The Path To 9/11

Its an excuse

Isreal barely affects 99% of arabs and quite frankly, ahd no direct relationship with any of those who carried out the recent atrocities

Jews are demonised in a disgusting way in so much of the arab world. The leader of Hizbollah for instance clearly stated that he "wanted to see all jews wiped out worldwide". Al q and the taliban clearly believe in death for anyone who doesnt share their warped beliefs

Its on the record

Can you blame Isreal for acting aggressively to those that attack it? Especially when those enemies hold beliefs which are unambiguously genocidal?

What makes me laugh is seeing all those on the far left supporting an organisiation that is backed by a regime that has had contact with german neo nazis and has stated aims that go further than even Hitler dared

Racism in the arab world is rampant. As is bigotry and intolernace and a complete lack of respect for human values
 
Israel doesn't seem to show a great eal of respect for the human values of those Palestinians whose land it has annexed. Where do you think they should live?
 
Having just watched the second part it really left me speechless. While we are all quick (and more often than not right) to point out Bushes many many flaws really this programme and the 9/11 report show Clinton in a shocking light as well. The amount of chances they missed to prevent this happening were minding blowing......all the signs were there but they were just chosen to ignore them.
 
I have no idea what I was doing at the time. I have no more idea as to what I was doing when Al-Queda bombed Nairobi, Bali, Sharm-el-Sheikh, various Saudi buildings, or when fundies killed tourists at Queen Hatshepsut's monument in Egypt, when Tim McVey blasted the FBI Building, when Reagan got shot, or most acts of terrorism. I don't see the relevance of where I am at the time - other than I'm bloody glad I haven't, so far, been caught in any of them.
 
I did, but not to any one with the authority to do anything about it, as I seriously doubted the sanity of the person who told me. I've tried many times since to explain and disguise what was said as a misunderstanding, lucky guess, coincidence, my imagination etc as the implications don't really bare considering, but try as I might, I can't move from the fact it was said, and I can remember it quite vividly. The person who told me, the place I was told, and more or less the exact words used, and certainly the nature of the conversation.

To pull it back to the where were you, one of the people I told in 1997 was the person who alerted me that the attack had happenend. They were on the internet when it popped up as a breaking story and shouted me across the office. I was out of their eyeline and about 50yds away. Shouting my name aloud and with a sense of its significance in his voice he said
"A planes crashed into the world trade". I rushed over and looked at the screen and showing a degree of uncharacteristic calm i said "this is it then" and paused slightly before asking "was it Cesna?" as a some kind of co-ordinated attack using light aircraft was nearer to what I was told about.
"It doesn't say" he said
"But it must be some kind of accident".
"I've stood on top of that building a few times Chris, and watched the airspace over NewYork. There's about a dozen planes in the sky at anyone time. The planes come no where the WTC. The building itself dominates the sky line of Lower Manhattan. Its no accident you'd have to be doing it deliberately"

Just then something popped up on the screen that said a second plane had hit the other tower, and the debate was over. I remember being more shocked by the Pentagon, as for a few brief hours anything suddenly seemed possible
 
The Iranian Ambassador to the UN had just finished giving a speech, and walked out into the lobby where he met President Bush.

They shook hands, and as they walked the Iranian said, "You know, I have just one question about what I have seen in America".

President Bush said, "Well, anything I can do to help you, I will."

The Iranian whispered "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there is Chekhov who is Russian, Scotty who is Scottish, and Sulu who is Chinese, but no Arabs. My son is very upset and doesn't understand why there aren't any Iranians on Star Trek."

President Bush laughed, leaned toward the Iranian ambassador, and whispered back, "It's because it takes place in the future."
 
On a point of excruciating pedantry (yeeeoww!) may I gently remind the honourable gentleman that Iranians are not, ethnically speaking, Ay-rabs. I thank you.
 
Tell the author - it ws a cut and paste from the net job. He'd probably say that they were discussing those 3% of Iranian nationals that are Arabs.

The ethnic break-down in Iran is: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%.
 
I take it that came straight from Wikipedia, Brian! Thanks, but I've not needed it to tell me that Iranians ain't Arabs, or that they don't speak Arabic. 'Baloch' - oddly-spelled there, is most commonly known as the Baluch (pro. 'balootch') tribe, from whence the common name Baluchi and the area Baluchistan. Also well-known for its tribal rugs, also called Baluchi, which are bright, coarse, and much cheaper than what are generally called 'Persian' rugs. Having owned a few, I can attest to their wearability and cheerfulness.
 
