I read the post as you suggested. My comment will not thrill you. But first Yes, 9/11 was a terrible thing. But it was only an extension of the first bombing. The results that were so horrible suprised the terrorists as much as anyone. They and our folk had no idea that the result would be the total collapse of the two buildings.
Hence the directions were to stay in the offices and let the authorities take care of he fire. Had they known then what they could have known, prompt evabustion procedures could have save many more people. Now through 20/20 hindsight, we know why the buildings collapsed.
That was not a act of war, it was the act of a terrorist group, and our proper action would have been to persue those folk and kill them. That was properly done in the invasion of Afganistan and the pursuit of ben Ladin. If our leadership had concentrated their forces there we could very possibly had accomplished our goal.
Unfortunately we did nothing of the sort.

Iraq is not where ben Ladin is. Iraq was never where ben Ladin was

Posted by James S Melbert at September 29, 2006 03:28 PM

Pardon my typing or the lack of it inthe preceding.

Posted by James S Melbert at September 29, 2006 03:30 PM

James, the article wasn't about Bush and Iraq. The article was about the rise of Islamists (and violent jihad) in a post-Cold War world, an era that was hoped would lead to the end of war as a product of the triumph of liberal (in the classical sense of that word) democracy -- and the exposure of that new Islamist force by the previously inconceivable tactics of 9/11, in particular the hijacking of civilian aircraft and the murder of the innocent passengers in the process of using these aircraft as a weapon of war.

The Islamist movement is now far larger than Bin Laden -- and always was much larger and older than Bin Laden, dating back to the Iranian revolution, and before that to the Muslim Brotherhood & the melding of Nazism with Islamic thought. The movement, as the article accurately observes is primarily of theological/religious origin and impetus, and only secondarily rooted in political greivance -- and that greivance is directed against liberal (both in the classical and the current sense of that word) Western society, or which the U.S. is simply a visible symbol, not the root cause.

Sorry, the U.S. is not that powerful or important such that it is the sole (or even primary) cause of the Islamist movement. Let's not have an overly inflated sense of our importance.

However, the U.S. is becoming the principal bulwark against the rising Islamist tide, along with a few other nations (such as Australia) that recognize the motion of the ocean.

The incongruity, as I pointed on on Dr. Sanity's blog, is that the Islamists are sawing off the limb they are sitting on by using 20th/21st century technology, which is the product of Western culture, to destroy that same Western culture -- and to try to replace it with a reincarnation of the caliphate rooted in primative 7th century thought. If they succeed, we indeed may be facing a new Dark Ages of unprecented extent and depth and unimanagable barbarism, a world devoid of the rule of law (a rule that we in the U.S. take too much for granted) in place of the age-old rule of force (i.e. "might make right").

Posted by civil truth at September 29, 2006 07:38 PM

That was not a act of war, it was the act of a terrorist group

I see it as an act of war by a terrorist group. Two realities arise already.

Posted by DADvocate at September 29, 2006 08:18 PM

James: "My comment will not thrill you."

Au Contraire, I'm allways thrilled by comments from the left as they absolutely prove that the left is bereft of the ability to argue effectively. What a strawman you have set up. No one is claiming that bin Laden was in Iraq.

In fact, while Bill Clinton say's he was "obsessed" with bin Laden, you will recall his frequent (and always supported by the same democrats that want out of Iraq now) references to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Now, why would the hero of the Left (Clinton) want to overthrow Iraq, complete with the "let's toss Saddam into the gutter as a purely political pandering bill of 1998."

Iraq under saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism and he consistently defied the UN and the Security Counsil's resolution. He got what he deserved and eventually the Iraqi people will be able to be totally free of the islamofascists that now inhabit their land.

Having said that, I'm curious as to why you democrats were so anxious to toss Saddam when Clinton is in office, but so damn anxious to cut and run now that someone else has actually done what Clinton always said he "wanted" to do?

Posted by GM at September 30, 2006 05:25 AM

I can see that a subtle statement flies by you conservatives at the speed of light. I did not say or infer that bin Laden was in Iraq. I didn't mention Iraq.I said that it was unfortunate that we did not pursue him in Afganinstan. To Civil Truth: I did not say anything about bush. I commented on the identies known to be involved in 9/11. Given the state of our technology, I'll never be convinced that we cannot find a terror leader if we reall want to. Generally a war or act of war is an action by a nation or country, the occasion of 9/11 was not the act of any nation, unless you want to call Saudi Arabia to account since nearly all the terrorists were Saudis.
And Guy, where in the world did you find that Saddam was a sponsor of Terrorism? I have no sympathy for Saddam. But for you to tell me that he constantly defied the UN and the Security Counsel is a reach, given the opinion you righties have of the UN.
The Sanity article that I read was about 9/11 and the
rise of Islamic terror or as Civil Truth put it Islamofacists. I agree, but the war in Iraq has created more terrorism and terrorists than we would ever had. The National Intelligent Estimate a report by 16 Intelligence services inside the government, has said the the war in Iraq has encouraged global terrorism, and spawned a new generation of Islamic radicals. Are we safer now because of the war in Iraq? The answer is a resounding NO!!
So, it still appears that you righties are busy trying to blame Clinton for everything thats gone awry. Come on, he has been gone for six (6) years. It's time to put the blame where it belongs.
The current attitude that I see you people promulgating is: "Either you are for me, or against me" what tommyrot. I asked once if you people still thought that compromise was a dirty word. This country was built on compromise, and it being destroyed by the lack of it. I blame that on the political philosophy that your republican party insists on.
Finally, yes, you should know that I think we should get out of Iraq. We should never have been there. I have no desire to stay there for the generations it will take to change the mind set of those people, and we are certainly not doing anything to make them feel that our system of government is appealing to them.

Once again, I ask forebearance about my typing. I am a hunt and peck typist. When I went to school only a few girls took typing. We never believed it was "manly". I have changed my opinion about that. I wish I was able to go lickedy split across the kwyboard.

Posted by James S Melbert at September 30, 2006 03:10 PM

From Dr. Sanity: my greatest fear is what might have to happen to finally wake people up.

I agree.

Thanks, GM, for showing up the way to the post by Dr. Sanity. Two realities, indeed!

Posted by Always On Watch at September 30, 2006 08:05 PM

It's not a bad article, though It hurts, when will the killing end?

Posted by Brenda at October 1, 2006 02:37 AM