Thread: Is the Support for Israel, and the First Gulf War really a legitimate Casus Belli?

Much talk on the forums lately by people attemtping to minimize, or otherwise justify and excuse, the actions of the 9/11 terrorists.

Supposedly, America's support for Israel, combined with our invited military presence on the "Holy" soil of Saudi Arabia as a result of the First Gulf War were listed as the primary casus belli by Osama Bin Laden.

So, the question is:

Why is support for Israel, and the rescuing of Kuwait, legitimate casus belli to use against the United States that exhonerates the terrorists for thier actions on 9/11 and since then?

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

Much talk on the forums lately by people attemtping to minimize, or otherwise justify and excuse, the actions of the 9/11 terrorists.

Supposedly, America's support for Israel, combined with our invited military presence on the "Holy" soil of Saudi Arabia as a result of the First Gulf War were listed as the primary casus belli by Osama Bin Laden.

So, the question is:

Why is support for Israel, and the rescuing of Kuwait, legitimate casus belli to use against the United States that exhonerates the terrorists for thier actions on 9/11 and since then?

Well there is no excuse for the deaths that occurred in 9/11 but there is also no excuse for Israeli's actions. America has largely encouraged/supported or at the very least ignored Israel immoral and illegal actions in the mid-east. Combine the fact that the American government supplies a significant amount of weapons to Israel and uses its VETO against any UN resolution condemning Israel's.

I can see how extremest thought the US civilians was/is a valid target.

The government of both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were and are tyrannical regimes as is the government of Israel. The United States should not be supporting any tyrannical regimes and the US should not have gone to the support of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. It was a regional conflict between tyrannical regimes (yes, Iraq was tyrannical as well) and the US should not be taking sides in disputes between tyrants.

When the US supports tyrannical governments the United States becomes a tyrannical nation. This is the failure of the "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" US foreign policy. The United States should be diplomatically opposing the tyranny of any nation. A tyrannical nation is not our friend.

Of note it is the CIA and the National Intelligence Estimate that cited that US military interventionism predominately in the Middle East that was the cause for terrorist attacks on the United States. That in no way justifies terrorist attacks but merely explains the causes behind them. Tyranny and terrorism cannot be justified.

I believe it's time that I submit an editorial that I had published in a local paper in 1998 as nothing has changed since then and it relates to this very subject.

U.S. WISDOM, NOT WEAPONS NEEDED TO END TERROISM 08/26/1998

Terrorism, whether foreign or domestic, is always the last desperate act of an individual or group in response to a perceived act of tyranny. I emphasize the word "perceived" because an actual act of tyranny need not take place; the terrorist simply needs to believe that it has. Terrorism cannot exist without linkage to a perceived act of tyranny. Without the belief that a government is exercising absolute power unjustly or in a cruel manner (the definition of tyranny), the motive for terrorism ceases to exist.

Since we are obvious targets of terrorism, our first question has to be, what act or actions has the U.S. government taken that can be perceived as acts of tyranny? It's fairly common knowledge that the CIA has been installing and maintaining "puppet" dictators and governments around the world for decades. In the past, Iran, Panama and Vietnam were all CIA-controlled governments that were highly tyrannical regimes. During the Cold War it was always "our" dictators vs. "their" dictators. I doubt anyone can argue the fact that "our" puppet regimes were always highly tyrannical in nature. And only a fool would believe that the CIA involvement wasn't noticed or perceived by many in the world as our government exercising absolute power in an unjust or cruel manner. Actual tyranny, maybe. Perceived tyranny, absolutely.

The next question must be, will these retaliatory strikes help reduce terrorism in the world? History has shown just the opposite to be true. Retaliation simply reinforces the perceived belief that the U.S. is a tyrannical government which, in turn, spawns more terrorists. It creates the never ending loop, the Catch 22, the Hatfields and McCoys. You shot at me so I'll shoot at you, you shoot back and I return fire, ad infinitum. Already many Muslim fundamentalist groups are calling for retaliatory terrorist attacks. U.S. airports are under increased security measures, U.S. citizens abroad have been placed in jeopardy and the fear of terrorism worldwide escalates.

The last question, then has to be, what do we do to stop terrorism? I can only offer the following suggestion. Before all else we need to change our focus from revenge to reason. We need to address the perceptions of tyranny that is the motivation of the terrorist. Our government must stand up and admit past mistakes and then stop its incessant meddling in the internal affairs of, or in the disputes between, sovereign states. As the last great super power, we must understand that we cannot continue to act as the world's policeman in international affairs or disputes. As much as it might hurt us emotionally as we stand by and watch the hurt and the dying in other countries, we must understand that we cannot become involved in these events. While other countries may intervene, these situations must be resolved without intervention by us.

