It’s technically true that the world was the same after 9/11 as before. What changed was the perception that radical Islam was a problem “over there.” 9/11 made clear that they were perfectly willing to attack here.

Since you seem unable to grasp that we can no longer assume terrorists will leave us alone, your perception of the world may not have changed.

That’s too bad for you. After 9/11, it’s clear that terrorists hate us and want to attack us, not just overseas. After 9/11, it’s clear that we can’t pull back as “Fortress America” and hope to be left alone.

Except for those Ron Paul followers who maintain the delusion that if we just bring all troops back home, it will all blow over.

Your delusion becomes a problem when it affects the safety of the rest of us. Iran is not a problem because we “interfered with them.” Iran is a problem because they’re controlled by radical Muslims. bin Laden attacked us because we’re in the way of his delusion that Islam should rule the world.

At heart, it is a power struggle. As long as America is in the way of Muslims taking over the world, there will be Muslims who hate us.

tom on June 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM

That was a remarkable job regurgitating the State’s propaganda.

tom on June 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM
As long as America is in the way of Muslims taking over the world, there will be Muslims who hate us.

I can’t help but notice the similarities with your massive Muslim conspiracy to dominate the world.

A distinctive feature of Nazi antisemitism was that it was formulated as conspiracy theory about Jews desires to rule the world. Anti-Jewish conspiracy theories were spread by extreme right-wing politicians in Nazi Germany in the same way that people are spreading Anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.

The Nazis capitalized on the fear that the “Reichstag fire”, (their 9/11), was supposed to serve as a signal launching the, (Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy), Jewish led/financed Communist revolution in Germany, and promoted this claim in their campaign for nothing unites a people more than when they believe they are constantly under attack and fighting a common enemy.

The Jews were convenient enemies then just as the Muslims have now become convenient enemies today. Like in Nazi Germany when many hardline right wing circles talked about a supposed “Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy to rule the world” we now have people who believe in a massive Muslim conspiracy to dominate the world.

This belief has caused people to ask for the extermination of Muslims while claiming the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. But most of what they are saying was originally written by Nazis to be used against the Jews and the so called Jewish religion of hate but have now replaced Jew with Muslim.

tom on June 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM

When they kept punting on carrying out the earlier UN resolutions demanding Iraq disarm, they removed themselves from the equation. The UN abdicated its responsibility in the run-up to the Iraq War.

So your saying that Iraq did not disarm and therefore the UN weapons inspectors who said Iraq did disarm were wrong so the U.S. had no choice but to attack Iraq?

Please clarify.

@Del Dolemonte

Wow! Don’t you realize you are hurting the conservative movement/Republican party when you try to defend the Iraq war?

JustTheFacts on June 27, 2012 at 1:23 AM

Hogwash. Bush had it right when he told the UN straight up that they had to decide if they were actually relevant. When they kept punting on carrying out the earlier UN resolutions demanding Iraq disarm, they removed themselves from the equation.

All your quotes of “thus saith the UN” amount to nothing. The UN abdicated its responsibility in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Frankly, the Gulf War of 1999-1991 never really ended. It was in a ceasefire conditional on Iraq living up to its treaty obligations.

Idiot. The ‘Patriot’ Acts and the Terminally Stupid Agency were formed in the panic aftermath of 9/11. The world darn well is different and if you had half the brains of a NeoCon you’d admit it.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Governments oppressed people and curtailed liberty, rights, and freedom prior to these acts and prior to 9/11. You think yours is an example of something different about the world???

Dante on June 27, 2012 at 7:35 AM

It’s technically true that the world was the same after 9/11 as before. What changed was the perception that radical Islam was a problem “over there.” 9/11 made clear that they were perfectly willing to attack here.

Since you seem unable to grasp that we can no longer assume terrorists will leave us alone, your perception of the world may not have changed.

That’s too bad for you. After 9/11, it’s clear that terrorists hate us and want to attack us, not just overseas. After 9/11, it’s clear that we can’t pull back as “Fortress America” and hope to be left alone.

Except for those Ron Paul followers who maintain the delusion that if we just bring all troops back home, it will all blow over.

Your delusion becomes a problem when it affects the safety of the rest of us. Iran is not a problem because we “interfered with them.” Iran is a problem because they’re controlled by radical Muslims. bin Laden attacked us because we’re in the way of his delusion that Islam should rule the world.

