Let's play, "Cite the attack"

[L.K.Eder]

Edward Pimental - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's more like it but I didn't need wiki for such an obvious one.

Baader-Meinhof or the red army faction started out after the demos against the Shah of Iran's visit to Germany. Guess who pulled the Shah's strings.

Baader was born in Munich but studied with al-Fatah in Jordan.
Al-Fatah is a Palestinian group.

The RAF was protesting US imperialism.

I can't say I have any support for what they did and they would have just done it against someone else but the US did put itself in the wrong place as usual.
However, whist it's pretty clear they were misguided idiots, they did attack what they saw as US imperialism or sticking the US's nose into some bugger else's politics.

that attack was done by the 3rd generation of the raf, the initial motivation of the original group is no longer valid.


and even they realized later that that attack was bad for their goals.

 

[The Rabbi]

Come on people. Terrorist attacks against the united states, it's military or it's interests.
Name one that wasn't the result of the US sticking it's fat nose where it wasn't wanted ... if you can.

I think you're really going to have problems here.

None of them was the result of U.S. policies. All of them were the results of terrorist actions. This looks like trolling.

 

[Swagger]

Come on people. Terrorist attacks against the united states, it's military or it's interests.
Name one that wasn't the result of the US sticking it's fat nose where it wasn't wanted ... if you can.

I think you're really going to have problems here.

None of them was the result of U.S. policies. All of them were the results of terrorist actions. This looks like trolling.

You don't say...

 

[The Rabbi]

Come on people. Terrorist attacks against the united states, it's military or it's interests.
Name one that wasn't the result of the US sticking it's fat nose where it wasn't wanted ... if you can.

I think you're really going to have problems here.

None of them was the result of U.S. policies. All of them were the results of terrorist actions. This looks like trolling.

You don't say...

Of course it is.
You might as well say every attack by the US was caused by French agricultural policy. Or growing seasons in Zambia.
Unless of course you want to blindly take the side of Muslim terrorists and excuse their murderous behavior.

 

[Intense]

Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans

The following timeline lists terrorist attacks against the United States and Americans living either in the U.S. or abroad.

1920
Sept. 16, New York City: TNT bomb planted in unattended horse-drawn wagon exploded on Wall Street opposite House of Morgan, killing 35 people and injuring hundreds more. Bolshevist or anarchist terrorists believed responsible, but crime never solved.

1975
Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.

1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.


Read more: Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans — Infoplease.com Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans — Infoplease.com

What came first, the Chicken or the Egg? Where here, was Terrorist Aggression not a Factor? When you can't play by the rules, blow up what you can and blame the Victim.

 

[Intense]

What is your excuse for Cain slaying Abel? Unfair favoritism?

 

[Swagger]

None of them was the result of U.S. policies. All of them were the results of terrorist actions. This looks like trolling.

You don't say...

Of course it is.
You might as well say every attack by the US was caused by French agricultural policy. Or growing seasons in Zambia.
Unless of course you want to blindly take the side of Muslim terrorists and excuse their murderous behavior.

Agreed, which is exactly what the author of the OP has done.

 

[Toro]

 

[Foxfyre]

The rules:

You have to give an example of an attack on the US, it's military or US interests that wasn't the result of US intervention in some area and I have to prove it was caused by US interference.

The American civil war doesn't count as it was American on American.

I'll accept Pearl harbour as a given.

Who would like to go first?

This is an interesting topic and one I think students of history should properly explore. The short answer of course is that nobody here will be able to cite an attack on America or Americans that was unprovoked either by our direct intervention, support for, or interference with other nations.

WWII does become problematic for some on the left if you get down to FDR's role. FDR is held up as the great benefactor who finally understood the government's duty to care for the poor and oppressed and to rescue the people from the misfortunes they incurred.

FDR's New Deal, however, had run out of steam as the decade closed, and the depression slogged on. Some economists were beginning to suggest that the New Deal itself had deepened and prolonged the Depression. FDR needed a new schtick if he hoped for an unprecedented third term and WWII provided a way to do that. FDR hated Hitler and the Germans and was already funneling support to England. And he hated the Japanese and was using the full power of the USA to impose sanctions and even blockades to prevent further Japanese industrial expansion.

It has long been speculated whether FDR wanted to preserve the illusion that he intended to keep America out of war, while the truth was he longed to get us into it. And the blockades and sanctions were intentional provocation to accomplish just that as the Japanese would have no choice but to retaliate. So is that the truth? Unless any of us are privy to what was in FDR's deepest thoughts and intentions, we cannot know. But his policies are precisely what dragged us into the war for better or worse.