Instead of attacking with our weapons of destruction, let us instead present our beliefs to the world: The right of freedom of religion, of speech and of the press; the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances; the right of citizens to organize a militia and to keep and bear arms; the freedom from intrusion into our homes by the military; the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable search and seizures; the freedom from double jeopardy, unreasonable prosecution, self incrimination and the right to a speedy trial by ones peers; and the prohibition of the government from imposing excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.

As the last great super power, let us not be perceived as a bully wielding the big stick but instead as the noblest of all nations preserving the hopes for all mankind. Wisdom, not weapons, is the solution that will eventually end terrorism.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

The government of both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were and are tyrannical regimes as is the government of Israel. The United States should not be supporting any tyrannical regimes and the US should not have gone to the support of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. It was a regional conflict between tyrannical regimes (yes, Iraq was tyrannical as well) and the US should not be taking sides in disputes between tyrants.

When the US supports tyrannical governments the United States becomes a tyrannical nation. This is the failure of the "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" US foreign policy. The United States should be diplomatically opposing the tyranny of any nation. A tyrannical nation is not our friend.

Of note it is the CIA and the National Intelligence Estimate that cited that US military interventionism predominately in the Middle East that was the cause for terrorist attacks on the United States. That in no way justifies terrorist attacks but merely explains the causes behind them. Tyranny and terrorism cannot be justified.

I believe it's time that I submit an editorial that I had published in a local paper in 1998 as nothing has changed since then and it relates to this very subject.

Shiva, I like you. But your libertarian philosophy is completely rigid with no room for the grey area that a world hegemon like the United States must have the freedom of action to move around in.

Whether you like it or not, we are the world hegemon, and I'm not living under Chinese Hegemony, and if "being the world's policemen" means that we can maintain advantage over a rising China, then I say "by any means necessary".

I will not live in a world where the USA is #2 to China militarily, economically and diplomatically.. which is exactly where your isolation would lead us.

Apparently you don't like your position as a citizen of the world hegemony. I however do and I do not believe that the world hegemon is a tyrannical force of evil, and I don't believe that any other nation on the world is capable of being as soft and kind a hegemon as the USA is. I also believe that if America wasn't the world hegemon, then we would all suffer a far worse quality of life than we are right now.

There is no such thing as "multilateralism".. there is always going to be a hegemon on some sort, and I'd rather the USA be it, and "perceptions of tyranny" should not be a concern. There certain things Leaders don't do, and one of those is overly worry too much about "perceptions" of those who follow.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

Shiva, I like you. But your libertarian philosophy is completely rigid with no room for the grey area that a world hegemon like the United States must have the freedom of action to move around in.

Whether you like it or not, we are the world hegemon, and I'm not living under Chinese Hegemony, and if "being the world's policemen" means that we can maintain advantage over a rising China, then I say "by any means necessary".

I will not live in a world where the USA is #2 to China militarily, economically and diplomatically.. which is exactly where your isolation would lead us.

Apparently you don't like your position as a citizen of the world hegemony. I however do and I do not believe that the world hegemon is a tyrannical force of evil, and I don't believe that any other nation on the world is capable of being as soft and kind a hegemon as the USA is. I also believe that if America wasn't the world hegemon, then we would all suffer a far worse quality of life than we are right now.

There is no such thing as "multilateralism".. there is always going to be a hegemon on some sort, and I'd rather the USA be it, and "perceptions of tyranny" should not be a concern. There certain things Leaders don't do, and one of those is overly worry too much about "perceptions" of those who follow.

Hegemony as used above would relate to the US being the controlling influence in world affairs. The mistake is in believing that this influence can be accomplished by the use of military force and tyranny.

We are unchallenged militarily by any nation including China which only spends a small fraction of what the United States spends on national defense. Neither China or any other nation is going to challenge the superiority of the US military.

The United States can and should be the controlling influence based upon setting an example and through diplomacy.

When our actions reflect hypocrisy, such as supporting or engaging in acts of tyranny, it is duly noted throughout the world. How can we honestly condemn interventionism by a country like Iran while at the same time being involved in our own interventionism? Our strongest "weapon" in being the pre-eminent world power is our ideals and when we forfeit those ideals through our actions we lose. No one respects or follows a bully except other bullies.

