|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 09/16/2001 : 21:48:30
|
Poll Question:
What do you see as the single most important factor contributing to the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon?
|
| Results: |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 0 counted »» |
Last Vote:
never |
|
|
|
|
rickm
Skeptic Friend
Canada
109 Posts |
 Posted - 09/16/2001 : 22:17:03 [Permalink]
|
I picked fundamentalist religion, if ya wanna know why ask Slater.
I'm sure that, had the airport scrutinized people as they did in the days after,it could have been prevented or lessened. Whether or not this is feasible on a permanent basis remains to be seen.
I think there were far too many factors that contributed to the tragedy, that any one factor could not have possibly prevented it totally. There seems to have been a great deal of planning involved, and they would have simply found another way to get by any failsafes put in place.
"What would chairs look like if our knees bent the other way" |
 |
|
|
Kaptain K
New Member
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2001 : 03:16:11 [Permalink]
|
None of the above.
Fanatics with money!
|
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2001 : 06:20:24 [Permalink]
|
Militant fanatics. I note that there's a report that one of the terrorists was seen drinking in a bar. A devout muslim would never, never, never do that.
I think these fruitloops actually want a war; Bin Laden actually seems to think he can win.
Here's an interesting piece of commentary which ended up in my mailbox this morning.
--------------------------------------
The below are private comments from a San Francisco writer and columnist,
Tamim Ansary, who has lived in the US for 35 years, and is originally from
Afghanistan. I'd like to share them with you and ask you to do likewise,
and I thank Tamim for enlightening us. We need to make sure that a
"lynch-mob mentality" does not overtake our country. The world is looking
to us to set an example.
As we deal with our grief and a desire for justice, we need to target the
terrorists and not innocent people who have already suffered
greatly:
I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the
Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would
mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this
atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else
can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we
"have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am
from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never
lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will
listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who deeply hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. My hatred
comes from first hand experience. There is no doubt in my mind that these
people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that
something must be done about those monsters.
But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the
government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics
who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a
plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think
Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in
the concentration camps."
It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity.
They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if
someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats
nest of international thugs holed up in their country. Some say, why don't
the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're
starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the
United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in
Afghanistan-a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of
widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves.
The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the
Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not
overthrown the Taliban.
We come now to the question of "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age".
Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the
Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn
their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done.
Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health care?
Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least
get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat,
only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe
the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too
fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping
bombs would not really be a strike against the criminals who did this
horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the
Taliban by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.
So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true
fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with
ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to
be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as
needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing
innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on
the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die
fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much
bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have
to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of
Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by?
You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and
the West.
And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants.
That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right
there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem
ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the
West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those
lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even
better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the
West
would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and
millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that?
Unfortunately, Bin Laden does. Anyone else?
In Peace, Tamim Ansary
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture.
Edited by - bozola on 09/17/2001 06:21:02 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2001 : 10:16:52 [Permalink]
|
I just want to add that these poll choices were selected based on what I have read on this board for the most part as well as a few other places. Obviously more than one of these and perhaps many of them apply but this poll is only trying to find the "single greatest factor" in the attacks.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2001 : 13:02:12 [Permalink]
|
Well, I'm glad to see nobody picked "Gays, abortionists,atheists or liberals". I think that covers just about everybody on this board :P
"Goddammit! The world is just filling up with more and more idiots! And the computer is giving them access to the world! They're
spreading their stupidity! At least they were contained before--now they're on the loose everywhere!"? |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2001 : 13:11:19 [Permalink]
|
Well, perhaps not everyone, but since a couple very visible public figures threw it out there as a reason I decided to include it. I'm sure I missed a few but these are some of the main reasons I've heard.
This poll is not meant to point blame anywhere but to gauge what visitors are thinking.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2001 : 20:38:13 [Permalink]
|
i picked fundamentalism, but bad security, incompetence at fbi/cia and foreign policy are also right up there. damn near as many fundis in the united states as in araby.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2001 : 01:24:25 [Permalink]
|
It looks like one idiot is actually blaming gay, abortion performing, atheist liberals.
Or did someone vote for that because it looked so pathetic with zero votes and they just wanted to give it one to make the poll look real?
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
qthelost
New Member
USA
7 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2001 : 04:06:08 [Permalink]
|
I voted for religious fundamentalism. I think I read somewhere that the definition of "fundamentalism" is..