 

[Swagger]

What about the continual flow of illegal immigrants who flow across America's southern border, who, for the most part, have absolutely no interest in intergrating into American society, but are just there to sponge off of her resources and/or engage in illegal activities?

I'd consider that an 'attack' on the U.S. Especially when you take into account the fact that American lives have been lost in an official capacity attempting to stem/halt the flow of illegal immigrants.

And don't try and sell me the usual 'but the land belonged to the Mexicans', because Mexico either sold the land its countrymen and women are swamping, or lost it through warfare.

 

[Foxfyre]

What about the continual flow of illegal immigrants who flow across America's southern border, who, for the most part, have absolutely no interest in intergrating into American society, but are just there to sponge off of her resources and/or engage in illegal activities?

I'd consider that an 'attack' on the U.S. Especially when you take into account the fact that American lives have been lost in an official capacity attempting to stem/halt the flow of illegal immigrants.

And don't try and sell me the usual 'but the land belonged to the Mexicans', because Mexico either sold the land its countrymen and women are swamping, or lost it through warfare.

Illegal immigration is a problem for us, absolutely, but as yet has not provoked us to attack Mexico or Mexico to attack us. Recently anyway.

I should add to my original post in this thread, that my observations that we have not been drawn into war in which we can point to no provocation whatsoever by the USA. But this should not be construed to mean that there was no justification for our involvement. For instance, should we have allowed Hitler's Germany to overrun Great Britain and incorporate it into Hitler's conquests? And we also have to look at the long term consequences of all those wars.

Had we not gotten into WWII, would there be a Great Britain as we know it today? It is safe to assume that the Axis would eventually have beaten down an unassisted Great Britain. Would an undefeated Hitler have succeeded in annihilating all the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and other 'undesirables' in captured countries? It is a reasonable assumption that he would.

The hostile, aggressively imperialistic Japan and Germany might have eventually turned on and destroyed each other, but they would have butchered millions more people in the process. The results of WWII resulted in a peaceful, nonimperalistic, much more democratic Germany and Japan who are now mostly friendly and at least no military threat to the USA or its interests. "Intervention" in the form of the arms race brought the USSR to its knees and freed many millions more people.

There is so much to say for minding our own business and not being concerned about what anybody else does and not interfering with what they do. We can point to much death and destruction by nations who do not adopt that attitude. And we can point to much good that has been accomplished because of interference or involvement of our nation and others.

It is not a simple cut and dried issue.

 

[Indofred]

Come on people. Terrorist attacks against the united states, it's military or it's interests.
Name one that wasn't the result of the US sticking it's fat nose where it wasn't wanted ... if you can.

I think you're really going to have problems here.

None of them was the result of U.S. policies. All of them were the results of terrorist actions. This looks like trolling.

Ner.
It looks like education.
The thing is, if there have been any attacks on the US that weren't a result of US interference, they're aren't many.

No one in the US seems to realise this so a thread of this nature makes posters hunt for an example in order to beat me with my own stick.

Because they have so much trouble trying to find one, hopefully they'll realise US policy is normally the cause of someone wanting to attack US interests.

Look at the pathetic attempts do dig out examples so far and ask if I'm right.

 

[Indofred]

Cyber attacks on U.S. military computer systems - that presented a genuine threat to the wellbeing of U.S. military personnel - by hackers all over the world, but specifically China.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/w...attacks-against-iran.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

China is in bed with Iran as far as oil goes.
News | Mail Online



Read more: Russia and China warn America against Iran nuclear strike as tensions rise | Mail Online

US think tank plans military build-up against China



'America's first Pacific president' - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com



Taiwan.

China warns U.S. over $5.8B Taiwan arms deal - CBS News

China warns U.S. over $5.8B Taiwan arms deal
BEIJING - China's military exchanges with the U.S. will suffer after Washington announced a $5.85 billion arms package for Taiwan, the Defense Ministry said Wednesday, confirming expectations that Beijing would retaliate over the sale.

High-level exchanges, joint drills, and other large-scale activities will be affected "in light of the serious damage" resulting from the sale, ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng said at a news conference open to Chinese reporters only.

Easy as drinking a glass of water. (Iranian expression for those who have no idea)

Firstly, you need to read the articles you cite. China hasn't officially sided with Iran, so that blows your "China is in bed with Iran" claim clean out of the water. All the Mail article you've linked to states is that Russia and China have warned the U.S. against military action against Iran. Along the lines of telling someone that the water they're about to jump into is deeper than they think. Neither has made any direct threat against America if she decides to take military action against Iran.

