Harry Plopper

First: no civilian deserves to die in a military / terrorist attack. I condemn the people who say "Americans deserved 9/11". People who were on the planes & in the buildings & the firefighters etc. definitely did not "deserve" to die in such blatant attack.

Eg. Hamas / Jihad anti-American stance is quite old - and it derives from US support of Israel in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.

Same case with Iranian regime - since US were supporting corrupted Shah Reza regime before the Islamic Revolution. Same case with Cuba before Communist revolution.

Regarding Bin Laden the situation is more complicated - since Bin Laden / Al Qaeda / Talibans were American allies during Afghanistan civil war - communist revolution (US vs. USSR). I have no idea why Bin Laden converted into anti-American.

Same case with Sadam Hussein during the Iraqi-Iranian war - Iraq incl Hussein's regime were American allies.

It has a lot to do with very pragmatic US foreign policy - supporting pro-American regimes around the world regarding the fact the regime is democratic or not. Saudi Arabia (not a very democratic regime) is a good example. Various South American & African countries too. Not to mention Pakistan.

Think: why is Al Qaeda targeting US mainly - while in Europe, and in the other parts in the world it is not very active. Why they are jot "converting" Indians (Hindu) or Japanese (Buddhism). Or Russians (Orthodox Catholics). Or Brazilians & Mexicans (Catholics). Or Scandinavians (Protestants) etc. Sine all of the mentioned nations are "infidels".

Muslim world has some specific issues with USA.

It's cause - consequence relation.
And it has a lot to do with Jewish / Zionist / Israel issue.
And sometimes hypocritical US foreign / military policy - only making pragmatic alliances, but when the inheres is over allies are very quickly abandoned (especially when starting to demand more co-decision-making).


*****

Nothing to do with American people per se. People are usually brainwashed & misled by the state propaganda via educational system & mass media. They just can't understand what's going on. That's the case in quite some countries around the world.

The US military & foreign policies are what bothers me sometimes & I have issues with. Since these policies are designed & executed to satisfy US interests - which are in the very essence of economical matters (new markets, stable economical environment, access to new resources etc. Kind a colonialistic behavior.

Nothing much really happened from the very beginning of human history. Mind: eg. Roman Empire, British Empire, Spanish Empire, Mongolian Empire, Chinese Empires, Ottoman Empire, German Empire, Austrian-Hungarian Empire, USSR, EU etc.

Same thing- different eras, different "PR". And methods are changed a bit - but not much.





And that's wrong. Every generation should learn about history.

Even in my country is not all pinky. The curriculum includes the "recent history" (WWII and on) but very often there is no time to lecture it - since it is scheduled at the end of the school years. Either in elementary, or high schools.

Regarding bias winner's interpretation of history: it's the issue how some actions are evaluated & labeled. As you can see actions of the winning side are justified, while actions of the losing side are not.

Hypersonic

I have posted this before:

Bin Laden:
"As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you believe in Allah alone." So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is, battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed, or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Allah Almighty's Word to his Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: "O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell — an evil fate!" Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them."


Bin Laden has been extremely clever ....his speeches designed for Westerners (and other non-Muslims) talk of Palestine and Israel and US foreign policy etc; While his speeches aimed at his own followers never mention these things at all. Bin Laden doesn't care less about US foreign policy or the Palestinian people -- he views the US as the leader of the infidels ...."the great Satan". But how wonderfully convenient to have half the western world undermining the "Leader of the free world" by blaming its foreign policy for all the problems in the Arab world.

And he is not the only one, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly stated that he has been divinely chosen as president for the sole task of provoking a "clash of civilizations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States.

Harry Plopper

^

And such great manipulators of masses have been always the greatest threat.

So, IMO ... instead of bombing entire country & killing civilians the military strategy of future should be systematic & well planned executions (assassinations) of such leaders - especially not democratically elected ones. Presidents & other leaders (Commanders in Chief) are military staff of highest rank and hence a "legitimate target".


PS: governmental / political communications are often if not always divided into internal vs foreign communications. One for addressing audiences within the country, the other one for the audience outside the country (= public (PR) diplomacy; which differs from real diplomacy). So, Bin Laden / Al Qaeda & Ahmadinejad / Iran are not so an exception.

MikeJ

I'm sure we all have a certain idea of right and wrong on a more general level when it comes to historical events, but I feel we should be very careful about imposing it either on individual persons or individual decisions.

To legitimize would be to make a moral judgment, i.e. what I said should not be done. We simply cannot put ourselves in the place of someone who lived in a time which was different from ours, or someone who had endured things we haven't. Neither do we know what facts (and what assumptions) their actions were based on, or what would have happened if a particular decision (such as dropping the bomb) would not have been made.

I get what you're trying to say, but I respectfully disagree. I feel that to condemn everything (as you seem to suggest) would be to see things in absolutes, in black and white. What we should try to understand is why these people made the decisions they did, and why other people chose to carry them out (and what other people thought of them at the time). I feel that simply condemning - rather than asking 'why' - is much more likely to encourage people to 'feel entitled' to do similar things.

They should not. They were criticized for their actions (or the lack of them) during and after the war by the people of their time. Similarly, I feel that we have (to an extent) the right criticize the things which go on in the world today.

Harry Plopper

It always takes two parties to have a conflict.

Of course the fault is also on the Arab side but ... The one with more power (=USA) should be more observed more carefully. Since they need more monitoring & controlling - in aim not be carried away and abuse the power they posses.

Of course everybody should comply to international law, and resolve the conflict with dialog & negotiations. The problem emerges when one party thinks its position / demand / act is the only one legitimate, and rejects to resolve the problem in a dialog. Unilateral actions do not lead anywhere. Actually they lead to a long-term mess.

Harry Plopper

By this analogy EVERY question has an answer, and EVERY act has its reason. I agree with that.

I'm aware things do not happen out of the blue. It's - as I said - "cause : consequence" relation.

I'm sure many people are aware WHY some horrible things in history did happen.
Eg. Holocaust. Holocaust has been reasoned, explained & justified in the Third Reich. Since every act has a reason & motivation behind it. But was it justified & right? Definitely not.

Understanding - yes. Justifying & supporting - no. Condemning - yes, but with a right reason (eg. to learn a lesson, not to fueling a hatred).

The Artist

No the germans dont hate in the same way..
you see no war,defeat or punishment can make a man feel regret..
you must find it in yourself..
and imo the germans regret their actions in WW2..
My view and feelings on things are that the japanese and russians dont feel regret for anything they did..
simple as that..
and i guess you think the opposite..

I hope we dont get to see whos right

Hypersonic

^ I don't get what you mean when you talk about the Russians .....what did the United States do to the Russians?

The Diva

Horrible pictures... BTW I did not click


It a grim reminder of all innocent victims of war, regardless of time, country, creed, race.

The victims of Hiroshima are honored and remembered at the Hiroshima Peace site. It runs chills down your spine to stand in ground Zero.

click here if you want to see the site - ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER and then click on English

The Artist

The whole cold war..its not really a specific thing..its 2 ideologys that are totally polarized..