Fundamentalism - The belief you are always right about everything and that you have all the answers and that anyone who doubts you is a sinner and that you have the right to do anything to anyone including killing, slaughtering and torturing.
I am still wondering why no psychic predicted the tragedy. It was a pretty big event to overlook.
|
|
|
|
cmahnken
New Member
USA
1 Post |
Posted - 09/20/2001 : 14:18:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am still wondering why no psychic predicted the tragedy. It was a pretty big event to overlook.
They did. Many of them did. "I see a big disaster...". That covers it, doesn't it? Spot on....
--
Chris
- If I ever meet an alien I'll ask him how he crossed the border. |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2001 : 18:46:02 [Permalink]
|
Religious fanaticism would be more accurate than religious fundamentalism, although probably all religious fanatics are religious fundamentalists. I think that the differences in irrational beliefs create hatreds among such people holding these ideas as truths to be defended at all costs.
I do not see real scientists who differ with each other having such problems. There may be antagonisms, but nobody kills anybody over theoretical differences which are backed up by observation and/or experiment.
However, there are many irrational people who are crank scientists. They tend to settle their differences with words rather than actions.
ljbrs   
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2001 : 21:50:29 [Permalink]
|
I voted none of the above, but that was maybe wrong. I think it is rare that only one cause would exist for such an event. Regious fundimentalism is maybe the leading contender. Most of the other choices will apply to some degree or another.
Ultimatly I truly belive that the belief that violence is a way to solve a problem is the element that makes the WTC attack an acceptable (to the hyjacker, not to me for christ's sake) choice.
People have a right to defend themselves. but the world desperatly needs a functional disput settlement system. One that all nations are beholding to including the strong and powerful.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2001 : 22:24:26 [Permalink]
|
I didn't ask for the one reason or cause but the one that contributed most in your opinion. I think there's a difference and that obviously there are many factors, but whhich would be the most important one?
I find it odd that some people voted none of the above and so decided that none of these contributed in any way whatsoever. I would be interested in their reasoning.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Kaptain K
New Member
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2001 : 04:46:16 [Permalink]
|
@tomic,
I voted for "none of the above", not because I think none of them were a contributing factor, but because I think that none of them is THE MOST IMPORTANT. See my first post.
|
|
|
|
Buffman
New Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2001 : 00:30:37 [Permalink]
|
IMHO, all of the above and more.
(i.e.: The retiring/firing of 1800 CIA human intelligence operatives during the Stansfield Turner years. Numerous reasons given: NSA electronic/satellite intelligence advances, Congressional funding cuts, too many political opportunists, fear by incumbant government administrations of guilt by association exposals in the media, Irangate, problems in hiring qualified operatives and experts, entrenched mediocrity, lack of trust among intelligence gathering organizations, unqualified or untrusted Congressional oversight committees, etc.
However, the biggest problem I see is the general belief throughout America that we must always be the "good" (righteous) guys and must never do anything to protect ourselves from the "bad" (evildoers)guys that could place us in an unfavorable light. The argument heard the most is that we must not allow ourselves to stoop to their level. Well, you seldem win any wars by letting the other guys kill you while you wave Bibles, or mouth well meaning platitudes, at them.
When an enemy is committed to dying and is actually eager (mentally preconditioned) to do so for his/her belief system, then about the only, and best, recourse is to help as many of them as possible to find their desired after life by whatever means get the job done the quickest.
Our Constitutional liberties and guarantees are an anathema to these inhuman barbarians. (Name one Islamic state/country that is democratic. Turkey may come the closest...and it has huge internal problems of its own.) The only allegiance these low tech smart bombs have is to the destructive supernatural images planted in their minds by the hate mongering clerics who are allowed to continue to spew their vile and perverted religious philosophies without a Jihad launched against them by the majority of the more rational members of the Islamic community...if, in fact, that community is the majority. It is very difficult to understand the previous silence of that community given the horrors that were already being perpetrated on themselves and others throughout the world by their own sons and daughters.
Syria's Hefel Assad had little difficulty putting down his trouble making foundamentalists. He shelled and leveled Hama. Saddam Hussein doesn't seem to have any problem liquidating opposing elements in Iraq. He gasses them. Though under the "tut-tutting" watchful eyes of NATO, the Turks seem to be able to put a halt to Kurdish terrorists (freedom fighters?) And what is the single common denominator in all this? It isn't a struggle for constitutional liberties/freedom.
(End rant)
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
