomplish nothing, but they still win with their "feel good" bullshit.
It's not limited to one side; it's not just liberals. It is one basic tactic of politics, right up there with sponsoring bills to get referred to committee you know will never get passed, or telling different stories to your domestic population than you do at the negotiating table with a foreign nation, and crafting your agreements explicitly to let each of you pretend to your people that you agreed to different things.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say "Sell them, and you'll never buy another piece of American military equipment again, and there won't be a single US soldier within your borders within six months."
As oil's importance fades, I think the response to anything from Saudi Arabia should "Fuck you, fuck you very very much."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know... For a while now, we've been entirely dependent on bond sales to fund our government. Flooding the market with $750B in treasury bills is a pretty big deal. They would have to raise interest rates on new bond sales considerably to make them more attractive than the secondary market bills that just got flooded... all $750B of them. It would create a rather huge fucking fiscal mess if Saudi Arabia did this. Wouldn't be the end of the world, wouldn't be a new depression, but the shit show on Capitol Hill would be enough to make you want to shoot yourself.
Or the Fed could raise interest rates and devalue that $750B worth of investments with a hit to the Saudis' interest rate risk. Financial Wars are stupid and counterproductive.
This is really probably just the royal family using their clout to protect a few friends and avoid embarrassing lawsuits trying to tie them to Osama Bin Laden.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not to sure about that. If they really dumped 750B in face value ( I am not sure the Saudis have the wherewithal to do that ) it might cause a depression. Consider that is most of fiscal years worth of bond sales. We know the government runs for ~5 months or so when the debt ceiling get bumped up against.
I think its fairy predictable what would happen. The money that wants US bonds would chase the Saudi assets being both discounted and having a nearer maturity date. If the Saudis are willing to ke
Re: (Score:2)
You for example. The point of dumping bonds isn't that the bond you dump hurts the country but that by putting it on the market at a price that is more competitive than the value of new issues the US won't be able to sell new ones at an acceptable price. Sure the government could offer a higher interest rate, but then you're paying more interest on $750 billion in loans than you otherwise would have had to. In my opinion we're hardly talking the end of the wor
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What difference does it make. The writing is on the wall for Arabia and the shite House of Saud and it's fundamentalists autocratic religious ways. They will be selling those assets to pay the bill for the civil suits. Basically the tip is on, that as revenues falls and those insane egotist continue to make huge egoistic demands of their economy will end up bankrupting the place added into this a violent revolution bursting force after decades of oppression. So the idea is to, let loose with civil suits to
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is either blackmail or a confession. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the other of the I think two thing Trump has said that I kind of agree with. Team America World Police is a very very expensive proposition. Its a huge expenditure of our resources.
The counter argument is and will be that we get a great deal of influence and good will in exchange for that. Which I would agree has been true in the past, but that influence seems to be on the wane.
Trump has suggested we send some of our protection clients the bill and or negotiate (extort, I believe we should tell it like it is) some tit for tat. I think he might be right about that. I think it might be instructive for various groups around the world to see what happens when America pulls up the tent stakes and goes home. See what happens to the House of Saud when we leave. We should have let ISIS have Iraq, its not our fight anymore. We should have allowed that to be the lesson for everyone else in the region about what happens to you when we don't get the status of forces agreement we want.
Re: (Score:2)
We should have let ISIS have Iraq, its not our fight anymore. Perhaps you shouldn't have invaded the fucking country if you didn't want the hassle of fixing it afterwards.
Re: (Score:3)
Saddam was an enemy. We destroyed an enemy. Was it a good idea to not have a post invasion plan when we went in, no. We were getting things together there, they asked us to leave before they were ready. It was their fault.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say "Sell them, and you'll never buy another piece of American military equipment again, and there won't be a single US soldier within your borders within six months."
As oil's importance fades, I think the response to anything from Saudi Arabia should "Fuck you, fuck you very very much."
China and / or Russia would step up in a heartbeat.
We as a country have lost our balls somewhere and I seriously doubt we're going to find them in this little spat.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not declare General Motors as terrorists?
It may be close to your home, but in the grand scale of things, 9/11 was piddling.
And absolutely trivial compared to the number of civilians killed by Americans each year in other countries.
Re:This is either blackmail or a confession. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is that lawsuits could be brought against them in the US that they would then have to defend in US courts or face the possibility of their US assets being frozen. I don't think they would want to risk that.