If we don't lead based upon our ideals then in reality we don't lead at all.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

Much talk on the forums lately by people attemtping to minimize, or otherwise justify and excuse, the actions of the 9/11 terrorists.

Supposedly, America's support for Israel, combined with our invited military presence on the "Holy" soil of Saudi Arabia as a result of the First Gulf War were listed as the primary casus belli by Osama Bin Laden.

So, the question is:

Why is support for Israel, and the rescuing of Kuwait, legitimate casus belli to use against the United States that exhonerates the terrorists for thier actions on 9/11 and since then?

I respectfully disagree, SiliconMagician.

The plans for 9-11 go back to when the Islamic terrorist tried to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. Their attempts were unsuccessful, so they decided instead to fly commercial airplanes into the twin towers and take them down that way.

The fools never gave any consideration or thought as to how would respond to their murderous intentions the second time!

Given how many of these idiots we have killed and wounded since 9-11 I'll bet they now conclude their actions were a very foolish and costly mistake.

What they don't realize is we will continue to kill them and attack them in their sanctuaries until all the SOBs who woud do us harm are once and for all sent to greet their prophets in “Paradise”!

James Cessna

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,336 lb (606 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.[2][3] It failed to do so, but did kill seven people and injured thousands.

The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.

Ramzi Yousef, who was born as Abdul Basit Mahmoud Abdul Karim in Kuwait, spent time at Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan,[4] before beginning in 1991 to plan a bombing attack within the United States. Yousef's uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Ali Fadden, who later was considered the principal architect of the September 11 attacks, gave him advice and tips over the phone, and funded him with a US$1,400 wire transfer.[5]

Yousef arrived in the United States on September 1, 1992, traveling with Ahmed Ajaj from Pakistan, though both sat apart on the flight and acted as though they were traveling separately. Ajaj tried to enter with a Swedish passport, though it had been altered and thus raised suspicions among INS officials at John F. Kennedy International Airport. When officials put Ajaj through secondary inspection, they discovered bomb making instructions and other materials in his luggage, and arrested him. The name Abu Barra, an alias of Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, appeared in the manuals. Yousef tried to enter with a false Iraqi passport, claiming political asylum. Yousef was allowed into the United States, and was given a hearing date.[6]

Yousef set up residence on Nicole Pickett Avenue[citation needed] in Jersey City, New Jersey, traveled around New York and New Jersey and called Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a controversial blind Muslim cleric, via cell phone. After being introduced to his co-conspirators by Abdel Rahman at the latter's Al-Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn, Yousef began assembling the 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device for delivery to the WTC. He ordered chemicals from his hospital room when injured in a car crash – one of three accidents caused by Salameh in late 1992 and early in 1993.

El Sayyid Nosair, one of the blind sheik's men, was arrested in 1991 for the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane. According to prosecutors, "the Red" Mahmud Abouhalima, also convicted in the bombing, told Wadih el Hage to buy the .357 caliber revolver used by Nosair in the Kahane shooting. In the initial court case in NYS Criminal Court Nosair was acquitted of murder but convicted of gun charges (in a related and followup case in Federal Court, he was convicted). Dozens of Arabic bomb-making manuals and documents related to terrorist plots were found in Nosair's New Jersey apartment, with manuals from Army Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, secret memos linked to Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 1,440 rounds of ammunition. (Lance 2004 26)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Wo...Center_bombing

We are expanding. We want to control the Middle East. Why? The oil, dummy. We have a nuclear-military Isreal with a "hands off" approach that forgives few for transgressions. We have a (an idealized) neutral Iraq that will at least hear our cause. We want Afghanistan too- at least to get them to the point of neutrality; to where they'd listen to us. We're setting up shop.

We're taking over. Saida Arabia and their military which is 99% funded by us will see to that. We need it.

This is one of those few causes I jump on board with- we need the oil to keep flowing. Screw China and their billion people, we need it.

I suggest we declare war on oil- to extract as much as possible for the next 20-50 years 'till it's all dried up. I am all for $1.40 gas again knowing our tax dollars go to the means (military) to keep it flowing. In the short-term at least.

Originally Posted by James Cessna

I respectfully disagree, SiliconMagician.

The plans for 9-11 go back to when the Islamic terrorist tried to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. Their attempts were unsuccessful, so they decided instead to fly commercial airplanes into the twin towers and take them down that way.