Secondly, the Western Seaboard of America lies along the Pacific Rim. So they do indeed have a vested interest in developments in the Pacific. Indeed, Imperial Japan recognised America's interest/influence in the Pacific, which is why they chose to attack an outpost they believed could threaten their advancing interests in the Pacific.

Thirdly, how do commercial contracts between America and Taiwan (two sovereign nations) translate as "intervention" on behalf of the U.S.? That's nonsense. Otherwise contractual mineral agreements between Australia and Japan - which exist - would be translated as "intervention."

I've give you 10 out of 10 for effort.
Sadly, crap all out of 10 for everything else.

China hasn't officially sided with Iran

China is heavily into Iranian oil. That sort of cash, coupled with the need for oil is enough.
You have to get real.

the Western Seaboard of America lies along the Pacific Rim

True enough.
That's the first 12 nautical miles sorted out. Is Australia within that range or is the new American military base in Darwin just in case the Chinese attack by the long route?

how do commercial contracts between America and Taiwan (two sovereign nations) translate as "intervention" on behalf of the U.S.?

Are you serious?
Taiwan is claimed (wrongly, in my opinion) by China.
US Military bases in that country put America in direct conflict with China.

 

[L.K.Eder]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/w...attacks-against-iran.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

China is in bed with Iran as far as oil goes.
News | Mail Online



Read more: Russia and China warn America against Iran nuclear strike as tensions rise | Mail Online

US think tank plans military build-up against China



'America's first Pacific president' - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com



Taiwan.

China warns U.S. over $5.8B Taiwan arms deal - CBS News



Easy as drinking a glass of water. (Iranian expression for those who have no idea)

Firstly, you need to read the articles you cite. China hasn't officially sided with Iran, so that blows your "China is in bed with Iran" claim clean out of the water. All the Mail article you've linked to states is that Russia and China have warned the U.S. against military action against Iran. Along the lines of telling someone that the water they're about to jump into is deeper than they think. Neither has made any direct threat against America if she decides to take military action against Iran.

Secondly, the Western Seaboard of America lies along the Pacific Rim. So they do indeed have a vested interest in developments in the Pacific. Indeed, Imperial Japan recognised America's interest/influence in the Pacific, which is why they chose to attack an outpost they believed could threaten their advancing interests in the Pacific.

Thirdly, how do commercial contracts between America and Taiwan (two sovereign nations) translate as "intervention" on behalf of the U.S.? That's nonsense. Otherwise contractual mineral agreements between Australia and Japan - which exist - would be translated as "intervention."

I've give you 10 out of 10 for effort.
Sadly, crap all out of 10 for everything else.


China is heavily into Iranian oil. That sort of cash, coupled with the need for oil is enough.
You have to get real.

the Western Seaboard of America lies along the Pacific Rim

True enough.
That's the first 12 nautical miles sorted out. Is Australia within that range or is the new American military base in Darwin just in case the Chinese attack by the long route?

how do commercial contracts between America and Taiwan (two sovereign nations) translate as "intervention" on behalf of the U.S.?

Are you serious?
Taiwan is claimed (wrongly, in my opinion) by China.
US Military bases in that country put America in direct conflict with China.

with your callous connect the dots logic you bury the legitimate attacks.

 

[Trajan]

The rules:

You have to give an example of an attack on the US, it's military or US interests that wasn't the result of US intervention in some area and I have to prove it was caused by US interference.

The American civil war doesn't count as it was American on American.

I'll accept Pearl harbour as a given.

Who would like to go first?

I don't know if you can consider Pearl Harbor as a "given", after the things Roosevelt was doing to deliberately piss off the Japanese.

America was concerned about the Japanese but it's way too complex to mess with.
I'm more interested in "Terrorist" attacks such as the embassy I mentioned.

but you didn't say that, so I will chime in too and ask why you accept pearl harbor as a given.

 

[jwoodie]

As the world's Superpower since WW2, the U.S. is an easy target to blame for all the world's ills. BFD.

 

[The Rabbi]

Using that "logic" you could make any event dependent on any other event.
So 9/11 didnt happen because of American interference in foreign affairs. It actually happened because of Saudi Arabia. If they hadn't kicked bin Laden out for subversion he would never have gone to Afghanistan etc etc.
Or it was because of the Russians. If the Soviet Union hadnt invaded Afghanistan there would be no Mujahideen, the precursors of the Taliban.
Or
or
Or.

 

[Swagger]

Indofred,

I understand that you're frustrated at my tearing your 'evidence' to shreads, but don't it personally, eh.

