CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The terrorists won on 9/11!
The terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 were designed to spread fear, harm the economy, weaken our freedom, and drive us apart. Although we did come together as a nation after 9/11 this was short lived. Now we live in fear of another attack, we lost some freedoms we once had and our economy is on the verge of collapse. It was Ben franklin who once said "Those who are willing to give up a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither and lose both! this country is divided possibly more than it ever has been and I think you can draw a direct line to 9/11!
No offense but i did present an argument,and it was greater than the 50 character limit, and if you are going to criticise me for tjhat length of argument then you have a lot more epople to criticise as these short argument are common on this site. I answered the debate, thats all thats really required on a for/against debate.
Now my piont is pretty obvious, the radical elements of Isalm were emboldened by the US response to 9/11, the "war of terror" has created more mcuh more terrorism than before 9/11 occured, this means that the radical elements have won, as the muslim world has become a healthy breeding ground for them, and rightly so, muslims everywhere are justifiably agrieved at the agressive impreialistic actions of the US, and what they perceive (rightly i believe) as an attack on all of them colleectively, and their way of life. Didn't you know if you don't have a McDonalds on your street corner you're not a civilised human being.
Thank you! I am sorry I have been debating for a long time and I cannot stand the short responses. The bject of debate is to [persuade the other side. I thank you for your further explanation as it is well thought out and in my opinion correct!
You misunderstand the piont, Islam doesn't even enter into the minds of those high up who made the decision to go to war, Islam was merely a tool used to separate us as people from one another i.e. those guys are bad cause there not like us, therefore its ok is bomb them, occupy them, and take their resources, take their freedom, and geerally treat them like absolute dirt.
US intervention in the middle east since the Truman administration has always been designed to hurt the people of the middle and favour those intervening, since then the US has used its power in the region to exert unparaleled to control over the greatest material asset in human history. Having this monopoly over a resource that is so far from your own country has meant that you have had to systematically prevent real democracy from ever taking hold in the region, as if it did you would no doubt be kiced out immediately, this has meant that your government has instigated coup's, propped up brutal dictators and regimes, lended massive support to those political leaders they knew they could control, and whenever necessary invaded to teach those primitive arabs a lesson for trying to escape US hegemony, and if this did happen (i.e. Iran) they have been internationally isolated, condemned, sanctions, etc. etc., and very lucky not ot be inavded also.
All this has been to the detriment of the people of the middle east, US actiosn in the region have been overwhelmingly negative to an unbeleiable degree, so if i was a middle eastern person i would rightly perceive US involvement in the region as an attack on me, my way of life, my security, my peoples right to govern themselves without interference etc.,..... etc.
Again you misunderstand, the piont is if we in the west were predominantly muslim, and the people of the middle east were predominantly Christian, i would perceive it to be attack on all Christian's as the majority of them would be situated in the middle east, and the ones that aren't should still be rightly agrieved at the way their kinsmen have been treated by foreign power, even if they converted to Islam by choice.
US involvement in the middle east has never been about safety of it's own (or anyone else's) citizens, it has never been about spreading democracy, or/and it is not about religionor the danger that poses. They are merely the tools used to influence the minds of the masses, keep the real truth hidden, and in gerneral separate us from oneanother.
N.B.What it has been about is unrivaled control of the greatest material asset in human history, and thus ensuring an unrivaled position of power and influence in the world, you know this true.
Again you misunderstand, the piont is if we in the west were predominantly muslim, and the people of the middle east were predominantly Christian, i would perceive it to be attack on all Christian's as the majority of them would be situated in the middle east, and the ones that aren't should still be rightly agrieved at the way their kinsmen have been treated by foreign power, even if they converted to Islam by choice.
Then it is an inaccurate perception. This is akin to saying the Vietnam war was an attack on all Asian peoples. It ignores the fact that Asian people fought both with and against American forces, just as Muslims have fought both with and against American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To call this an attack on Islam (as Al Qaeda and the Taliban have done) is merely a tool of propaganda used by sectarian extremists. They know that most Muslims do not agree with their politics or their tactics, but if they can convince people they they are fighting for the existence of their very religion it becomes an effective recruitment tool.
