It a simply issue of how many people were killed in the attack: the 1993 Twin Tower Bombings, some of whose perpetrators were relatives of the 9/11 attackers (which show how small the Al Qaeda cabal truly was), killed "just" 6 people and injured over a thousand. It was a minor event.. I don't think that we ever should've been in Afghanistan in the first place. There was never a reason to engage in a conflict on the ground whatsoever. One could argue that some sort of operations should have been carried out against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but I still would have probably been ostensibly opposed to even that. — thewonder
Spot on.Yeah, 9/11 conspiracies are kind of depressing. You always have to wonder. They weren't as common as you might expect, but fairly common during Occupy. Aside from that they do tend to ultimately be anti-Semitic, they also distract from actual legacy of U.S. foreign policy in the region. — thewonder
Basically then we would have to had truly larger than life politicians. What kind of orator of a President could have contained the natural lust for revenge and not come out as looking like a chicken? Besides, likely "Arab Spring" would have happened at some time, and likely that would have sucked the US into a war in the Middle East any way. Afghanistan could now be like... Cambodia. Forgotten yet peaceful.I guess I feel like the response should have been similar to the earlier attacks. — thewonder
Have to find it and watch it. But I've experienced the effects of Perestroika and Glasnost as a child when our family had Russian (Soviet) visitors in the 1980's.Have you ever seen My Perestroika? It's a pretty good documentary on the collapse of the Soviet Union. Adam Curtis also has a pretty good bit on it in I can't remember which documentary. — thewonder
When you have this fine awesome hammer and the obstacles seem to be nails...To get back on topic, I don't know that a proper response to the attacks would have necessarily required outstanding politicians. A more pragmatic response would have effected a more pragmatic reaction. People also become "great" in dire situations. All that the U.S. would have needed following the attacks is someone who was level-headed. — thewonder
Are you suggesting that we created the mujahideen or just that I should have gone into further detail concerning the insurgency at its inception? My assumption has always been that we just ostensibly backed them. — thewonder
Wallows,They didn't just come out of nowhere. The (then) mujahedeen (now Taliban) were radicalized by the then CIA, under the watchful eye of Brzezinski and others. We supplied them advanced heat-seeking weaponry (Stinger's) to shoot down planes and other avionics during the Soviet war with Afghanistan. — Wallows
Actually, he got really pissed off when the Saudi government invited the US forces to trample the holy soil of Saudi Arabia where Mecca and Medina lie during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He (Bin Laden) had first pledged for the Saudi government to use 'his' Mujahideen to defend Saudi Arabia. Well, the Saudis chose the US Army.If memory serves me correctly, it was Bin Laden that took what he perceived as injustice against Muslims being used like toys on the battlefield of proxy wars among the USSR and USA in the middle east. — Wallows
I think that there is a simple reason to this.The repercussions of US interventions in the region have been catastrophic. None of what we have done there in nearly all of the past century has brought about anything that could at all be considered to be positive. All of American foreign policy in the region needs to be radically reconceptualized. It's sort of massive undertaking, but is not outside of the realm of what is possible. — thewonder
Likely there will be this mental rift between those families who have people that serve or have served in the military and others who have nobody that have experienced the military. Especially Hollywood creates this twisted fictional reality of what the military is and hence "civilians" often forget how normal the people in the military are.What will happen in a world where ongoing wars can just simply be forgotten by the general populace? — thewonder
One's relationship to his or her country, even to the armed forces itself, is quite ideological. Many civilians are quite as patriotic and conservative as people in the military.I think that people in the military have a radically different relationship to whatever country it is that they serve than ordinary civillians. It's a totally different experience. — thewonder
Yes, absolutely!Do you think that the absence of the war in the media is dilliberate or that it is just simply resultant of that people don't care to pay attention any longer? Do you think that it could be part and parcel to American policy to downplay the conflict? — thewonder
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.