A Better Way to Have Handled 9/11

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Seven years after 9/11, shouldn’t Americans ask if there was a better way to respond to those attacks? After all, look at where we are today as a result of how President Bush chose to respond to 9/11:

1. A perpetual “war on terrorism” being waged by U.S. personnel all over the world.

2. A military invasion of Afghanistan that killed countless Afghanis despite the fact that U.S. officials never provided evidence, as they promised, of complicity by Afghani government officials in the 9/11 attacks. Despite the fact that the invasion succeeded in effecting regime change in Afghanistan, it failed to accomplish its purported purpose — the capture of Osama bin Laden. The U.S. Constitution was violated with President Bush’s failure to secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The occupation of Afghanistan is indefinite. Intended to protect the U.S.-installed regime, the occupation continues to kill countless Afghanis, including innocent women and children, thereby fueling anger, antagonism, and rage, guaranteeing an indefinite supply of recruits for al-Qaeda and a perpetual threat of terrorist counterstrikes.

3. A military invasion and indefinite occupation of Iraq, a country that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. The Constitution was violated with the president’s failure to secure a congressional declaration of war. The invasion and occupation have killed or maimed more than a million people. Millions more have been sent into exile. The entire country is destroyed. The operation has fueled tremendous anger, antagonism, and rage, guaranteeing an indefinite supply of recruits for al-Qaeda and a perpetual threat of terrorist counterstrikes.

4. The U.S. government now wields the arbitrary and dictatorial power to take foreigners suspected of terrorism into custody as “enemy combatants” and deny them due process of law, trial by jury, and other fundamental procedural rights as well as subject them to torture, sex abuse, humiliation, and other cruel and unusual punishments.

5. The U.S. government now wields the arbitrary and dictatorial power to take Americans into custody as “enemy combatants” and treat them accordingly, including torture and sex abuse and indefinite detention.

6. The U.S. government now wields the arbitrary and dictatorial power to attack or bomb people in any country in the world, including Americans, so long as suspected “terrorists” are being targeted.

7. The U.S. government, especially through the CIA, now wields the power to enter into any country in the world, including the United States, and kidnap people and then rendition them to secret prisons or brutal foreign regimes for the purpose of torture.

8. The U.S. government, especially through the NSA and private telecommunications companies, now wields the power to spy on Americans, monitoring their emails and telephone calls and the power to grant immunity to private companies who participate in such misconduct.
Was there another way after the 9/11 attacks? Yes. U.S. officials could have handled the matter in the same way they handled the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center — as a criminal-justice matter rather than as a military matter.

Even though it took two years to bring him to justice, Ramzi Yousef was ultimately arrested in Pakistan, extradited to the United States, prosecuted in federal district court, convicted of the 1993 WTC terrorist attack, and sentenced to federal prison. No U.S. military bombing campaign was ever carried out against the Pakistani people.
If warrants for the arrest of bin Laden and other people accused of the 9/11 attacks had been publicly issued, the entire world would have been on the lookout for the suspects.

While there would have been no guarantee that bin Laden would have been arrested, at least he would have been isolated and would have found recruiting to be problematic, especially given the worldwide sympathy for Americans that existed after 9/11 and before Bush embarked on his military crusades.

There would have been no invasions or occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The countless Afghanis and Iraqis who are now dead at the hands of the CIA and U.S. military would be alive. Those who are now maimed would be whole. Those who have fled these countries would still be in their homes. The horrible anger, animosity, and rage currently exhibited toward the U.S. government (and the United States) as a result of the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq would be absent. Recruiting for al-Qaeda would be problematic.