Not to say there weren't false perceptions used as a recruitment tool by the United States. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were never about fighting for American Freedom, in fact the USA Patriot act curbed some of the freedoms we were supposedly fighting for. No, the war in Afghanistan was about ending a threat to American security, and the war in Iraq was based on false precepts. If Bush had simply said that we were going into Iraq to end Saddam's dictatorship, that would have been a different story.
"This is akin to saying the Vietnam war was an attack on all Asian peoples. "
I was referring to the history of US involvement in the ME as it was that which caused 9/11 in the first place, asia hasn't beem dominated in the same way as the ME by america so you can't really say the two are equivalent.
"It ignores the fact that Asian people fought both with and against American forces"
So, that doesn't mean it isn't right to perceive the agressive actions of a foreign power in a certain part of the world as an attack on those people as a collective unit. Im not saying the US has targeted them cause they muslim, the colour, race, nationality, religion really don't matter.
"To call this an attack on Islam (as Al Qaeda and the Taliban have done"
I said they are right to perceive it as an attack on them, mainly because you have been attacking them for nealy a century in propping up brtual regimes, preventing democracy, instigating coups, assassinations, and interventions.
"They know that most Muslims do not agree with their politics or their tactics, but if they can convince people they they are fighting for the existence of their very religion it becomes an effective recruitment tool."
I agree that why the US response to 9/11 played right into their hands, my original point, not that it didn't play right into the hands of people that control your government, i view the two in the same digusting light.
"No, the war in Afghanistan was about ending a threat to American security,and the war in Iraq was based on false precepts."
Again you attach yourself to the most comforting lie you can, you may think it was about ending a threat to security but the people who made these decisions know that had nothing to do with it, they made the cold calculations and Iraq and Afghanistan were the lowest hanging fruit, thats all it was you beleive it was security till the day you die but i know theres that niggling doubt inside you coing from the locial part of your brain telling you that in this case truth should triumph over allegiance.
Were animals, we fight over resources, the US has the might, thus it views itself as being right, you can dress this up anyway you want but you know objectively what the real reasons for inavding Iraq and Afghanistan were.
"If Bush had simply said that we were going into Iraq to end Saddam's dictatorship, that would have been a different story"
"This is akin to saying the Vietnam war was an attack on all Asian peoples. "
I was referring to the history of US involvement in the ME as it was that which caused 9/11 in the first place, asia hasn't beem dominated in the same way as the ME by america so you can't really say the two are equivalent.
"It ignores the fact that Asian people fought both with and against American forces"
So, that doesn't mean it isn't right to perceive the agressive actions of a foreign power in a certain part of the world as an attack on those people as a collective unit. Im not saying the US has targeted them cause they muslim, the colour, race, nationality, religion really don't matter.
"To call this an attack on Islam (as Al Qaeda and the Taliban have done"
I said they are right to perceive it as an attack on them, mainly because you have been attacking them for nealy a century in propping up brtual regimes, preventing democracy, instigating coups, assassinations, and interventions.
"They know that most Muslims do not agree with their politics or their tactics, but if they can convince people they they are fighting for the existence of their very religion it becomes an effective recruitment tool."
I agree that why the US response to 9/11 played right into their hands, my original point, not that it didn't play right into the hands of people that control your government, i view the two in the same digusting light.
"No, the war in Afghanistan was about ending a threat to American security,and the war in Iraq was based on false precepts."
Again you attach yourself to the most comforting lie you can, you may think it was about ending a threat to security but the people who made these decisions know that had nothing to do with it, they made the cold calculations and Iraq and Afghanistan were the lowest hanging fruit, thats all it was you beleive it was security till the day you die but i know theres that niggling doubt inside you coing from the locial part of your brain telling you that in this case truth should triumph over allegiance.
Were animals, we fight over resources, the US has the might, thus it views itself as being right. Our ego's thrive on power and control, you can dress this up anyway you want but you know objectively what the real reasons for inavding Iraq and Afghanistan were.
"If Bush had simply said that we were going into Iraq to end Saddam's dictatorship, that would have been a different story"
Ya totally, despite the fact that you put him there in the first place, armed him when he gassing Kurds and Iranians, then you kept him in power after gulf one after the people rebelled cause you were afraid of the destabilsing effect the toppling of his regime would have on the country would, and thus its oil producing capacity, plus you thought your naughty puppet dictator had learned his lesson so you gave him another chance, he had not, so you imposed the harshest sanctions ever imposed against another country (which were widely comdemned by the majority of the world and led to many resignations in the UN) which caused the deaths of 1 miilion people, of which 500,000 were children.