Ultimately what is the goal of these lawsuits? Even if they get to a point at which it is discovered and comprehensively proven that the Saudi government did have some involvement in it what happens then? Is the US going to mount an incursion into a sovereign nation to arrest Saudi nationals on the basis of a US court ruling? Are the families just wanting an admission of guilt from somebody? Or are they chasing a financial payout?
Sure they want the guilty parties held responsible but even assuming that is some senior Saudi government official and it is proven in a US court, how will justice be served?
Re: (Score:2)
Is the US going to mount an incursion into a sovereign nation to arrest Saudi nationals?
The US has already done this in a few sovereign nations.
Italy, I think. Some others. An arrest of someone on foreign soil, who has not been extradited, and without informing the sovereign nation's government (much less working with them) — How is that not an act of war?
Re: (Score:3)
Ultimately what is the goal of these lawsuits? Even if they get to a point at which it is discovered and comprehensively proven that the Saudi government did have some involvement in it what happens then? Is the US going to mount an incursion into a sovereign nation to arrest Saudi nationals on the basis of a US court ruling? Are the families just wanting an admission of guilt from somebody? Or are they chasing a financial payout?
I would just be happy if the outrage among the population gained enough momentum that the USA was forced to stop selling weapons to the Saudis [google.com]. Saudi Arabia is not our buddy. We really need to stop treating them like one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On average, I think the amount of care people in the USA have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is either blackmail or a confession. (Score:5, Insightful)
'Need them desperately' for what?
For funding more ultra-conservative Sunni Salafist/Wahhabist madrassas and mosques around the world to provide the cannon fodder for Al Qaeda and ISIS?
For bombing Yemeni Shiites, and further destabilising/arming Sunni fundamentalists (Taliban and ISIS/AQIR) in Iraq and Afghanistan?
For providing the majority of the hijackers in the World trade centre bombing?
For trying to trash the US shale oil industry (which has made it energy independent, and for the first time in 70 years a net exporter of oil) through pricing that only it can afford and still make a profit off, as well as renewable energy sources?
For enlisting the US to defend Saudi interests (in Iraq, in Kuwait, in the Gulf States, in Yemen) and expend its blood and treasure whilst the Saudis sit pretty?
The Saudis have been bleeding the US for years ... why are they so 'desperately needed'? Seems to me that the 'approved enemies' ... Iran and the like haven't been taking single uS life, or funding any terror against US citizens, but 'our friends the Saudis' have been mixed up one way or the other in ALL the grief that has come the US's way from the Middle East.
I'm guessing US diplomats can probably give us a really good reason for the unflinching support of the Kingdom ... but I sure as hell can't think of one.
Re:This is either blackmail or a confession. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The US ally Saudi Arabia"
I have never understood this term.
If there is need to preface every mention of "Saudi Arabia" with "our ally", then your BS alarm should go off.
How often do we hear: ..." ..." ..." ..."
"Today our ally Iceland
"Today our ally France
"Today our ally Germany
"Today our ally Spain
The answer is never
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being such a Chicken Little !! (Score:4, Insightful)
I am from China, and Russia is just north of China
You go ask any Chinese in China --- whether they want to buy the Russian bond or the American treasury bill, 99.9% will tell you they prefer the American treasury bill
Why?
Because nobody else can guarantee their treasury bill like us, the United States of America --- the US has an excellent good track record when compare to the others
So, stop being such a Chicken Little, my friend --- them towel heads can go buy up all the treasury bonds from Russia and they will end up with nothing but icy sludge
Re: (Score:2)
However, in our game of empires, we need them desperately,
Not really anymore [growthstockwire.com]. The US is the world's third largest producer of crude oil, and produces more than it uses.
In short, Europe and China might need Saudi Arabia, but the US doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Oil market is a global market and US is more dependent on cheap oil than anyone else, so yeah, you need Saudi Arabia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that will raise your domestic oil prices even higher since the supply suddenly becomes smaller.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what the Saudis owe... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
what?!! if anything you should be asking about cheny and MilComplex players
Re: (Score:2)
American technology drives the oil industry worldwide. The Saudi government negiotiated favorable terms for the risks, technology and capital involved. Saudi happened to have enough oil to make cheating a strategic move, gypping the shareholders and employees of 4 American companies (Chevron, Exxon, Mobil Texaco) involved out of hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of their share. A share now funding and overbreeding low
Sovereign Immunity... Who's hot and who's not? (Score:2)
Saudi Arabia is hot. Iran is not [bloomberg.com].
go ahead (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Their pumping costs might be the lowest in the world.