There would be no Gitmo, no “war on terrorism,” no torture and sex abuse, no cancellation of habeas corpus and due process of law, no “enemy combatant” doctrine, no attacks on civil liberties, no kidnapping, no rendition, and no spying on Americans.
There would likely have been a reexamination of U.S. foreign policy by the American people, given that its pro-empire, pro-intervention policy in the Middle East was the motivating cause of the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Seven years after 9/11, shouldn’t Americans ask if there was a better way to respond to those attacks? After all, look at where we are today as a result of how President Bush chose to respond to 9/11:

1. A perpetual “war on terrorism” being waged by U.S. personnel all over the world.

Which has succeeded.....there has been no other terror attack on the USA in seven years.

2. A military invasion of Afghanistan that killed countless Afghanis despite the fact that U.S. officials never provided evidence, as they promised, of complicity by Afghani government officials in the 9/11 attacks. Despite the fact that the invasion succeeded in effecting regime change in Afghanistan, it failed to accomplish its purported purpose — the capture of Osama bin Laden. The U.S. Constitution was violated with President Bush’s failure to secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The occupation of Afghanistan is indefinite. Intended to protect the U.S.-installed regime, the occupation continues to kill countless Afghanis, including innocent women and children, thereby fueling anger, antagonism, and rage, guaranteeing an indefinite supply of recruits for al-Qaeda and a perpetual threat of terrorist counterstrikes.

You are confusing Iraq and Afghanistan......the Taliban gov't of Afghanistan harboured the terrorists, allowed them to train in their camps, and refused to turn them over. That was all that was needed.

Nobody has declared war on anyone since 1945.

Afghanistan is a UN sanctioned mission.

Most civilian casualties are caused by air strikes.....I'd love to see them stop, but then you have to radically increase the number of troops on the ground to make up for the loss in firepower......and you lose more of them. Willing to take that on?

3. A military invasion and indefinite occupation of Iraq, a country that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. The Constitution was violated with the president’s failure to secure a congressional declaration of war. The invasion and occupation have killed or maimed more than a million people. Millions more have been sent into exile. The entire country is destroyed. The operation has fueled tremendous anger, antagonism, and rage, guaranteeing an indefinite supply of recruits for al-Qaeda and a perpetual threat of terrorist counterstrikes.

Well, you might have a point here.....a gross miscalculation.

4. The U.S. government now wields the arbitrary and dictatorial power to take foreigners suspected of terrorism into custody as “enemy combatants” and deny them due process of law, trial by jury, and other fundamental procedural rights as well as subject them to torture, sex abuse, humiliation, and other cruel and unusual punishments.

Absolutely true, and an outrage.

5. The U.S. government now wields the arbitrary and dictatorial power to take Americans into custody as “enemy combatants” and treat them accordingly, including torture and sex abuse and indefinite detention.

Not quite true, but close enough. An outrage.

6. The U.S. government now wields the arbitrary and dictatorial power to attack or bomb people in any country in the world, including Americans, so long as suspected “terrorists” are being targeted.

Good. Kill'em where they're at.

7. The U.S. government, especially through the CIA, now wields the power to enter into any country in the world, including the United States, and kidnap people and then rendition them to secret prisons or brutal foreign regimes for the purpose of torture.

Ah....any examples?

8. The U.S. government, especially through the NSA and private telecommunications companies, now wields the power to spy on Americans, monitoring their emails and telephone calls and the power to grant immunity to private companies who participate in such misconduct.
Was there another way after the 9/11 attacks? Yes. U.S. officials could have handled the matter in the same way they handled the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center — as a criminal-justice matter rather than as a military matter.

Yep. And then it happened again.

Even though it took two years to bring him to justice, Ramzi Yousef was ultimately arrested in Pakistan, extradited to the United States, prosecuted in federal district court, convicted of the 1993 WTC terrorist attack, and sentenced to federal prison. No U.S. military bombing campaign was ever carried out against the Pakistani people.
If warrants for the arrest of bin Laden and other people accused of the 9/11 attacks had been publicly issued, the entire world would have been on the lookout for the suspects.