Ya i mean of course you had the right to invade that country, if you perceive someone as a threat, or if you simply want what they have and there not willing to give it to you (like in nearly all american interventions), even though you ravaged the country for 15 yrs casuing untold deaths and suffering, desotroying its once great infrastructure (healthcare and enducation), destroying its environment, dropping bombs that will leave lasting scars long after you are gone both on the people and the environment (e.g. depleted unranium)
But of course you have the right to go back in there and cause the deaths of 1.2 million more Iraqis is you think that someone id a threat, i mean of course, how come ive been so blind all this time.
Just to highlight how fucked up and twisted your small minded nationalistic beleifs are try out this thought experiement, if Iran perceives the US as a threat, which it most certainly fucking is to Iran and all its people, does it have the right to invade the US?
Your response will be: Thats completely different, Iran is an extremist state capable of horrible things. America is the only country capable of defending the world (attacking the world should be inserted here for this to be accurate) , we are the only moral coutnry in the world, therefore we are the only the ones capable of being moral arbitors, we spread democracy(which is a euphemism for steal resources and enslave), and if the natives don't like it we slaughter them.
My answer will be: Iran hasn't attacked another country in 300 yrs whereas american has been routinely attack countries over the last century when it couldn't get its governments to bend to its mighty soft power, you clocked up quite a death toll as well just from military action, let alone all those unpeople that only show up in statisitcs of countries that have starved, or died from health complications etc. etc.
"This is akin to saying the Vietnam war was an attack on all Asian peoples"
Heres a fun fact i bet you didn't know about Vietnam, Dow Chemical company were forced by the US military to re-make the formala for napalm as it wasn't sticking to the skin of the vietnamese people well enough.
I bet thats another conflict you haev completely misinterpreted based on beleving in all your nationalistic propaganda.
It matters cause you slaughtered 4 million people mopst of whom were defenseless civilians i.e. old people, women and children.Ibe been to country twice, and ive seen first hand the scars you left on that land.
"we wanted a more effective weapon so we commissioned one."
You were dropping it on villages, do you have an idea how many children had their skin melted off because you wnated a more effective weapon. do you not even a feel a little shame for the slaughter and massacre that took place there.
No it is now known that Bush was looking to attack iraq just 10 weeks after he was elected. His cabinet told him there was no reason to do so. He was trying looking to get revenge on the attempted assassination of his father and he was always trying to prove something to his dad. He wanted to finish what his dad started! It is also well known that Hussein HATED Bin laden and Al Queda, also had NO weapons of mass Destruction and were not an immenant threat to the U.S. This was what we were all told were the reason for attacking Iraq! I think the war with Afghanistan was justified. That was the maiun HQ of Al Queda.
"He was trying looking to get revenge on the attempted assassination of his father and he was always trying to prove something to his dad. "
Are serious? Thats one the stupidist things ive heard in a good while. Do i even need to rebuke this, seriously, its a joke right?
"He wanted to finish what his dad started"
The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with finishinh what had been started, they liked Saddam, especially in the early days when they were backing him while he was gassing the Kurds, the west even supplied him with a very powerful arsenal even Chemical weapons, it is known he used them against Iran with US backing. They could have taken in out in gulf 1, every knows that, i don't know how americans don't understand that if they wanted him gone after gulf 1, he would have been gone, his own people even rebelled as the US asked them to and they were brutally cut down by Saddams loyalists while the US were still in the country, there are reports of people being slaughtered running up to US tanks and trucks and just being completely ignored, thats how it was, because they like Saddam, they didn't his regime t crumble as they knew the next regime may not be so willing to sell its own people down the river, this is why they loved Saddam so much in the early days, he held Iraq with an Iron fist, destroyed any politcial opponents, and always served the west, the US likes strong dictators that can control their own populations and any demands they have democracy.
But Saddam got too big for his boots, he felt more powerful than he was, which is understandable given how he was cultivating nulear weapons, he controlled a huge chunk of the worlds oil (well the US had proxy control), his country had the best infrastructure in the ME, and one of the best armies, he overreached his power when he invaded Kuwait, and like a bad son had to be disciplined by his father (the US), and that resulted in the 1st gulf war. This may seem like an overly cynical intepretation but i firmly beleive there is a strong correlation between cynicism and realism.
