Posted on 09/06/2002 9:40:38 AM PDT by OldMetMan
DOES AMERICA DESERVE ANOTHER SEPTEMBER 11TH ?
When I read a newspaper or a weekly newsmagazine, listen to the network newscasters, or hear the captured sound bites of the politicians they promote (mostly those opposed to Bush and his administration), I find it impossible to comprehend that September 11th was only a year ago. Listening to some of the politicians and the liberal media, one might get the idea that it is history from a long time past and that our country is no longer threatened. The horror of that day and what it meant for the future of our nation is obviously lost on these people. And thanks to their efforts, support for the President and the resolve of the American people for what must be done is starting to wane.
I still can’t watch or listen to victims’ families or anyone else recounting how their life was changed by September 11th without a tear in my eye and a pain in the pit of my stomach. While we were encouraged to resume a normal life, we were never told to forget that day or believe that it was a one time event. We were told just the opposite. We were told that more attacks were likely. But now that there have been a few months of relative calm and elections are coming up, many of our elected officials want to go back to “playing politics” instead of supporting the President, our citizens and the future of this country. Contributing to this issue is the fact that the media is giving those critical voices plenty of support and air time.
Have these people already forgotten how they felt that day? Don’t they realize how patient the terrorists can be in planning their attacks? We now know that September 11th planning began at least as far back as 1999. Who knows how many additional attacks are being planned right now for the coming years. The terrorism did not start with September 11th. American armed forces and civilians overseas have been victims of repeated acts of terrorism for many years. This nation’s first major attack was Oklahoma City, for which there is still considerable evidence that there were links to the Middle East. But as with all the terrorist acts during the last administration, including the U.S.S. Cole, President Clinton didn’t have the guts to aggressively pursue those responsible and take appropriate action against them and those who sponsored them.
So what happened? The plans and attacks just got bigger and bolder. September 11th came and terrorists around the world were no doubt thinking; “take that you weak and stupid Americans.” Have we forgotten the pictures of the Palestinians dancing in the streets? But this time the terrorists underestimated our nation and our President. . . . . . . . Or did they?
A year ago we knew and understood that we were a nation under attack and “at war.” Not only did we all feel the horrible pain and loss of that day, but we also felt anger. The spontaneous outburst of flags and patriotism was miraculous. Now, with the passing of time, those feelings and the threat to our country’s future seems to be getting lost by those in Washington and in the media. Worse, they are starting to make other Americans doubt whether or not we must still be at war and pursue the terrorists and the nations that support them.
In spite of all the liberals and those who criticize and second guess the President, I still believe that the majority of Americans do understand what’s at stake. We’re still hurting and we’re still angry. We’re still proud of our President. We remember how we felt when he stood before us and launched his war against terrorism.
His doctrine was simple and easily understood. Any nation that fostered or supported terrorism, harbored terrorists or fed the terrorists would be subject to our nation’s wrath. He also said that he expected all nations to join in the fight against terrorism and eliminate it from within their borders. He tied this all together by saying that any nation that wasn’t with us in our efforts against terrorism . . . . . was against us, and would have to deal with the consequences. I, like most Americans, cheered our President’s courage and bravery in facing up to what our nation had suffered and what needed to be done.
Now, a year later, what do we see? We see the liberals, the liberal courts and the media worrying about the alleged “rights” of terrorists and suspected terrorists whose sole mission in life is to kill us. There are those in our country who are aiding and abetting the enemy by challenging or criticizing the military plans of our Commander-In-Chief and creating doubt among our citizens. Many of our politicians no longer voice support for the “Bush Doctrine” for eliminating terrorism. They and the media want to debate whether or not we should go after Iraq. This is ludicrous. Does Saddam Hussein, his regime and his country support terrorism? Duh?
Salman Pak is but one definitive example of Iraq’s involvement in terrorism and potential involvement in September 11th. In November of 2001 London’s Observer published two defectors’ accounts of Saddam’s training school there for hijackers complete with a 707 fuselage. They, along with one UN Inspector stated that Salman Pak was used for a variety of terrorist training activities. Everyone knows Saddam provides money to the families of the Palestinian homicide bombers. What do these news people and politicians think he would be willing to pay the family of the first terrorist who is successful in detonating a suitcase nuke in Times Square? Or does something else to cause devastating destruction and loss of American life? Quite a tidy sum I’m sure. Debating whether or not he currently has weapons of mass destruction is a smoke screen and is only partially relevant to the threat he poses. He and his regime support terrorism and there can be no doubt that he will support it against the United States. They must be eliminated. It’s as simple as that.
Another shining example of the liberal insanity in this country is demonstrated by the fact that we have the NEA putting out lesson plans for teachers with advisories that they “shouldn’t place blame” for the attacks of September 11th. Instead, they want the students to be reminded of America’s past misdeeds such as the Japanese interment camps in World War II. That is not the America that exists now and it is irrelevant to the terrorist threats facing our country today.
