Amazon.com Widgets

Did America bring on the 9/11 attack(s) on itself?

Asked by: Fight4Liberty
  • In a way, yes.

    I don't think it was deserved, but America has a habit of interfering with countries because it doesn't agree with their morals.
    They have invaded a middle eastern country under an excuse that later proved to be unfounded and false.
    I don't approve of terrorism, but I'm not surprised that there are a lot of people who dislike America.

  • Absolutely they did.

    Or the Gulf of Tonkin, etc, etc,

    Rahm Emanuel said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste."

    Does that mean the USA blew up it's own towers? No.
    Does that mean that Pearl Harbor was all a sham? No.

    If a country wants to go to war, these days a country will have to have a moral reason to go to war. This idea is a relatively new phenomenon that blew up after WWI, which is only logical, being that the world got it's teeth knocked out during that war. Back in the Colonial days, war was almost a game to Generals and Kings, who, really, just wanted land and resources.

    Nowadays, people need moral cause, like the Twin Towers. If you look at the aftermath of events like Pearl Harbor, the burning of the Reichstag, or the Gulf of Tonkin, they were all events (except Reichstag) that came about naturally. That said, they were all instigated to get the public behind a war.

    We cut off Japanese oil, we had our ships deep in enemy waters, it goes on and on. We wanted in to the Middle East, and that fact is not controversial.

    We ignored threats again and again, we arm and train the Mujahideen, and they start taking over the country in the 90's, and the US doesn't much like that, so it starts putting more and more pressure on Afghanistan, and Iraq, another old ally, until it just pops.

    Suddenly, Bush has the power to pass the Patriot act, (which has allowed him and his comrades to spy on us all, by the way), he is allowed to open an off-country prison to illegally torture Terrorists, and the CIA just straight up lies about it's effectiveness, and he's allowed to blame some portion of the attack, in some bizarre way, on an old friend, Saddam Hussein, and get into Iraq. Suddenly, we've got our mits in someone else's oven, and, just like that, Heroin production quadruples to $4 Billion in exports in Afghanistan, oil production goes up, the U.S. gets a blank cheque to spend on whatever it deems "anti-terror" and they get a front row seat in the middle east, and best of all, they look like the good guys, squashing terrorism!

    Cui bono, "Who Benefits?", to quote Cicero. This quote should be applied in every single political situation, and honestly, looking at the facts, it'd be foolish to assume we didn't benefit.

    As a footnote: Only 6% of terrorist attacks were by Islamic extremists on U.S. soil. Yes, that would be 6%. You read that right.

  • Osama Bin Laden

    Yeah, America indirectly did it. By annoying Al Quaeda and their evil friends, America sought to wipe out all terrorist life of Earth. As a result, this angered Osama Bin Laden, who decided to send a fugly ladened plane to the World Trade Center, which resulted in a big boom and the worst terrorist attack in American history.

  • Absolutely they did.

    Or the Gulf of Tonkin, etc, etc,

    Rahm Emanuel said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste."

    Does that mean the USA blew up it's own towers? No.
    Does that mean that Pearl Harbor was all a sham? No.

    If a country wants to go to war, these days a country will have to have a moral reason to go to war. This idea is a relatively new phenomenon that blew up after WWI, which is only logical, being that the world got it's teeth knocked out during that war. Back in the Colonial days, war was almost a game to Generals and Kings, who, really, just wanted land and resources.

    Nowadays, people need moral cause, like the Twin Towers. If you look at the aftermath of events like Pearl Harbor, the burning of the Reichstag, or the Gulf of Tonkin, they were all events (except Reichstag) that came about naturally. That said, they were all instigated to get the public behind a war.

    We cut off Japanese oil, we had our ships deep in enemy waters, it goes on and on. We wanted in to the Middle East, and that fact is not controversial.

    We ignored threats again and again, we arm and train the Mujahideen, and they start taking over the country in the 90's, and the US doesn't much like that, so it starts putting more and more pressure on Afghanistan, and Iraq, another old ally, until it just pops.

    Suddenly, Bush has the power to pass the Patriot act, (which has allowed him and his comrades to spy on us all, by the way), he is allowed to open an off-country prison to illegally torture Terrorists, and the CIA just straight up lies about it's effectiveness, and he's allowed to blame some portion of the attack, in some bizarre way, on an old friend, Saddam Hussein, and get into Iraq. Suddenly, we've got our mits in someone else's oven, and, just like that, Heroin production quadruples to $4 Billion in exports in Afghanistan, oil production goes up, the U.S. gets a blank cheque to spend on whatever it deems "anti-terror" and they get a front row seat in the middle east, and best of all, they look like the good guys, squashing terrorism!

    Cui bono, "Who Benefits?", to quote Cicero. This quote should be applied in every single political situation, and honestly, looking at the facts, it'd be foolish to assume we didn't benefit.

    As a footnote: Only 6% of terrorist attacks were by Islamic extremists on U.S. soil. Yes, that would be 6%. You read that right.

  • Good question to be asked

    Those were attcks but terrorist organizations that reesnt just themself , they don't represent islam in anyway since suicide is direct hell , they didi it to show there hatred towards the invader so obviously those doings can't be blamed on muslims because it is is total irony t think that this sort of actions will lead you to jannah/heaven

  • Of Omelets and eggs.

    You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. You can't build a world-dominating military-industrial-complex fueled capitalism without trampling over a plethora of oppressed peoples. The Americans pay few dollars for their oil, but the costs are still there. The primary reason why Bin Laden took up arms was because his country was under the thumb of a foreign power. Saudi Arabia is good ally of the U.S.A. their monarchy that should not and could not exist still does thanks to American money and weapons. It is was not the fault nor decision of the American public, yet they reap what they have sown.

  • Of course not. Suggesting it did is ridiculous.

    Jihadist terrorists routinely attack symbolic targets all around the world. When a radical minority attacks innocent civilians it is NEVER the fault of the attacked.

    But lets look further.

    The stated reasons for the attacks (by the attackers) is a US military presence in Saudi Arabia as the primary, backing Israel secondary, and finally, the real reason, refusing sharia law.

    1. US military presense in Saudi Arabia is AT THE REQUEST of Saudi Arabia. The US is not 'occupying sovereign land' as the Terrorists claim but rather PROTECTING that nation at their request.

    2. The Islam-Jewish battle is centuries old. Anyone supporting Israel as a state is automatically a hated enemy of radical Islam.

    3. Islams stated goal in the Quaran is world dominance. The US is the most prosperous, successful, wealthy nation on earth. It achieved that status by having a free society. That is completely contrary to Islamic teachings and Sharia law.

    The mere suggestion that the US is itself at fault for terror attacks perpetrated by radical, ideological, religious zealots is absurd. NOBODY shoulders ANY blame for the attacks other than those who planned and carried them out.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.