"It is also well known that Hussein HATED Bin laden and Al Queda, also had NO weapons of mass Destruction and were not an immenant threat to the U.S.This was what we were all told were the reason for attacking Iraq!"
Where did any of that was false, if you dispute someone you have to dispute what they said.
"I think the war with Afghanistan was justified."
I disagree completely, Afghanistan was invaded because of tis strategic importance and the possibility it harboured Bin Laden, but there was no need to invade in order to get Bin Laden. Its ridiculous to say you had any right to invade Afghanistan, a grave crime was commited against the US but that doesn't give you the right to ivade another country. You would struggle to find a non-western preson who agrees with that, and even in europe there not very plentiful i can tell you.
Past cabinet members came in in interviews after the Bush administration was over and they were the ones that said he was gunning for Iraq long before the attack on 9/11.
As far as any of the info being false my friend. it was shown all over tv and all over the news that he had relied on false info and forged documents in deciding to go to war with Iraq.
As for the war with Afghanistan I mentioned nothing about bringing down Bin laden. This is where the terror cells were. Where Al Queda had the greatest hold. If our job was to wipe out Al Queda. That would seem like the sensible place to start!
The terrorists did what they had to do. It not necessarily mean the Al Qaeda. Now that is a controversy. Whoever was behind it attempted a terrorizing act. And yes, they succeeded. To a great extent. It's left wounds and the scars will always remain.
Is there someone who must be blamed? Yes.. If I were asked it is America!
Really so the fact that you occupised their lands with military, prevented them from ruling themseves by supporting brutal dictators, and stoppping a mvoes towards democracy, stealing their resources, supportings Isreal genocide against the palestians, etc. etc.
Despite all this you deserve no blame, you did nothing to provoke anyone, is that bullshit you're reting to peddle here?
i agree and disagree first america will have scars and wounds but we will continue we are the only nation that defends the defenseless and the only one who would have the balls to attack china if they got out of place btw its not only us its also our wonderful allies also america cant be blamed because they are simply defending their people
I do agree, that they won by those goals. It was designed to do all those things, and more, like break our American spirit. Make us feel divided And make us feel powerless.
But they did not break our spirit, they only made us feel closer (only divided us further from the airport security), and we didn't feel powerless... we felt upset, grief shock. And after we were able to feel anything other than that, we didn't feel like we lost, that it wasn't worth it anymore or that we were powerless; it was the exact opposite. It lit a new fire under us.
They definitely won in one department in particular... making us feel unsafe. So unsafe that our airports are a complete nightmare and full of paranoia.
Yes but that was temporary. now Washington disagrees and is divided more and more. There seems to be a wider cultural divide between sides and more paranioa than ever before. We are not closer now as a nation than we were 11 years ago. We actually seem to be further apart! Part of that is our economic instability due in part to the attack on our financial hub. We are doing more to divide our own country than the terrorists did. That is the real shame of it!
The government is divided. But the government is always divided, the government is never anything the entire American nation is wholly proud of. So that is really not much of an accomplishment.
And all of the points you bring up either happened before 9/11 or were starting to happen (logically probable that it would happen) down the road, which so happens to be after 9/11.
The paranoia is definitely caused by 9/11, but the rest of it, no.
I disagree. The economy was going to crash with or with out them. What loss of freedom all u lost was time when u when u go to check Ur bags. And we came together yes short lived for the most part but in some parts not at all we are still fighting a war and we just Finishing a new memorial for it. As for the terrorist all they got out of it in the long run was a war that they are losing. I will never forget what happened that September day when the world stopped turning.
I said it played a part. Not that it was the cause of the collapse! I think the attack really brought down the confidence in investors and consumers and that irreparably hurt the economy!
That is certainly surprising but i suppose an event of that magnitude can always be related to the global financial system as it effected so many peoples perception.
yeah i want to send a shout out to the soldiers who have the good intentions and scream at government cause they are jerks and one day when im in congress i will help change that
I hardly think they won. What they did was hardly victorious. All they did was increase terrorism awareness and cause the U.S. army to kill thousands of them in return. The terrorists could care less about our economy, all they care about is causing fear and death among Americans. Did the Japanese win when they bombed Pearl Harbor? No!
