It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


For those who support the post 9/11 wars.

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:44 PM
Riddle me this fictitious scenario:

A group of extremist Canadians known as "al-cold'eh" believes (rightly or wrongly) that China is pillaging their potash resources and helping the Canadian government to oppress its people. It is time for words no more!

They meet up somewhere in the southwestern United States to plan and train for the only action they deem appropriate... terrorism. It so happens that the known financier of "al-cold'eh", Sachs McMorgan is believed to be in and around the Houston area. (Yes, of THAT McMorgan family, but he is a black sheep and, uh... never mind them.)

Eventually, the tragic event unfolds. A terrorist strike that brings down the Shanghai Tower, killing thousands of innocent civilians in the Pudong district.

The Chinese government demands that Texas' ruling group, the rebublocrats, hand over Sachs McMorgan immediately! The rebulocrats respond that if they are given evidence that McMorgan was involved in the tragic events of Shanghai, they would help track him down... this, of course, is unacceptable!

Almost immediately, and with the support of the international community, China launches a full-out invasion of Texas. Justice must be brought to Sachs McMorgan!

Fast forward a few years into the conflict...

Addendum: You misread, China was never concerned with Sachs McMorgan, the people of Texas are oppressed by the socio-fascist republocrats, and in order to bring freedom and democracy to Texas, this group must be eradicated. (Plus, they are suspected of harboring suspected members of suspected "al-cold'eh", or so it is suspected.)


If you are a Texan, do you:

a) embrace the liberators, a few dead or maimed friends and family is the price to pay for freedom.

b) become an insurgent, as you do not want a foreign power dictating your policy.

*(b) may lead to future terrorist strikes against China, especially by the younger generation who will grow up with possible negative feelings toward China.

the Billmeister

China has subsequently "liberated" Argentina from the evil Kirchner, they had hard fast intel that he had weapons hidden somewhere north, south, east or west of the middle, and this was an imminent threat to the Cayman Islands. (but that is for another thread)

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by Billmeister

Thats cute, and I totaly dig your veiw point on this Bill. The large silent majority would probably agree with you, but the banner waving sons of satan that rabble rouse against the Taliban right now will want to lynch you for creating such a good example of why they are wrong!

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by Billmeister

I have found myself making up situations with the tables turned to help people understand, many unfortunately just will never understand. Good post.

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:03 PM
Hi Bill.

While I find the parallel amusing, I think my only criticism would be to say that with such an argument is all too easy in hindsight. The push on Afghanistan was an event which was heavily influenced (and largely endorsed) by public opinion, the media, businesses and politicians.

Had the scouring of Tora Bora unearthed Bin Laden and his cohorts, we might not be having this conversation. Unfortunately, this did not come to pass and a quagmire ensued (we could debate as to whether it would have anyway, but frankly the vision of an already unstable Afghanistan as a unified entity such as Texas is a bit far-fetched).

I would like to point out that you correctly mention two separate scenarios and "excuses" if you will. That

(a) We're here for Usama
(b) We're here in the name of liberation.

While I agree there is a discrepancy, and quite a lot of spin. I don't find them mutually exclusive. I.E If we consider them as separate entities then there may be some moral groundwork for reasoned opinion on both sides.

I am often mocked by my friends for my somewhat pro-war stance (principally with regards to Iraq). When I say somewhat, I mean to say that there is a fight which needs to be fought, and whether we want it to or not, it will happen -- it already IS happening. An example:

As a British citizen I am awestruck by the passive apathy in our country. Sharia courts now exist in England are legally binding:

You may ask what on earth that has to do with Afghanistan, and that is where we differ. To me, it has everything to do with it. My anti-war buddies like to talk about western imperialism being the culprit for blowback (as you mentioned). To me, it is far less important than oppression and the repression of women in these countries (we'll go with Afghanistan as an example here).

For instance: Afghanistan is a country at war, and has been for decades. Young men flock to the north and fight, many of whom die. Women are left at home to single-handedly raise their kids. The problem here is that Sharia forbids women to work (personified in this case by the Taliban). If the women can't work, who is going to feed the children when they are widows?

In my mind there is a fight that needs to be fought. Yes, western imperialism is a damning force, but there are many reasons why an act of "liberation" are warranted (the example of the repression of women is just one of many). You may not agree, but there are reasonable grounds to support a war, even if it isnt for the cheesy reasons advertised.



edit on 18-2-2011 by Oscitate because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by Oscitate

Thank you for the very relevant and thoughtful response.

Of course, my little anecdote went no where near any of the subtleties involved in the whole situation. The main point that I was trying to emphasize, is that the "culprits" of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, yet the country that was invaded was thousands of miles away.

I often have this exact discussion with my father. Yes, it is a noble idea to spread freedom and liberty, however, there are many other places and countries in the world that would benefit from some sort of "intervention" as it were. I am perhaps too cynical, but I sense their was an alterior motive for entering Afghanistan.

Once again, I thank you for the food for thought, and reiterate that my fictitious story line lacks any and all intricacies of real world diplomacy and ideological differences.


the Billmeister

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:44 PM
reply to post by Oscitate

Basically all countries or the great majority of countries in Africa and Asia are in worse situations. In Africa, life is death, in Asia, life is slavery to support the growing 'United States Globalization Movement', Look at China, Mongolia, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the countries in Africa. From your 'liberaton' point of view, it means the U.S and its allies are supposed to heal and save half the globe, maybe more than that. So, why don't we hear about Africa? Why no one gives a damn about the China situation? There's no liberation, no civil rights involved here. They are consequences of the United Staters way of Life with big business that will hire women, therefore, other local businesses will HAVE TO do the same or they'll run out of business. I think your whole 'war' excuse could be replaced by a few words: oil, money and power. The liberation speech is like the American Dream, you have to be sleeping to believe it.

new topics

top topics

log in