But their fixed overhead is the highest...how many Saudi princes are there again...5 figures last I heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Not about choosing "sides" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is an ally. Clandestinely maintaining the stalemate should continue.
Re: (Score:3)
"Maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."
Re: (Score:2)
The US doesn't recognize the ICC. They're a signatory to the Rome Statute, but never ratified it.
Hang on a sec ... (Score:2, Insightful)
"The 9/11 commission confirmed that there is no evidence that the government of Saudi Arabia supported or funded Al Qaeda."
Then what are the Saudi's worried about?
International Law (Score:4, Informative)
If congress is is stupid enough to ignore this the US is screwed. We lose that protection.
I know it sucks. But, we have to tell these people they have NO recourse against Saudi Arabia.
Lots of people want and try to sue the US government. Constantly! Not just in the US
They all get thrown out at stage one. you can't sue sovereign states.
Just for instance:
If this bill passes
Millions of Vietnamese could sue the US
think about it!
Re: (Score:3)
Saudi Arabia sees the writing on the wall (Score:3)
This is off-topic, but hear me out.
I have to applaud the Saudi Arabian government for "seeing the writing on the wall" about the soon-coming phase-out of dinosaur-burning (fossil fuels) as the major source of energy for the world. They are investing very heavily in renewable energy technologies, as well as some other areas in an attempt to use their sovereign wealth to shift their economy – before the shit really hits the fan – to other potential GDP-producing sectors.
Yeah, they have sold a big portion of the oil – the burning of which has been clearly destructive to our own planet – but other countries wanted to buy this cheap source of concentrated, transportable energy. Recall that "Saudi Aramco" = "Saudi Arabian–American (oil) Company". The US has long since sold off its stake, but that is the genesis of the country.
All other issues (e.g., human rights) aside, Saudi Arabia's leaders are way ahead of the US and many other governments on planning for a post-carbon-energy world. That is long-term planning, and does deserve some respect.
Saudi Arabia is a subterfuge. (Score:2, Insightful)
There are forces in the American and global ruling systems that absolutely do not want a real investigation of 9/11. If the full truth comes to the light of day there will be executions warranted. Don't be surprised that powerful elements will fight to the death to prevent that.
Re: (Score:2)
Prolly Not A Smoking Gun (Score:2)
I suspect the reason(s) why the Administration doesn't declassify the redacted pages of the 9/11 report has to do with intel sources and methods, rather than any smoking gun.
G-fucking-WB didn't help his PR when he facilitated flying home members of the House of Saud and their retainers who happened to be in the US on 9/11. Sure, the King and lead princes were probably worried about Arabs being beaten in the streets of the US, and at that point not knowing whether or not one of their number had a direct hand
How is it Blackmail exactly? (Score:2)
I'm curious at how all of this is Blackmail? It's more damaging to keep this information classified than it is to disclose it. This legislation isn't threatening the POTUS because after all unless they can raise a 2/3 majority in both houses it won't become law without his signature. Again, declassify the information and make it public since It'll probably be more embarrassing for the US anyway on how we missed a lot of indicators that something was happening and that the US government was incompetent. A
Blackmail is referring to Saudi threats... (Score:2)
...to sell the $750 billion in notes/securities etc if the bill passes.
Nah, the U.S. has been more than fine with that dumping....because geopolitics. Crashing the oil market has hurt Russia, allowed for the right-wingers in Venezuela to come back into power, and will greatly delay Iran's ability to make up for the billions they lost to sanctions. Sanctions, levied against the I
Not just 9/11 (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not just that. The Saudis and Turkey are the obvious supporters behind Daesh (ISIS) as well, and everyone with three working brain cells knows it. But everyone is so tied up with them that it took Putin of all people to point it out.
A 9/11 lawsuit would potentially bring all these ties to light as well, and open up a whole can of worms that would probably end with the Saudi ruling family on Interpols Most Wanted list.
So [somebody] leak it already...! (Score:2)
So... how's that 9/11 Commission due process working out for everyone?
Whistler: I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
Bernard Abbott: Oh, this is ridiculous.
Martin Bishop: He's serious.
Whistler: I want peace on earth and goodwill toward men.
Bernard Abbott: We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
~From the movie 'Sneakers', 1992
If the pages should become leaked, there are several respected lawmakers who have seen them and are presently on record as supporting their public
doesn't matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
Scott... Pilgrim? (Score:2)
If someone you loved was murdered and the person was just able to go away Scott free
We need to ask this Scott guy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just declare bankruptcy and don't pay the bonds. Risk is always with the lender. Take the debt payments and pass a balanced budget amendment and start over.