Our liberal fanaticism for “political correctness” has our airports searching wheelchair bound 80 year olds and little babies instead of targeting likely terrorist suspects. Let’s see, all the terrorists were of Middle Eastern descent and between the ages of 18 and 35. But God forbid someone would exercise common sense and establish a reasonable profile for airport screeners to follow. It might offend some ethnic group of people. But I am offended that all Americans are being required to pay the price for what could be an easily defined profile of possible terrorist suspects.
Does American deserve another September 11th? Not unless the naysayers are successful in thwarting President Bush’s efforts and it is a punishment from God for national and political stupidity. But, it may be what it takes before some of these people will finally “get it.” And, the odds of more attacks will go up dramatically if the politicians and the media continue to get in the way of the President. We finally have a President who is strong enough and brave enough to lead this country, and too many people just want to get in the way.
If this country does not pursue this fight to the end, there will be another September 11th or probably something even more devastating. It may be this year, next year or five years from now. The world has entered an era unlike any in its history. Thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of religious fanatics are deluded into thinking that they will find a decent life by killing Americans or Jews and becoming a martyr. Unfortunately, they don’t know what real martyrdom is and are deceived into believing that wiping out the American infidels is their ticket to Paradise. If only a few of their predecessors could make the trip back from Hell to educate them. Terrorists and terrorism is a rapidly growing cancer in this world. If we do not eradicate this cancer once and for all, it’s going to keep eating away at our society until our entire way of life is gone.
There is no way to know what might happen when we launch our attack on Iraq. But one thing will be abundantly clear to all those nations who support or tolerate terrorism. They will recognize that this time, our President and our nation meant what it said. If we unleash our tremendous military might on Iraq, destroy Saddam’s regime and bring it to its knees as quickly as I believe we can, the rest of those countries might have to rethink their attitudes. But this will only happen if they truly believe they could be next. They need to know and believe that their only salvation is to take swift action to rid their nation of all terrorist support and activity. And if they don’t, the USA should just keep on truckin’.
First among those nations to get the message should be Saudi Arabia. In spite of all their newspaper ads and PR efforts to try and convince us they are an ally, they’re not. There are real questions as to what they are doing to fight the terrorists and terrorist supporters in their own nation. They want to deny us use of our airbases there. We know they’ve financially supported the Palestinian terrorists. The majority of hijackers were Saudis. They make token arrests but then won’t give the United States access to the people they’ve arrested. Why not? Are they too afraid their own nation will be incriminated?
Right now, if these terrorist nations are watching our media, they can only conclude that our nation is losing its resolve and becoming divided. There would also appear to be some question as to whether our President has the level of support he needs to ensure ultimate victory. From the very beginning President Bush and his administration has tried to tell us what will be required to win this war. We were told that it will take years because the terrorists and those who support them are all over the world. We were told that we would have to pay a price. No victory will come without sacrifices by our citizens. We can’t stop pursuing terrorism because we’re afraid that gas prices will go up. These people and these nations must be taught once and for all that you don’t mess with the USA. The consequences of doing so must be so great that no nation would dare support the fanatical groups within their society that seek to attack the United States and kill our citizens. These nations must take responsibility for weeding out the terrorists within their country. And, they must know that if they don’t, they will face the full fury of the USA.
If our children and grandchildren are to have a future, this country must take this war wherever it leads us and stick with it until all nations are willing to do their part to end terrorism. President Bush has demonstrated the leadership and determination required to fight this fight. He is the Commander-in-Chief and he must be allowed to command. This nation must unite behind him. This is a war that we must win and we must win it now. The President and this nation must live up to his words “we will not falter and we will not fail.” If we do falter and fail, the consequences in years to come may be unimaginable. If all those who are trying to stand in the way of the President are successful in undermining his efforts, then I hope they are prepared to take responsibility and accountability for the future blood that will be on their hands. This nation must not allow the 3000 victims of September 11th and those in Oklahoma City to have died in vain.
No, we don't deserve one. However, if we do get one, we will improve and get stronger because there won't be many liberals left.
Of course, we're a LOT smarter then that, we would never fall into such an obvious trap, now would we? Of course not.
What was your point?
The liberals have the same goals that the muslims have, the total destruction of this nation, its form of government and the murder of all those who do not publicly convert to their views.
Because of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the suicidal mindset of so many fanatics, I believe we are in the final battle for civilization. Many of these crazy mass murderers have no demands or agenda. All they seek is the mass death of innocents. That is the primary clue the gates of hell are already opened. There is nothing to negotiate. We fight or we die.
WHat was your point?
Think with your head, don't get hysterical and let your emotions get the better of you. I am sure it is emotionally satisfying to post pictures of Mecca being nuked (see above), but it's also worth nothing that that's exactly what Bin Laden's goal was in the first place: to trigger a larger conflict between the US and the arab nations that would pour gasoline on global anti-American sentiment, destabilize moderate Muslim regimes, and, eventually, draw Israel into WWIII.