Yes, the rationalization for all of the terrorist attacks against the United States, whether we're referring to the 1992 WTC attack, the 1998 African embassy attacks, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, or the attacks on 9/11 were all related to the US military presence in Saudi Arabia that were carrying out attacks against Iraq and violating Iraqi sovereignty. I fall to see the point.

Originally Posted by James Cessna

The fools never gave any consideration or thought as to how would respond to their murderous intentions the second time!

Given how many of these idiots we have killed and wounded since 9-11 I'll bet they now conclude their actions were a very foolish and costly mistake.

What they don't realize is we will continue to kill them and attack them in their sanctuaries until all the SOBs who woud do us harm are once and for all sent to greet their prophets in “Paradise”!

James Cessna

Actually the "fools" didn't care. They knew that eventually the US was going to capture or kill them.

Of course we've also seen that murdering "terrorists" isn't reducing the threat of Islamic terrorism. There are more Islamic terrorists today than there were in 1993, 1998, 2000, or 2001 and it has spread to other nations where there were no terrorist cells before. What makes it even worse is that in our attempts to "kill terrorists" we're also killing innocent people. When that happens then the friends and relatives of the victim are likely to become terrorists seeking revenge against the United States.

While the United States hasn't suffered any real direct terrorist attacks on US soil since 2001 the terrorist threat against us is greater today than it was ten years ago. In 2001 we might have had a few hundred al Qaeda terrorists that were willing to attack the United States. Today we have literally tens of thousands of terrorists willing to attack us.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

The government of both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were and are tyrannical regimes as is the government of Israel. The United States should not be supporting any tyrannical regimes and the US should not have gone to the support of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. It was a regional conflict between tyrannical regimes (yes, Iraq was tyrannical as well) and the US should not be taking sides in disputes between tyrants.

When the US supports tyrannical governments the United States becomes a tyrannical nation. This is the failure of the "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" US foreign policy. The United States should be diplomatically opposing the tyranny of any nation. A tyrannical nation is not our friend.

Of note it is the CIA and the National Intelligence Estimate that cited that US military interventionism predominately in the Middle East that was the cause for terrorist attacks on the United States. That in no way justifies terrorist attacks but merely explains the causes behind them. Tyranny and terrorism cannot be justified.

I believe it's time that I submit an editorial that I had published in a local paper in 1998 as nothing has changed since then and it relates to this very subject.

While U.S. imperialism and government interventionism should be universally condemned, this Liberal position fails to acknowledge and condemn Islamic aggression, tyranny, acts of terrorism and wars perpetrated by Muslims dating as far back as the 6th century. Historically, it's well documented that Muslim regimes, or tyrannical governments supported by Sharia Law that established apartheid laws prohibiting Christians and Jews to bear arms, seek permission to build property and pay a "booty" tax which Muslims were excluded from these discriminatory laws. Sharia Law is law based solely on a religion that violates international law, basic humanitarian rights equal Rights For Individuals for women and homosexuals in particular. America's 1st War, The Tripolitan War, was a conflict initiated my Muslims that conquered 4 "territories" of the Northern Continent of Africa by means of imperialism and interventionism. Muslims were hijacking American ships off The Barbarian Coast, holding Americans captive in slavery while demanding "booty" (random) from the American Treasury. Throughout history, it's well documented that radical elements of Islam have carried out acts of tyranny, aggression and terrorism not directly related to U.S. imperialism or interventionism whatsoever. The Canadian Prime Minister recently announced that the greatest threat to Canada's national security is not "right wing extremism", rather Islamic militants bent on carrying out acts of terrorism against The Canadian government. The inclination that terrorists attacks by Islamic extremists aimed at the U.S. "are a direct result of U.S. imperialism and government interventionism" is a farcical argument implemented by certain U.S. politicians and political parties that simply have no merit to validate their hypocritical assertions.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Of course we've also seen that murdering "terrorists" isn't reducing the threat of Islamic terrorism. There are more Islamic terrorists today than there were in 1993, 1998, 2000, or 2001 and it has spread to other nations where there were no terrorist cells before. What makes it even worse is that in our attempts to "kill terrorists" we're also killing innocent people. When that happens then the friends and relatives of the victim are likely to become terrorists seeking revenge against the United States.

You are very mistaken, Shiva_TD.

The Islamic terrorists who live abroad have tried many times, but they have not successfully attacked the USA on American soil since 9-11.

These fools will continue to try, but we will continue to thwart their ill-fated attempts every time.

The more they try, the more of them we will gladly send to "paradise" to enjoy all eternity with their loopy Imams and misguided profits!