China may well be completely reliant on Iranian oil, but that wasn't what you posited. You claimed, with a conspicuously contradictory source, the Daily Mail, that China has "sided with Iran." Your source said nothing of the sort, otherwise you'd have returned with irrefutable evidence from your source that says it had. What your source reported was that Russia and China have simply warned against the possible consequences war with Iran would entail. None of those consequences implied in the slightest that Russia and China would retaliate on Iran's behalf.

Re. the pacific rim, Australia and those "12 miles" you speak of. I've got no Idea what you're drivelling on about, I'm afraid.

Taiwan may be "claimed" by China, but it's still recognised by the UN as a sovereign nation, seperate from the People's Republic of China (they even represented themselves in the London Olympics). China has no business whatsoever in the dealings between two sovereign nations (U.S. & Taiwan). And Taiwan retain their sovereignty voluntarily. They want nothing to do with China. So, on account of those facts I've listed, how does a contract between the U.S. and Taiwan interfere with Chinese interests?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Indofred,

I understand that you're frustrated at my tearing your 'evidence' to shreads, but don't it personally, eh.

China may well be completely reliant on Iranian oil, but that wasn't what you posited. You claimed, with a conspicuously contradictory source, the Daily Mail, that China has "sided with Iran." Your source said nothing of the sort, otherwise you'd have returned with irrefutable evidence from your source that says it had. What your source reported was that Russia and China have simply warned against the possible consequences war with Iran would entail. None of those consequences implied in the slightest that Russia and China would retaliate on Iran's behalf.

Re. the pacific rim, Australia and those "12 miles" you speak of. I've got no Idea what you're drivelling on about, I'm afraid.

Taiwan may be "claimed" by China, but it's still recognised by the UN as a sovereign nation, seperate from the People's Republic of China (they even represented themselves in the London Olympics). China has no business whatsoever in the dealings between two sovereign nations (U.S. & Taiwan). And Taiwan retain their sovereignty voluntarily. They want nothing to do with China. So, on account of those facts I've listed, how does a contract between the U.S. and Taiwan interfere with Chinese interests?

i can tell that swagger is agitated.

and swagger uses the UN to support his argument. hahaha

 

[Indofred]

Long C+P list

1920
Sept. 16, New York City: TNT bomb planted in unattended horse-drawn wagon exploded on Wall Street opposite House of Morgan, killing 35 people and injuring hundreds more. Bolshevist or anarchist terrorists believed responsible, but crime never solved.

Never solved so no way to be sure but you could check out US intervention in the Russian revolution for a possible cause.

1975
Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.

A country, under American military rule, had a violent independence group.
Shock, horror.

1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

Get real.
The US removed the Iranian government in favour of their puppet shah.
That allowed the more extreme element in Iran to gain power and they just wanted to piss the US off.

1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

Operation Blue Bat in 1958.
You can't stick your nose into another country's politics and not expect problems.
The US sided with one side in a civil war. What do you expect?

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

USS Bowen - Enough said.
Once again, the US fired first and moaned last because someone hit back.

Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

Again - They attacked US troops operating in a foreign country because US troops were in a foreign country.

Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

The motivation of the bombing was punishment against Kuwait, America and France for their military aid to Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war.
Did you realise the US armed Saddam?

1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

Ditto my above

1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.

Islamic Jihad claimed this one. IJ wanted the departure of all Americans from Lebanon.
The US attacked Lebanese in Lebanon, perhaps you can explain why it was bad when they attacked Americans in a foreign country.

June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.

Ditto my above

Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.

Just happened to be an American on board so not really an attack on the US.

Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

As above

1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.

Poor old 840. Two attacks on that one.
The latter one, killing the Americans was the Arab Revolutionary Cells because of "American imperialism".
Bloody silly idea but their reason was a fight against American intervention.

April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

2 at once.

Gaddafi was well out of order but it all started because of oil.
Gaddafi, post revolution, wanted cash for oil. The US oil companies gave him the finger so he nationalised the lot.
Libya became rich, had social welfare and the highest standard of living in the whole middle east. Libya was debt free.
However, the conflict between the US and Libya was bad news and Gaddafi, being mad as a spoon, ordered the German bombing
Libyan agents, in retaliation for a U.S. bombing raid on Tripoli that President Ronald Reagan ordered, set bombs that brought down the Pan Am flight, killing 270 people.
All bloody stupid but all down to the US wanting cheaper oil than it got.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

A strike against US involvement in the middle east - especially Israel

What came first, the Chicken or the Egg? Where here, was Terrorist Aggression not a Factor? When you can't play by the rules, blow up what you can and blame the Victim.

If the victim is the school bully?

Any hard ones?