Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ stavros 6 hours ago

> Who did the US bomb before 9/11?

Iraq, during the Gulf War.

> Who did the US bomb before Pearl Harbor?

Japan, though the US didn't bomb them, it instituted an oil embargo and asset freeze.

> Who did the US bomb before its embassies in East Africa were attacked

Iraq, during the Gulf War.

> Who did the US bomb before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103 ?

Tripoli and Benghazi, Iran Air Flight 655.

I don't understand the purpose of these questions. Were you thinking the US was just minding its own business and some bad guys came and attacked it?

▲throw310822 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The US are also the major enabler of Israel's colonial expansion and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. This was clearly expressed by Bin Laden himself as one of the motives behind the 9/11 attacks.

> Were you thinking the US was just minding its own business and some bad guys came and attacked it

As I remember, this was exactly the way the US explained 9/11: "they hate us for our freedom".

▲some_random 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, he also justified it by citing the US's acceptance of homosexuality so maybe it's more complicated than that.

▲throw310822 4 hours ago | parent [-]

No, he didn't. His "letter to America" starts with the question:

"As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

Because you attacked us and continue to attack us."

And proceeds to list all the ways the US are militarily attacking and oppressing Muslims in the Middle East. It's a long list.

Homosexuality is mentioned only once in the letter, in the next section, where he criticises American society and morals in general and calls it to embrace Islam. This is explicitly an exhortation and not part of the reasons for the attacks (so probably intended as a diagnosis of the symptoms of a moral disease and the proposal of a cure - note that I'm not endorsing it, just explaining its function in the letter).

▲some_random 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest."

This is already an incredibly regressive thing to say as a polite request, but in case you weren't aware the "or else" was that his global terror organization would continue to murder innocent civilians.

▲throw310822 an hour ago | parent [-]

No, there is no "or else", you are plainly making it up. As I've said, this is the exhortation part of the letter and it's not listed among the reasons for the attacks. Regressive, certainly. Brought as a justification for terrorism, no.

▲ 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲stavros 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sure, but I'd hope any commenter here would be smart enough to not believe such a facile explanation.

▲YZF 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲throw310822 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You asked "who did the US bomb before 9/11" and you got the answer. Now you're arguing that they shouldn't have reacted even if the US bombed them before (calling it "an excuse")?

As for the peace process with Palestinians, it was always a sham. The US (as it's evident now to many) are entirely unable to apply any sort of pressure on their "ally". What they've done is just buying time for Israel to expand its colonisation under the temporary pretense of some ongoing "peace process".

▲YZF 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I did not get a serious answer. Really, 9/11 because the US bombed Iraq (that invaded Kuwait? and fired Scud missiles for no reason into Israeli population centers?). The peace process with the Palestinians was such a sham that Israel allowed the PLO leadership to return from exile, it trained and armed Palestinian police, and it gave Palestinians security and civil control over their cities, and it offered them a two state solution that they refused (yes, without Jerusalem and without the right of return, which they will never get anyways). Clearly a sham.

▲gazebo2 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>There is always an excuse

"excuse" is a funny way of wording it -- "motivation" or "explanation" might be more appropriate here. is the expectation that the US can and should be able to kill and destroy and the victims just turn the other cheek?

▲megous 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

West bank and Gaza were never under full Palestinian control since 1967 both were under brutal occupation or blockade + contant Israeli meddling into internal affairs.

▲YZF 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Were they under Palestinian control before 1967?

Area A in the west bank has generally been under full Palestinian control and not under blockade or meddling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_A

Gaza wasn't under occupation or blockade when Israel withdrew in 2005. Only after Hamas won the elections and after Gilad Shalit was abducted from Israel in 2006 into Gaza did Israel start imposing more restrictions. I know this is a recurring claim from anti-Israeli but the fact remains that Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and so there was no occupation in any meaningful sense of that word. Gaza also has a border with Egypt.

Here from an age were the BBC still had some decency: "Disengagement did remove one obstacle to peace - the settlers' presence on occupied Palestinian land in Gaza.

But the optimism of 2005, such as it was, has evaporated and Gaza today is completely outside the peace process.

That is a result of the rise to power of Hamas and the boycott of it by Israel and the international community.

But even in 2005, critics of disengagement said it was being used by the Israeli government as a substitute for a peace agreement with the Palestinians."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11002744

"After the settlements have been evacuated and knocked down, Israel will turn Gaza over to Palestinian control for the first time."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/22/israel1

The withdrawal was without agreement and unilateral but it was a full withdrawal.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-192849/ is from the UN which has bias but here are some nuggets: "Infighting between Palestinian families and between factions increased in the weeks leading up to the disengagement and after the IDF withdrawal on 12 September. More than 97 violent incidents involving families, militant factions and PA police forces have occurred between 12 September and 31 December. These incidents include gunfights, kidnappings, beatings, house burnings, threats and theft. Forty-seven Palestinians have been killed in the clashes and at least 298 were injured"

"Discussions were suspended following a Palestinian suicide bombing in Netanya (Israel) on 5 December"

"However, since 16 December, Erez Crossing has remained closed in response to Palestinian militants’ firing of rockets from the northern Gaza Strip into Israel."

"Following the IDF withdrawal on 12 September, Palestinian militants have fired at least 283 homemade rockets towards Israel from the Gaza Strip."

▲xdennis 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲paulryanrogers 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So are the Palestinians?