Re: (Score:2)
Section 4 of the 14th amendment makes it unconstitutional for the US to default. However, the US can devalue the dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, $750 billion American dollars sounds like a lot, but have you seen what we pay for hammers?
Re: (Score:3)
The US doesn't pay out anything when you sell a treasury security, only when they mature.
Dumping a bunch of securities at once on the market will depress bid, but that hurts the sellers as much as new issues.
Also, US treasury securities are denominated in US dollars, whose value can be controlled by the US. The Chinese renminbi is back to an unofficial peg to the dollar, and the Saudi riyal is de facto pegged to the dollar. The US could push inflation-protected securities to the buyers that the Saudis would
Not the way they see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll always be "THEIR" terrorist, "OUR" (freedom fighter/martyr).
Re: (Score:2)
It'll always be "THEIR" terrorist, "OUR" (freedom fighter/martyr).
To qualify as a terrorist, one must actively strive to incite, you know, terror. Plenty of freedom fighters around the world and throughout history refrain from inciting terror among civilians.
Re:Not the way they see it... (Score:5, Interesting)
>Plenty of freedom fighters around the world and throughout history refrain from inciting terror among civilians.
There's probably nobody in the world who strikes more terror into the hearts of civilians than the US Military. There's a reason Noam Chomsky keeps pointing out that the unwritten part of the FBI's definition of "terrorism" must be "unless it's us doing it".
The Iraq civilian death toll is well over a hundred thousand. Nobody even knows exactly how many people have been killed by drones in Pakistan but we do know that a lot of them were civilians - often civilians who just happened to park next to a target that may or may not be a legitimate target (we can't really tell if they are because we don't get to know who they are).
How many civilians got killed in Libya ? What about Afghanistan ? And all that is before we even consider the impact of having neighbourhoods flattened - everything you built up over a lifetime of labour blasted to smithereens in seconds along with your neighbors...
In a grand irony - there may be no more effective way to create terrorists than the war on terror. Look what Americans have done over the most little of imagined slights by the US government. McVeigh - the recent invasion of Vanilla ISIS in Oregon - and that's over such stupid things as "having to pay to let your cattle graze on federal land". Now imagine what it does to a community when the neighbourhood gets flattened by a bombing raid, children and grandmothers killed, homes destroyed, food and income lost. It is just about a statistical impossibility for ANY of those bombing raids to have NOT made SOMEBODY angry enough to want to blow Americans up at any cost.
Odd... I remember saying that in 2001. I remember saying that the dumbest idea in history is the Bush suggestion that you can rid the world of terrorists by killing all the terrorists. It was always going to lead to there being more terrorists than before he started... I wish I had been wrong.
Genocidal dictators kill more people (Score:5, Insightful)
>Plenty of freedom fighters around the world and throughout history refrain from inciting terror among civilians.
There's probably nobody in the world who strikes more terror into the hearts of civilians than the US Military. There's a reason Noam Chomsky keeps pointing out that the unwritten part of the FBI's definition of "terrorism" must be "unless it's us doing it".
The Iraqi Kurds cheering at the site of American forces and jets since the first Gulf war being a notable exception.
The Iraq civilian death toll is well over a hundred thousand.
Saddam executed a deliberate genocide of Iraqi Kurds long before that, with an estimated 150-350 thousand killed. And those were not collateral casualties due to the use of human shields or suicide bombings by the Kurdish resistance. Those were civilians loaded unto buses to be shot in the desert and burried by bulldozer.
Saddam committed a second genocide at the end of the first Gulf War as Bush listened to chaps like yourself and stopped short of marching in Iraq. American forces were ordered to stand down and watch as Saddam's gunships led the charge that would kill another estimated 100+ thousand civilians.
Apologies, I know that context messes with your agenda.
Nobody even knows exactly how many people have been killed by drones in Pakistan but we do know that a lot of them were civilians - often civilians who just happened to park next to a target that may or may not be a legitimate target (we can't really tell if they are because we don't get to know who they are).
I'll tell you what people do know about the number of people killed in Pakistan. The TTP(Pakistani Taliban) kill 100 plus Pakistanis for every life lost in drone strikes. The number of Al Qaida and Taliban leaders killed by drone strikes is also too long to include here, but notably has more than once knocked off the head leader of the Pakistani Taliban in Baitullah Mehsud(2009) and Hakimullah Mehsud(2013). Baitullah also being a top suspect for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto if we are to keep track of dead 'good' and 'bad' guys.
