Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netenyahu: "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon" Source:http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-netanyahu-says-9-11-terror-attacks-good-for-israel-1.244044 I have a hard time understanding how the death of 3000 Americans could be beneficial for anyone. Was 9/11 beneficial for Israel? If yes, how?
What he meant by that comment is that he was assuming that Americans would turn against Muslims and that would somehow help Israel.There was an initial backlash but it eventually subsided.
I think he meant that it exposed the world and the United States public to the rabid anti-Western beliefs of many Muslims around the world but in particular those who openly express hatred for America and seek to do us harm. I think he was speaking not that the event was a net positive, but in the sense that one must always look to see what can be learned. In this case, the that positive would be that the US would now be aware of the real threat that Islamic terrorism and radical Muslims pose to the rest of the civilized world. And that instead of waiting 10 more years before attacking, where who knows what damage could have been caused, the US is now acutely aware who is trying to harm us and who is our enemy and can protect ourselves. I think he meant that the cult of celebrating death and murder that Israel sees in Palestine was on display for all the world to see. I know seeing how Palestinians, from kids to the elders, reacted was informative for me. I did not know that there were people who would celebrate the murder of 3000 innocent Americans, but I learned something new that day. I prefer how the kids in Australia were showing how they felt by the murder of innocents. I think it says a lot about the adults in those cultures and what they are instilling in their children. Thanks for all these posts so we can call never forget when Islamic terrorists attacked America.
Perhaps its a bit like Pearl Harbor. Had we not been bombed in Pearl Harbor, we might not have engaged in WWII. Had we not entered the war, we likely would not have wound up the world's sole super power. One could also frame as beneficial Egypt's 1967 stacking of troops on the Israeli border, denial of access to the canal to Israeli shipments and Syria, the PLO, Jordan, and Iraq going to war against them. Six days after the whole conflict started, Israel had a whole bunch more land. I think browntwn effectively labeled the upsides of 9-11. Just last night, Egypt's military stood by and permitted the Israeli embassy to be ransacked. That too may have the upside of saving the US over a billion dollars in foreign aid annually paid to Egypt(That money is the only thing that keeps that military from turning into an armed mafia that rapes and loots it's own people). Another upside could be another Egyptian hair brained scheme to attack Israel which, like 1967, would wind up with Israel being a bigger country. All good in the hood.
I don't get this dual policy of naming terrorist on their religion. When Anders Behring Breivik perpetrated Norway bombing early this year no one said that this was an act of chrisitan terrorism instead everyone was labelling it only terrorist act yet when a muslim does a terrorist act he will be called a islamic terrorist. This is all western propaganda against muslims. I believe terrorist don't have any religion. Not even a single religion tells you to kill a person than why a act of terrorism is believed to be motivated by religion. To me the worst act of terrorism was when US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan that was a barbaric act. I know they were in state of war but who gives you right to kill a civilian in a war. There are rules governing wars as well but no one raise that issue because we all know this act of barbarism will never be talked about
It is not just a casual hey that guy happens to be a Muslim. It is when the terrorists' religious beliefs are what motivate the terrorist act that it bears some mentioning. In the case if 9-11, it is clear to me that the perpetrators, however misguided in their beliefs they might be, did believe they were doing Allah's will. I think there are many Muslims who disagree with those beliefs and I certainly think they are a valuable part of the world's humanity. Nor am I saying all terrorists are Muslims, they are not. But we don't need to pretend to be blind idiots either.
I gotta avoid posting after Brown... Leaves me in me-too mode all too often. Nice post. He's right though, and despite the initial appearance of the Netanyahu statement seeming callous, unlike those celebrating in the streets in other quarters, he was not celebrating the graphic death of 3000 Americans nor the toll it took on our economy. He was, as stated by Brown, simply pointing out that the act of those radical Islamic SOBs opened the eyes of America and the world to the danger of ignoring jihadists. They deserve to be squashed like the useless bugs that they are, and because of their act 10 years ago here and similarly egregious actions taken against random innocents in European and Asian venues shortly thereafter... the vast bulk of the world sees this immutable truth. They also harmed those in Islam who truly believe they belong to a religion of peace. The guys that perpetrated 9/11 and the subsequent bombings from Spain to Bali harmed Islam more than anyone in history, as it now bears, rightfully or not, the taint of the actions of those that intentionally inflicted harm on many thousands of noncombatants in direct contradiction to the tenets of the religion. The travesties of justice performed hundreds of years ago in the inquisition still haunt the Christian religion. Now Islam will suffer a similar taint because an evil sub-sect chooses to wrap their political hatred in the cloak of actions taken to glorify Allah. If I were a Muslim I'd not waste time trying to shift blame or find excuses for the actions of such men. I'd seek to identify and destroy them like a cancerous growth before they did more harm to my people or others.