At heart, it is a power struggle. As long as America is in the way of Muslims taking over the world, there will be Muslims who hate us.

I guess as far as JustTheFacts is concerned sovereignty is supreme as long as one toes the UN line, but to toe the UN line a state has to give up its sovereignty to the UN. I guess the facts show JustTheFacts is an avowed One-Worlder. I’ll pass.
All in favor of leaving the UN and kicking it out of America signify by saying “Aye”, all those opposed…the Chair rules the Aye’s have it.
insidiator on June 27, 2012 at 7:39 AM

The United States formulated the provision after World War II which says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council.

So are you now suggesting the U.S. was wrong to formulate and agree to that provision and does that mean we owe an apology to those whom the U.S. tried for violating the U.S. formulated provision and was found guilty of starting a war of aggression?

General Wesley K. Clark former NATO Allied Supreme Commander said;

“War is sudden, shocking, startling and often completely illegitimate but it is usually at the very least cloaked in some language of legitimacy. This is often a strategy intended to win support at home and among the troops as much as to influence the enemy and the outside world. Those who start wars often try to cloak their aggression with a sense of legitimacy, righteousness or outright lies. History tells us that you can’t always believe what you see. You have to look deep into the actions and the leaders behind them to find the truth.”

All in favor of leaving the UN and kicking it out of America signify by saying “Aye”, all those opposed…the Chair rules the Aye’s have it.

Idiot. The ‘Patriot’ Acts and the Terminally Stupid Agency were formed in the panic aftermath of 9/11. The world darn well is different and if you had half the brains of a NeoCon you’d admit it.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Governments oppressed people and curtailed liberty, rights, and freedom prior to these acts and prior to 9/11. You think yours is an example of something different about the world???

Wow! Don’t you realize you are hurting the conservative movement/Republican party when you try to defend the Iraq war?

The debate on Iraq centers around the question whether the invasion was an unprovoked assault on an independent country that may have breached international law, or if the United Nations Security Council authorized the invasion. Though the Security Council may only authorize the use of force against an “aggressor” in the interests of preserving peace, whereas the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not provoked by any aggressive military action.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed his opinion that the invasion of Iraq was “not in conformity with the UN charter [...] from the charter point of view, [the invasion] was illegal.”

Then UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sent a secret letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair in April 2002 warning Blair that the case for military action against Iraq was of “dubious legality.” The letter goes on to state that “regime change per se is no justification for military action” and that “the weight of legal advice here is that a fresh [UN] mandate may well be required.” Such a new UN mandate was never given.

In March 2003, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, then deputy legal adviser to the British Foreign Office, resigned in protest of Britain’s decision to invade without Security Council authorization. Her resignation letter:

“I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution. [A]n unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.”

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former Lord Chief Justice and Senior Law Lord of the United Kingdom, stated that British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith’s advice to the British Government contained “no hard evidence” that Iraq had defied UN resolutions “in a manner justifying resort to force” and that the invasion was “a serious violation of international law and of the rule of law.”

According to a detailed legal investigation conducted by an independent commission of inquiry set up by the government of the Netherlands headed by former Netherlands Supreme Court president Willibrord Davids, the 2003 invasion violated international law. Also, the commission concluded that the notion of “regime change” as practiced by the powers that invaded Iraq had “no basis in international law.”

According to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva the invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression. A “war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force.” We note with “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.”

When UN member states were to convene a General Assembly ‘emergency special session’ (ESS) to “stop the impending attack on Iraq” The US made clear to UN member states that, “Given the current highly charged atmosphere, the United States would regard a General Assembly session on Iraq as unhelpful and as directed against the United States”. UN members were also warned that: “the staging of such a divisive session could do additional harm to the UN”.

On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, Russia, the People’s Republic of China, and France issued a joint statement declaring that Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize any “automaticity” in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were force to be used.

American legal experts, including Marjorie Cohn, Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild and former Attorney-General of the United States Ramsey Clark share the view that the invasion was a violation of international law and constituted a war of aggression.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held following World War II that the waging of a war of aggression is:

“essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Benjamin B. Ferencz was one of the chief prosecutors for the United States at the military trials of German officials following WWII, and a former law professor. In an interview given on August 25, 2006, Ferencz stated that the Iraq War had been begun by the U.S. without permission by the UN Security Council. “a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.”

“The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States, formulated by the United States, in fact, after World War II. It says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council.