Warbler, can you tell us who told you, and what they told you? I trawled all the 'conspiracy' sites after 9/11, and pretty scary they are too, in terms of how the towers collapsed and what could have caused such a collapse....

I went into Lavenham on 9/11 where I had rented a room to use as an office. The guy who owned the house was watching telly, as usual - he's very old and wasn't very articulate about what was going on, so I had no idea something really apocalyptic was going on... I watched one of the planes fly into the building - it looked like a toy plane; I've never been to NY so I hadn't grasped the size of the Twin Towers. I went upstairs and worked for a few hours... Later, I sat glued all night to the TV.

Krizon, you usually talk a lot of sense but I'v enoticed on another thread that your anti-Israeli sentiments tend to skew your judgement on the Middle East question; and your background knowledge seems somewhat shaky. To say that all the terrorist problems of the last 40 years stem from 1967 is frankly ridiculous. You might as well blame the Nazis... or the UN for creating the state of Israel - which the Arabs still refuse to acknowledge, and which they are still determined to eradicate. In addition, Israel was invaded by the Arabs, twice, before attempting to push back her own borders to create safety zones, which various Govts have since tried to barter: 'Land for Peace'.

It's a fallacy btw that the 'Palestinians' owned the land in the Mandate - what was 'owned' belonged to two or three massively rich families or clans, in classic Arab fashion [as I know well, since I was once girlfriend of the heir to two of these families]. The ordinary working man was as poor and dienfranchised as he is now. And as I've pointed out before, it's the creation in perpetuity of refugee camps - which are in effect prison camps - on Israel's borders, rather than dispersing the displaced Arabs of Palestine, which has hugely contributed to the current Middle East impasse: this was a cynical decision of the surrounding Arab countries, not of Israel. It's not a b/w situation out there, at all, so let's not let our prejudices obscure the facts.
 
No. But I can assure I have been spoken to.

As regards conspiracy theories fire away. I'm aware of most, and also know that most are toss ;)
 
Headstrong, my views on issues are based on life experiences and a nominal amount of reading, not prejudices. I have absolutely nothing against Jewish people. If you HAVE read the posts most recently made on here (you won't have read the many past discussions on this same issue as you've only very recently joined), you'll know that I've taken excruciating pains to declare that I am anti-Zionist expansionism, as I would think most fair-minded people would be, and that it is this land greed which has virtually single-handedly contributed to today's attacks, counter-attacks and endless brutality in THAT part of the Middle East.

I don't need to have dated an Arab (although I have, actually, two - one a Shi'ite and one a Sunni) to have a good idea of what has shaped the state of Middle Eastern antipathies. Most of us are capable of Googling up any number of pro- or anti- sites and getting a gegabyte download of facts to support the viewpoint of either side. As for the ethnic foundations of Palestine, name me any Old World country which isn't based on tribal chieftainships, including this one. While today's maps - mostly the result of often brutal colonial ventures - bear no resemblance to the countries that those people would recognise, that is no reason for a Zion-inspired Israeli government (covering all possible bases there) to continually and illegally re-draw its borders.

I worked for some 20 years in the Middle East and with a wide variety of Arab nationalities, mostly Muslim but some Christian, all with their own particular prejudices. None had started out with a prejudice against Israel per se, strangely enough, even those most directly affected by the initiation of the long-postponed Balfour Treaty. What grew their prejudices was the blind support (or prejudice for) Israel in the face of its constant flouting of virtually all of the conventions it signed up to - I'm sure you're aware of its serial intransigence, but if you're not, then you ought to be, as BrianH has put up the sorry list enough times.

OF COURSE my views are 'skewed' - they will always be 'skewed' in favour of those who are wronged by overwhelmingly stronger, bullying, brutish forces. I am doubly 'skewed' in their favour when to my shame our government supports the aggressors. I don't pretend to sit on a fence on this issue. Why would I? None of those involved do, and when you have spent a third of your life working and living among many people affected by the issue, it would be hypocritical to employ a false distance from one's experience to suit someone else's agenda.
 
I've woken up early thanks to a loud crash outside - a delivery truck driver wanting everyone to share the misery of early morning work! - and taken a good look through a number of blogs and sites about Israel, Zionism, Palestine and... September 15.