While there would have been no guarantee that bin Laden would have been arrested, at least he would have been isolated and would have found recruiting to be problematic, especially given the worldwide sympathy for Americans that existed after 9/11 and before Bush embarked on his military crusades.

There would have been no invasions or occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The countless Afghanis and Iraqis who are now dead at the hands of the CIA and U.S. military would be alive. Those who are now maimed would be whole. Those who have fled these countries would still be in their homes. The horrible anger, animosity, and rage currently exhibited toward the U.S. government (and the United States) as a result of the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq would be absent. Recruiting for al-Qaeda would be problematic.

There would be no Gitmo, no “war on terrorism,” no torture and sex abuse, no cancellation of habeas corpus and due process of law, no “enemy combatant” doctrine, no attacks on civil liberties, no kidnapping, no rendition, and no spying on Americans.
There would likely have been a reexamination of U.S. foreign policy by the American people, given that its pro-empire, pro-intervention policy in the Middle East was the motivating cause of the 9/11 attacks in the first place.

And there would have been continued attacks on US soil. 9-11 killed more people than Pearl Harbour, and demanded a suitable response.....that the law could not supply.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
"Which has succeeded.....there has been no other terror attack on the USA in seven years"......

Seven years eh!?

Man you guys have a short memory span.

"And there would have been continued attacks on US soil. 9-11 killed more people than Pearl Harbour, and demanded a suitable response.....that the law could not supply."........

Perhaps some self-analizing and reviewing of the victims, in this case, the US, behaviour in the world, would be a start.
 
Last edited:

reality

Time Out
Sep 12, 2008
12
1
3
6. The U.S. government now wields the arbitrary and dictatorial power to attack or bomb people in any country in the world, including Americans, so long as suspected “terrorists” are being targeted.

Good. Kill'em where they're at.
so long as suspected “terrorists
Did you read this Colpy they could be innocent people and your remark is offensive,and typical and i think you should practice what you preach.
Well, you might have a point here.....a gross miscalculation.
like this for instance...:p
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
"Which has succeeded.....there has been no other terror attack on the USA in seven years"......

Seven years eh!?

Man you guys have a short memory span.

"And there would have been continued attacks on US soil. 9-11 killed more people than Pearl Harbour, and demanded a suitable response.....that the law could not supply."........

Perhaps some self-analizing and reviewing of the victims, in this case, the US, behaviour in the world, would be a start.

OHHHHHHHHH, so 9-11 is the Americans fault.....

yep.

Blame the victim.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
"And there would have been continued attacks on US soil. 9-11 killed more people than Pearl Harbour, and demanded a suitable response.....that the law could not supply."........
LOL, do you know the 'hidden' facts about Pearl, can you supply a link to any site that still has the 'original government story' as being true and honest? Had that false-flag operation been fully prosecuted there would have been no 911, no war on terror, and no continuing line of bull from most governments. By fully prosecuted I mean people behind the scenes being shot for treason.
Pearl wasn't, nor will 911 ever be (or it would have already started) so you can expect more of the same as they can and will act with impunity. Iraq and Afghan have shown that (pretty much defenseless compared to Nations that do have a much better chance at a real defense.
I can hardly wait till it comes home to roost.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
OHHHHHHHHH, so 9-11 is the Americans fault.....

yep.

Blame the victim.

Perhaps the "victim" isn't quite as innocent as we are led to believe? Although the "victim's" intentions may have been good, in so many cases the "bad guy's" toes were trod upon. Whether the benefactor's insult is intentional or well-meaning but ill informed really doesn't matter when one has been disrespected.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
Perhaps the "victim" isn't quite as innocent as we are led to believe? Although the "victim's" intentions may have been good, in so many cases the "bad guy's" toes were trod upon. Whether the benefactor's insult is intentional or well-meaning but ill informed really doesn't matter when one has been disrespected.



Dis-re-spect..........thank-you.
 