The world was no different after 9/11 than the time before 9/11.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Idiot. The ‘Patriot’ Acts and the Terminally Stupid Agency were formed in the panic aftermath of 9/11. The world darn well is different and if you had half the brains of a NeoCon you’d admit it.

Enquiring minds would love to know.

Laughable claim, Lew. I couldn’t get your silly link to work either, but don’t have to.

…..

And please lose the “neocon” word, Lew, it’s so 9/10.

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM

I think Dante fled and left behind a bunch of crickets.

I’m still waiting.

Use the WMD justification. It worked for Iraq.

MelonCollie on June 26, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Read the actual 2002 Iraq Resolution that Congress signed off on. WMDs were only 1 of at least 12 reasons we went in.

Some of the others? Primarily that Iraq had thumbed its nose at the U.N. for 12 years and violated countless terms that they had agreed to in writing after Pappy Bush ran Saddam’s Army out of Kuwait.

But by 2002, the UN Security Council had already been corrupted by the Iraqis, so the U.S. was left to enforce the U.N.’s terms with a smaller coalition because they refused to themselves.

Another main article in the Resolution was that al Qaeda had been documented as being in Iraq going back for years. Of course, this is the same thing Bill Clinton’s DOJ claimed in 1998 when they indicted Clinton.

Another major article of the Resolution was Saddam’s brutal repression of his own people. And their willingness to use WMDs against their own people and others, like the Iranians.

And another part of the Resolution correctly noted that Iraq had paid bounties to suicide bombers in other countries. In other words they were an exporter of terrorism straight out of Central Casting.

But of course, none of those other reasons were at all important, were they?

I didn’t say hysterical. I said drop the histrionics. Nations and people behave exactly as they have since the beginning of time. Nations go to war; people fight. Nations and people seek power through force.

What is different about the world due to 9/11? Nothing. It is exactly the same as it was before.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM

If nothing ever changes ever, then why even bother talking about it?

Histrionics and hysteria are remarkably similar words. Is this all about semantics?

Or can this actually be about the intent of my post, which was simply to point out that just because America went to war with Iraq in 2003, does not mean that an American president can today use that same justification for obliterating Iranian scientists?

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 6:11 PM

You’re right.

Iran is seeking weapons to grab more power. America should move to stop them to protect our power and the nations around Iran. What’s wrong with that, then?

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Laughable claim, Lew. I couldn’t get your silly link to work either, but don’t have to.

You conveniently want to ignore that 2 years later, Clinton himself signed the Iraq Liberation Act. An act that was unanimously passed in the Senate, and passed by a 360-38 vote in the House. Were those all “neocons” too?

Clinton also that year had his DOJ indict bin Laden. One of the Counts in the indictment specifically stated that bin Laden was in cahoots with Iraq.

Remember, the same year (1996) you claim the N-words had their eyes on Baghdad, bin Laden’s Fatwa specifically mentioned Bill Clinton by name. He never once mentioned any of those other dudes you cited.

And please lose the “neocon” word, Lew, it’s so 9/10.

You say the world has never changed, but I’m the one being hysterical? How am I supposed to respond to that?

Esthier on June 26, 2012 at 6:00 PM

I didn’t say hysterical. I said drop the histrionics. Nations and people behave exactly as they have since the beginning of time. Nations go to war; people fight. Nations and people seek power through force.

What is different about the world due to 9/11? Nothing. It is exactly the same as it was before.

YiZhangZhe on June 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM

But we are responsible for intervening in their affairs, and can’t expect to not suffer blowback.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

So, going back to 1776, please list any and all grievances that the Muslim/ME had with the US, not Europe, not the UK, not just the West, just the USA.
We need a chicken/egg analysis here to see which came first.
I will wait.

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Dante?

AllahsNippleHair on June 26, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Are you going to continue to ignore my question, Dante?

Your sarcasm is a poor substitute (and poor defense mechanism) for cognitive ability, intellectual curiosity, and defense of argument. The world is no different today than it was 10 years, 100 years, or even 1,000 years ago. Drop the histrionics.

Dante on June 26, 2012 at 5:54 PM

You say the world has never changed, but I’m the one being hysterical? How am I supposed to respond to that?

I’ve never shied away from a difficult discussion with you, and I don’t need a substitute for my intelligence. But if you want a conversation, you should try to find some common ground instead of just being contrarian.