We've been exposed to all kinds of memorials for America's '9/11' but I'm wondering how much thought will be given to another tragic September date, with as many or more civilians murdered as they went peacefully about their routines? I refer to September 15, 1982, when right-wing Phalangists, supported by Ariel Sharon's army, shot and blasted their way through some 3,000 men, women, children and babies in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Lebanon? Even their donkeys and horses were shot, such was the blood lust.

There are sites still memorializing these appalling events, but I wonder how much coverage our Western media will give to them on their 24th anniversary? I bet we'll be invited to remember September 11 in perpetuity, but it seems to me that the 9/15 savagery perpetrated against ordinary people in their makeshift homes is all but forgotten by the West already.

Just one final thing... no, Headstrong, I'm not ignorant enough to believe that 'all' of the troubles of the Middle East stem from 40 years ago. But like Jimmy Carter, I believe that if Israel withdrew to its 1967 parameters, it'd be a start towards resolving many of them. The Israelites may well have had Deuteronomy on their side in religious terms (overthrowing the seven nations, etc.), but it was rather more the British Govt.'s determination to own the governership of Palestine, rather than the French, which germinated the Balfour Treaty. The Treaty would've neatly put all of the difficulties experienced by Jews, scattered throughout the world, into one basket. They would only have to vow allegiance to one country, instead of living bifurcated lives between allegiance to their religion first, and the country they had adopted second. Equally, the countries which had significant Jewish populations were delighted that at last the Jews would have somewhere to settle down into a Jewish-governed land, to which they could owe first due allegiance, rather than secondarily.

As it happened, the British Govt. installed a British governor, rather than a home-bred one, which dismayed the incoming settlers: they were not living in full Jewish nation status after all. Blah, blah, blah... there is, I'm afraid, so much on this subject alone, following on with the anti-British bombings and assassinations by the Jews in an effort to get shot of the British, etc., that it's best to refer anyone slightly interested in this period of the evolution of Israel to the variety of books, articles and sites on the subject.

Of course, the land set out for the Jews to inhabit didn't conform to the bounds of the testamentary promise, and the rest is fairly recent history. Hence Carter's plea for Israel to get back to not what may have been promised 2,000-odd years ago, but what was delineated by the Balfour Treaty. But if you are a devout Zionist, the Balfour Treaty is a load of cock, and you're entitled to your promised land. Thus today's state of play, if not State of Israel.

Additionally, and just to make things clear, I don't blur the edges of the Israeli-Zionist issue with those surrounding, for example, the Ba'athist party's anti-Kurd malfeasance in Iraq; with Al-Queda vs the Saudi government/royal family; the Taleban, or the rather wider geography of all things Muslim, such as the eternal Sunni vs Shi'ah piety pissing contest wherever applicable.

I also have the wit to acknowlege that many so-called 'pro Palestine' groups, splinters and cells are merely piggybacking on the issue in an effort to remain funded. For example, some smaller groups were paid off by the Saudis - what are a few million for a bit of peace and quiet? - in the 1970s and 80s, with the acquiescence of the USA, who'd been taking a bit of a bashing, if you recall, with their embassies and other buildings being attacked, with serious loss of life.

While I'm pro-Palestinian in that their borders should be reinstated and all exiled Palestinians permitted to return (which they're currently not, thank you, racist Israel), that compensation or reparation should be made to them for the loss of their homes and farms, etc., I don't condone worldwide suicide missions purporting to support them and their cause. However, there would be precious little for the suicide missions to rant about if Israel was not in a state of constant intransigence and truculent aggression. I thank you.
 
:lol: :lol: Yawnnnnn.... yup, I reckon I'll grab a quick hour before I have to get up betimes AGAIN for the handyman/decorator, who's laying waste to the bedroom today. These things always seem such a good idea at the time! At least it's made me purge the wardrobe for the third time this year. I swear the darn clothes are replicating.
 
Wrong, actually. The 'ordinary working man' stands a good chance of being considerably poorer than ever before, since his lands, homes, shops and farms have been either grabbed or bulldozed by Israeli incursions. Not all, of course, since some still carry on their businesses. But it would help to bolster families' economies if Israel were to permit exiled Palestinians to return with the wealth they've accrued through hard work in other countries. Which they won't, in a nicely xenophobic touch, thus keeping the poor in their place, and those made homeless in permanent 'refugee' status.
 
Has anyone heard of/seen Loose Change 9/11? A load of my colleagues keep going on about it and one is pretty much forcing everyone on the desk to watch his copy of it on DVD! I have the copy here (after being told I had to watch it!!) and really can't wait to see it.....<_<
 
Back
Top