The hard thing about fighting terrorist is the only way to stop them is to wipe them off the place of the planet. Terrorist live to make anyone they don't like submissive to them and their ideas. If you submit to them they think you are weak, they have no "respect" for you and will treat you like they treat their women. If you stand up to them they will "respect" you but will kill you anyway because you are an "infidel". I don't think that they have won because unlike anything they have experienced WE will stop them ALL. Then people all around the world will be free and without that fear.
A terrorist is someone that uses uses a specific tactic, namely attacks designed to illicit a sense of fear in others to accomplish an ideological goal, especially when they disregard or target non-combatants.
Whether they want total submission to their ideology or not is irrelevant to whether they are or are not terrorists.
This tactic is common in times of desperation, its impossible to stop the tactic from being used without eradicating these times of desperation. War, will only increase such desperation. To put it simply, you can't end terrorism by killing terrorists because for each one you kill, you turn 2 of their brothers into terrorists.
The FBI use the following definition of terrorism: "“the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)."
By this definition the US are the greatest terrorists of the 20 and 21st centuries, everything you said is complete bull, you are mainly regurgitating US propaganda placed in your head by your corporate controlled media, congradulation's you are corporate cellular automaton, go watch some american gladiators.
"Then people all around the world will be free and without that fear."
This level of naivety speaks for itself really, i wish the world was as simple as is it in your head my friend, i really do.
The USA does not use unlawful tactics, therefore your statement is incorrect. To be honest much of what you say is complete gibberish, conspiracy theories and the like, and if you call defending South Korea from North Korea and ensuring that they remained a prosperous and free nation then I suppose we are terrorists.
Really, then what was all that wikileaks fiasco about, or how about drones being flown into soveriegn territory to lauch millsuiles on villages that may or may not have a taliban fighter in them, you know they kill 10 civilians for every militant, the list really is endless, you see your problem is you think that because you make your own law, you can say what is lawful and what isn't lawful.
The realit of the situation is that the US using nothing but unlawful tactics, but you beleive whatever helos you sleep at night.
"To be honest much of what you say is complete gibberish"
Please piont out anything that i said that you beleive to be factually incorrect, and i will provide a substantive source aw well, as a thorough explanation of why you couldn't be more wrong.
"conspiracy theories and the like"
Yes yes thats it keep rationalising and justifying to yourself, i must be a nutjob cause i don't beleive what you beleive, therefore im wrong and your right.
" and if you call defending South Korea from North Korea and ensuring that they remained a prosperous and free nation then I suppose we are terrorists."
Just like you defending South Vietnam from the North right, even though the puppet government you installed in the South was the worst violator of humans rights in the world at the time (see Amnesty International), then you protected the vietnamese peoeple by killing 4 million of them, by igniting their entire country.
But lets take your example of Korea, lets see if we can't tease this outm, and get past the official US propaganda for which so much time, effort and money have been pumped into in roder to convince people like you it was all a selfless and noble cause.
The fact is when Korea was freed from Japan after WW2, most Koreans wanted to be unified, the US and Russia did not want this. Then they instituted repressive regime which was very unpopular, this led to revolution, after revolution with many factiosn vying for supremacy, the US oprevented any form of unification taking place, instead is supprted dictator after dictator.
What exactly do you think happened in Korea, do you think the US came and helped them? Do you the US supported democracy, nothign could be further from the truth.
The US propped up a dictator named Syngman Rhee in 1948, and supported him until the people wouldn't have him anymore (like Hosni Mubrarak in Egypt, this is old news its just people liek you have neevr heard it before), then when they supported another dictator Park Chung Hee, go look it up.
Whatever freedom the South Koreans have attained since then has been enitrely due to their own social movements within the country, the US has never suppported any kind of real democracy in any of the countries it has put its vast tenticles into, and there is a good reason, because people don't vote to be subjugated by a foreign oppressive power like the US, its not what they feel is in their best interests, call them crazy.
And you see this isn't in the US strategic interests, cause then they can do what they want, and ther're not under the US's umbrella of control so the US actively prevents this.
Go check up anything i have said, if you don't beleive any of it ask for a source.
i agree with much of your statement. i agree that standing up to them is the way to go. Unfortunately at first the wrong country was attacked when the focus should have been Afghanistan. Also we will unfortunately NEVER get them all. It is like when i was in pest control. Sometimes vermin cannot be wiped out completely but brought down to more managable numbers so less damage is done!