Это Руди Джулиани

[birdwatcher]

"That's really an extraordinary statement," said Rudy Giuliani. "That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."

Он слышит в первый раз!!! Ну, ничего. Все, что мы сейчас знаем, мы когда-то услышали в первый раз.

Comments

[averros.livejournal.com]

Doesn't make terrorist attacks on "our" citizens justifiable.

No attacks on other country's citizens are justifiable. But it helps to understand why a lot of people are seriously pissed off at US (hint: because they were not the first to attack).

They're protecting American interests, at the invitation of the Saudis. What the hell is wrong with that?

Wrong? The very concept of "American interests" is wrong. Most American citizens are getting taxed (which involves a threat of grave bodily harm to those who disagree) to support some dictators in Middle East - how exactly is that in their interests?

Some americans definitely benefit from the troops being here. The leading political houses surely do, as do military contractors and oil companies. In fact, they do not even hide much - check, for example, dealings of the Carlyle Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group), a neat fund which managed assets (and sometimes employed) varouos assholes including Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Sauds, Arafat, Mitterand, John Major, etc, etc - including bin Laden's family. Their area of expertise (surprise) is defense.

The whole story of American presense in Middle East is nothing more than a way to convert political power into personal fortunes of politicans on all sides of the conflict.

Saudi Arabia's government is not what I'd call very nice, but the alternatives on hand there are clearly much worse yet.

Worse to whom? US is certainly not threatened by any Middle-Eastern country. No matter which assholes rule there, they will keep selling oil to the highest bidders.

The mistake here is that you seriously think that if US declared something different it'd change their justifications of targeting civilians.

I do not think anything of that sort because US is democracy as a matter of fact. Unfortunately. Because it was a republic once. (And if the history teaches us anything is that democracy is an intermediate step from a republic to a tyrrany).

What I am doing is describing mindset of people who rationally, based on facts they see, choose US as the enemy.

Of course they are aware of the fact that blowing up US civilians is going to cause a stir - and they both know that their domestic audience will be happy to see some of the enemies blown, while US sheeple will get themselves scared and irrational and it will destabilize and polarize society in US. 9/11 was a brilliant piece of psych ops - it did little actual damage to US economy or population, but caused US to spend thousand times more on paranoid pseudo-security, got a lot of Americans killed and maimed in a totally unnecessary conflict, and got even more Arabs pissed off (thus increasing funding to Al Quaeda).

Of course, the terrorist scum deserves to get it good and hard - but what the whacking civilians at random with bombs does is actually plays into the terrorists' hands. By providing very plausible evidence to their target audience that there is a real enemy. These poor souls do not have a clue about the Ideals of Democracy in All World - they see falling bombs, they see the rule of local assholes being propped up, - what the heck are they supposed to believe? "We're here to help you?"

This trick is as old as the humanity (manufacture an enemy, and then call on the scared populace to make sacrifices). Both sides in the conflict use this trick extensively. So why a sane person would want to help the assholes on any side?