How many civilians got killed in Libya?
Gaddafi had declared his intention to end the Arab spring uprisings in Libya by "hunting the cockroaches down house by house" and his military advance was within a single city of seizing the control required to implement his promised genocide. Finally at the urging of the Arab League the world(not the US) agreed to act and aborted Gaddafi's genocide of his people.
Or you know, tell it your way and blame the dead Libyan's on the fact things weren't all roses after the genocide was blocked.
Your abject ignorance of all context to the tragedies you reference is growing tiresome.
Re:Genocidal dictators kill more people (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is - everything you say is true - and none of it matters one bit.
This is about the perceptions people have, this is about what people in those countries are afraid off - and what they see as injustice, and what causes some of them to come to the conclusion that all Americans are evil and deserve to die.
No amount of context is going to change that. It's just not how people think and it doesn't matter one bit if you think I'm just some wishy-washy liberal either.
The fact is - when local evils do shit, people see it as their problem, when Americans get involved, anybody that dies is seen as a foreign invader bullying them. You can call that unfair all you want but it won't change human nature. Nobody likes having foreigners telling them what to do, how to live or killing their people - even if those foreigners claim it's to kill the evil people who were harming them (and even if that's true).
The only wars America can ever fight on foreign soil without being hated for it are those where one of the following conditions hold:
1) The country in question attacked America first, that hasn't been true of any war since World War 2 and Pearl Harbour (no 9/11 was not an attack by a country and the one country you could come closest to arguing was responsible is one of the only in the region America has never been at war with).
2) You were ASKED to come. The people you are "rescuing" had requested your help. By and large America doesn't often show up when their help is requested (which only makes the perception problem worse) and do show up where their help wasn't wanted - which makes the claim of "helping" seem dubious in the extreme and certainly never get you much gratitude.
Just try turning it around... would you be happy if the Russian Military showed up un-asked and started bombing Washington and New York next year to protect you from Trump's evil ? Would you feel they are helping ? Would you consider your dead family an acceptable loss ?
Nobody else will ever feel any different.
Deal with it - America has not been seen as heroes anywhere outside your own shores (and even there only by Republicans) since the 1960s and your international image has only gotten worse ever since. You are seen as arrogant, imperialistic bullies that insist on enforcing your will on the world, destroying other people's democracies and installing dictators anytime some people go about electing a leader that chooses the welfare of their own people over American corporate interests and invading places on the flimsiest excuse whenever they don't want to give you whatever resources they have for peanuts.
It's probably not an entirely fair perception, but it is the perception that's out there - and you are working very hard to cement it I see.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet you emigrated to America and I assume pay taxes, a country with a long history of funding terrorism, including funding the House of Saud.
Stop worrying ! (Score:3, Informative)
As a person who operates businesses in countries around the world I can tell you one thing ---
STOP WORRYING !!
This world needs America more than America needs the world
And I am not kidding !
I am not saying this because I am an American --- I am saying this as a fact --- without America this world's trade will be reduced by at least 57% and the impact of that much of a reduction to the world economy will be many times of that 57% !
Without American green backs (I know, they are worthless if we count them in t
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, despite what many xenophobes say, many refugees, especially Syrians, are educated workers, doctors, engineers, entrepeneurs.
It's really "great" when doctors are fleeing from a war zone, especially for everyone who stayed. Not to mention that Germany already has four times as much physicians per capita as Syria. And considering the four times larger population of Germany, it would only take increasing the German physician ranks by ~5% to leave Syria completely drained of all health services. And Germany is not even ashamed of that.
(I'm not going to comment on that nonsense about religion. That's an entirely different debate.)
Re:You get a kick out of hitting yourself? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, so you expect of every Syrian doctor to risk the lives of their families and kids for the greater good? I'm sure you would valiantly stay in a warzone and risk your kids being torn into pieces by a barrel bomb every day. But not everyone is as brave or as stupid as you, considering the Assad regime and its Russian allies have no qualms about leveling hospitals and ambulances from the sky.
Right, Germany should be "ashamed" of taking in doctors from Syria. We should force these people to go back into the war until they die.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably best not to give President Trump any more ideas for his first 100 days in office.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did the energy come from, to create huge, billowing clouds of dust coming from thousands of objects in FREE FALL?
Gravitational potential energy.
Why, what would you expect happen?
Look on YouTube. Plenty of videos of buildings collapsing, all with lovely billowy dust clouds.