@Obamanation Americans and Pearl Harbor....you all felt so hard done by right? The fact is that America with her 6th fleet had begun an oil blockade to Japan in 1940.Oil is not produced in Japan,it has to import 100%.It would had died a slow industrial death.Japan felt it had no choice but to bomb the American navy at Pearl Harbor.It was an act of self defense.
Interesting perspective. So, the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 was in self defense of actions that would take place the next year? Something isn't right there.
I think we sold most of Japan their oil at that time anyway. I guess not selling it to them was the act of war.
Domo arigato tomodashi-e,I'm not very good on dates pertaining to American history.May I backdate a year or two?.Aishhitera Nippon!.... bonzai!.... bonzai!....bonzai! (soredewa mata browntwn san)
I understand your feelings are hurt man, let me put some balm over it.. Feeling better now? Okay... Why should we call an inhuman act of a lone savage 'christian terrorism'? You don't see a christian wrapping a bomb around his chest, shout "yalalalalalalala" [Or something very similar to that effect] and blow up in the middle of a market everyday.. In contrast, look at the Pakistan and Afghanistan, it's so common that it isn't even a news anymore there.. This aint a Western propaganda, its an act of keepers of Islam all around the world.. They kill people on the name of religion. If you are really hurt by anti Muslim sentiments, perhaps you should start being vocal against them instead of pointing finger on others. But I'm afraid you will be beheaded by your 'peace loving' Muslim fundamentalist brothers long before you can spell 'peace', so don't do that. Claiming that terrorists aint Muslims ain't gonna restore trust of people.. It's true that there are way more normal Muslims than the radicals who just want to live in peace, but those few radicals are making it hell for moderate Muslims, not western people. Now, Imperial Japan had it's fair share of civilian massacre in WWII, ask any Chinese and he will tell you. When one side is slaughtering civilians for breakfast, lunch and dinner, bombing a couple of cities were no big deal.. It ended the war instantly.. But perhaps you preferred if there were 4-6 millions more casualties.. Would have given you more kicks, no? And not to forget. it was the first and only time when an Atom bomb was used against a nation. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were chosen as targets not because they were packed with Japanese population but for their military and industrial significance..
A EMPIRE BUILT ON INVASION China 1945-46 Korea 1950-53 China 1950-53 Guatemala 1954 Indonesia 1958 Cuba 1959-60 Guatemala 1960 Belgian Congo 1964 Guatemala 1964 Dominican Republic 1965-66 Peru 1965 Laos 1964-73Vietnam 1961-73 Cambodia 1969-70 Guatemala 1967-69 Lebanon 1982-84 Grenada 1983-84 Libya 1986 El Salvador 1981-92 Nicaragua 1981-90 Libya 1986 Iran 1987-88 Libya 1989 Panama 1989-90 Iraq 1991- Kuwait 1991 Somalia 1992-94 Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina) Bosnia 1995 Iran 1998 (airliner) Sudan 1998 Afghanistan 1998 Yugoslavia 1999 Afghanistan 2001- Libya 2011
Hardly seems pertinent to the thread, but long as youve posted that... Either you need to look up the meaning of both "empire"and "invasion" or you're really bad at history there Jude. Btw... Given you're from the Philippines and middle-aged, that'd place your mom and dad in there in the early 1940s when US troops were there. If not them, then your grandparents, but most likely your mom and dad that got bailed out by a joint effort between US troops working with Aussies, Brits, and your own countrymen against the Japanese. How come that "invasion" by the US isn't listed. It's as much the truth as some of the others up there. I mean seriously... How daft is mentioning Kuwait and Iraq in 91 as being Empire building. Or Somalia. Or Croatia. Or Bosnia. Hell, our foreign policy has skeletons and that's no lie... But you lump the good with the bad and pretend our guys were there for fun. Some of those names are not much different from when our troops were helping your folks fight off Japan, so try to show a little integrity in the argument. It's entirely possible you wouldn't have been born but for one US "invasion". I'll assume you aren't a total ingrate and tell my mom & dads crew you said "thanks".
I find no argument with that sentiment though I haven't noticed anyone knowingly supporting terrorists here. One can question the validity of the USA's or anybodys accusations against OBL without supporting the terrorists. Though, reacting to the fear of them is supporting the terrorists but people do that unknowingly. God creates your reality from your own worst fears. Be not afraid as you will simply bring about your own demise (imho).
Count me as a terrorist supporter, I do support terrorist America (for the most parts, except for Iraq war)
@popotalk Kumusta po sila kaibigan? I have to state that I agree with Rob Jones.I was born in France and therefore we were "invaded" by the Americans twice.(1914-1943).If they hadn't of pulled an "Attila the Hun" trip we would have been giving the nazi salute.America is one of the few nations that is willing to spill it's blood for others.Your "invasion" list was quite selective........that appears to be a strong trait here on P&R. Mag-usap ulit tayo sa lalong madaling panahon.Hangang sa muli,mag-ingat ka kaibigan.
If you only support America in it's non-terrorist activities, then you are not a terrorist supporter. -- How interesting, all these posts and text, none of it answered the question, keep trolling.