So far many here seem to think it's great - wonderful! - that Bush has been dancing to Osama's tune so skillfully. I will concur, of course - Bush does do a nice two-step and many of those Middle-Eastern melodies are indeed compelling, albeit a bit eerie.
Sometimes I wonder though if it wouldn't be a good idea to take a step back and think about *why* "Al Queda" thought it would be to their advantage to lure the US into fighting a multiple-front war in the Middle East.
You need to alter the code on that graphic so that it demolishes the place, and then stays like that until it is reloaded a few seconds later for another total destruction.
You make no sense at all AND you're giving Osama way too much credit.
This is about a maniacal religious fundamentalism....period. It needs to be burned into submission.
I am just a script-kiddie who collects OPJs (other peoples' jpegs). What you describe is far beyond my meager capabilities.
Wrong. They seek the mass death of infidels. An important distinction, at least from their point of view.
No it isn't. Japan is a state that (at that time) was part of an alliance called the Axis. The Pearl Harbor attack was a pre-emptive strike meant to reduce our naval strength, because the Japanese military knew that they were going to be fighting with us soon anyway. We are now bombing radar installations in Iraq right now for much the same reason.
The 9-11 attack, on the other hand, was not a military strike by a state but a terrorist attack by an unofficial and underground organization with members in no less than 60 different states. The purpose of terrorism is not to engage in frontal military clashes but to *provoke* a reaction for the purpose of destabilization, the more dramatic and polarizing the better. That is why terrorist attacks are usually aimed at civilians, not military. The terrorist cannot win in a standard military conflict, so he looks at the militaries of his opponenents - and their allies/enemies too - as pawns that he hopes to sucker into conflict with each other, towards whatever strategic goal.
So in your opinion a better response by Roosevelt would of been what.....sit back, fold his arms and smile content in the fact that he wouldn't be manipulated by the Japs?
If the attack on Pearl harbor had been launched by members of a Chinese terrorist cell who were trying to lure the US into attacking Japan in order to achieve some third goal from the resulting conflict, then yes, I would have wanted FDR not to take the bait.
As it so happens, Japan - the state itself - was preparing for war with us, and the attack was a simple first punch from an actual opponent, so I'm afraid your analogy doesn't hold
You make no sense at all AND you're giving Osama way too much credit.
This is about a maniacal religious fundamentalism....period. It needs to be burned into submission.
Osama has stated that he has three goals: get the US to stop backing Israel over the Palestinians, get the US out of Saudi Arabia, and stop the blockade of Iraq. Analysts say that he hoped to acheive this by provoking the US into using overwhelming force on certain arab countries so that the citizens of these countries become radicalized enough to topple their own nominally pro-western leaders. We are being used as a pawn, in other words.
"Things have to get worse before they get better" - that's a marxist idea, and springs from the hegelian dialectic, the idea that it is in the interest of the revolutionary to bring out the worst in the regimes he hopes to topple, because the misery and anger of the "masses" have to reach some sort of boiling point before they will be sufficiently motivated to rebel.
I agree that to see this stuff purely in terms of irrational religious fantasies is easier to wrap your mind around but I think the underlying situation is a bit more complex. Sure, religious fanaticism motivates the masses, but terrorists also see things in geopolitical terms, as do our own leaders. It's more like a chess game being fought out by proxy than a straight-up fist fight.
They don't seem to mind Muslims slaughtered as "collateral damage."
When you detonate a car bomb in a crowded street, or plow an airliner into a tall building, how do you insure the slaughter only of infidels?
I have a feeling Israel lies somewhere in your theories as to the root causes of these religious fanatics.
It's my "theory" and "speculation" that these people were "terrorists" - that is to say, they, or more accurately, the people directing them - had some sort of larger geo-political strategic goal. It's my "theory" and "speculation" that they were hoping to provoke us into responding in kind.
I'll go a step further and make a radical claim, my friend I think terrorists use different tactics and have differents strategies than conventional armies! That's my "theory." That's my "speculation." (Actually that is just the standard definition of "terrorism," but if you don't agree with it, then we can look at the other possibilities too).
So, what if I am wrong about this and you are right? What if it was not a terrorist attack at all, but a frontal assualt from some as-of-yet-unnamed-state which had no other goal beyond weakening our own ability to respond in kind?
It seems to me that there are good arguments against this position, which I will now enumarate for you:
1.the 9-11 attackers were not part of any country's military
2.nobody took credit for the attack right away
3.civilians were the targets of the attack, and not soldiers
So it really does seem to me that this was, indeed, a terrorist attack - that it's purpose was to spread "terror" and provoke us into doing something back, which is basically what terrorism is all about.
Time will tell which of us is right, I suppose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.