YoungJoonKim

Electoral Member
Aug 19, 2007
690
5
18
Its too bad JBeee...
My gosh...how I feel sorry for those Iraqis...
At least they had a stable government and perhaps even a bit of hope. Now with States, their world is in ruin and so many in despair. How about Afghanis? How Americans failed them!

By grace of God, forgive us.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
The better answer to 9/11 would have been, once binLaden's approximate location was known, to carpet bomb the mountains flat for about 5 days.

Cheaper and simpler in the long run.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
LOL, do you know the 'hidden' facts about Pearl, can you supply a link to any site that still has the 'original government story' as being true and honest? Had that false-flag operation been fully prosecuted there would have been no 911, no war on terror, and no continuing line of bull from most governments. By fully prosecuted I mean people behind the scenes being shot for treason.
Pearl wasn't, nor will 911 ever be (or it would have already started) so you can expect more of the same as they can and will act with impunity. Iraq and Afghan have shown that (pretty much defenseless compared to Nations that do have a much better chance at a real defense.
I can hardly wait till it comes home to roost.

SPARE ME PLEASE!

Not worthy of a serious reply.....
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
OHHHHHHHHH, so 9-11 is the Americans fault.....

yep.

Blame the victim.

I don't blame any of the civilians who died in the attacks on 9/11, but those attacks on 9/11 were directly related to U.S. foreign policy. If I had to blame someone for 9/11, it would be G.W. Bush and his henchmen.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
42
48
SW Ontario
People keep parroting this "9/11 was because of U.S. foreign policy" nonsense. Then I ask, if so, why the attacks in Russia, India, Thailand, Nigeria, Somalia, Kenya, Congo, Ivory Coast, Philipines, etc etc etc.

I never get an answer.

9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with U.S. foreign policy.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
People keep parroting this "9/11 was because of U.S. foreign policy" nonsense. Then I ask, if so, why the attacks in Russia, India, Thailand, Nigeria, Somalia, Kenya, Congo, Ivory Coast, Philipines, etc etc etc.

I never get an answer.

9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with U.S. foreign policy.

Bullsh-t!
The U.S. policy of supporting despots and dictators all over the world certainly is one of the negatives in U.S. foreign policy. What about the U.S. supporting the bloody Shah of Iran for twenty years. Do you think the Iranians are happy about that particular aspect of U.S. foreign policy? The U.S. has kept the Saudi royal family in power for years. You'd have a hard time finding a more corrupt bunch of despots anywhere. Have you any idea how much oil wealth that family is sucking out of that country with the help of the U.S.? Why were most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudis?
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
People keep parroting this "9/11 was because of U.S. foreign policy" nonsense. Then I ask, if so, why the attacks in Russia, India, Thailand, Nigeria, Somalia, Kenya, Congo, Ivory Coast, Philipines, etc etc etc.

I never get an answer.

9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with U.S. foreign policy.

When foreign policy becomes a tool to create a world filled with Americans - to feed Americans - it disregards long-established culture and tradition. That is disrespect. That is where U. S. foreign policy sows the seeds of distrust, discontent ... then outright disaster. Though the intentions may be good (from an American standpoint) not everybody wants to be American.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
42
48
SW Ontario
The U.S. has kept the Saudi royal family in power for years. You'd have a hard time finding a more corrupt bunch of despots anywhere. Have you any idea how much oil wealth that family is sucking out of that country with the help of the U.S.? Why were most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudis?

Exactly. So, you're to have me believe that the Saudis, well known to be the biggest purveyors of wahabbi terrorism around the world, who build hundreds of mosques in America teaching kids that infidels are slime who need to be defeated, are doing this because....the U.S. has kept them in power for years.

Do you not see the folly of that position?

Typing bull**** in large font doesn't make it so.

Think about it.

Thank you.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
42
48
SW Ontario
OMG are we about to see a re-iteration of "they hate our freedoms"?!?!?!?

*anxiously holds breath*

:lol:

Here you go, enjoy!!!