jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (29 posts)

September 11, 2001

  1. haroldwilson1985 profile image60
    haroldwilson1985posted 7 years ago

    Did corrupt politicians help the September 11th disaster?

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thats a trick question isn't it?

      All politicians are corrupt.

      1. Dave Barnett profile image55
        Dave Barnettposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The policies of those in control led us down a path which led to 9/11

    2. ledefensetech profile image69
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No, the reason 9/11 slipped passed the security agencies of the US was because of too much bureaucracy.  The 9/11 Commission report got that much right.  Where they failed was their suggestion to implement a new layer of bureaucracy to the mix with the whole Homeland Security fiasco.  Sounds vaguely Nazi doesn't it?

      Now was there any "official" sanction of the 9/11 attacks?  No.  Don't be stupid.  One thing you can count politicians for is to look out for their own skins.  It's hard enough keeping something like tax evasion or special deals cut with banks you have a financial interest in, much less the largest terrorist attack on the US in our history.  If there was any government involvement, there would have been leaks from the government.  There are the odd few civil servants who see their service as service, not just a cush job with awesome perqs.

  2. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image58
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago

    All politicians are not bad. Someone like Abraham Lincoln, Carter, come to the top struggling their way all along their lives and they cant be corrupt. Some are rich and they dont need corruption. The middle level politicians, who use politics for money ane power are only corrupt.  But they are more than 99 % of politicians. So, we can forgive the 99% for the sake of 1%. Without politicians, there can be no government.. no freedom.

    9/11 was the result of feeding the terrorist snakes by your Govt., which continues till date. You know who are terrorists... you know who patronise terrorists.. but you still patronise them.... just not to let down a friendly country as you think. Do you agree that your funds goes the right way for which it was sent? They use your money to finance Afgan terrorists and kill as many American soldiers as possible.  Danger to America will cease only when the leaders wake up and punish whoever goes the terrorist way. If you are not ready for that, just leave... India will wipe them out..

    1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
      Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Are you saying India is feeling froggy?  Who do you think that the wrath of India would fall upon first?

      1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image58
        VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        On those who use American aid,  American arms to challenge India... certainly not America..

        In all the wars with Pakistan since independence, India had to fight against American arms and armaments... (1948, 1965, 1971, 1998)   Patton tanks, supplied by US, captured and destroyed in 1965 and 1971 stands in every corner of Indian cities.  Sabre jets supplied by US were destroyed by our mini-war-plane GNAT.  Our wrath will be against the evil war machine which has challenged us time and again.  They use Kashmir as a scapegoat to sustain the military  and continue getting aid from Islamic countries, knowing well that Pakistan itself is a part of India.

        1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
          Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          India received arms from the Soviet Union during that war?

          Did not Pakistan offer to turn over East Pakistan without a war?

          Didn't India take advantage of the fact that the USA was involved in diplomacy with both China and the Soviet Union when Ms. Gandhi launched her invasion? 1971

          At the same time the U.S. was involved in the Vietnam conflict.

          My education of history in this part of the world is not in depth but not completely naive either.

          I may be wrong, this is what I have read in Western recollections of this incident?

          1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image58
            VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The unrest in East pakistan started on 25-3-1971.  India seemed to be caught in the whirlwind.  Before anything could be decided, around 10 million refugees poured into India, laying a huge burden on the economy. While Pakistan was intertwined with US militarily, India had no friends to its side.  So, Indira Gandhi invited Mr.Kosygin of USSR to Delhi and signed a defence treaty on 6-8-1971, to counter American help to Pakistan.  Then Indira Gandhi went to France, Germany, UK and USA to highlight India's position.  Except USA,  others were sympathetic to India, but could not enter directly into the affairs.  The then US president, Mr.Nixon never cared to receive Ms.Gandhi honourably and was made to wait for hours in the White House. This enraged her and she returned without discussing the matter.  Then she prepared for war in November, 1971.  Then only we purchased (in Nov) Soviet arms on a massive scale.

            USA was involved in diplomacy which was aimed purely to save Pakistan, ie., to prevent India entering Bangladesh which would have resulted in continued suffering of the Bengali people.  USA was tabling resolutions in the UN security council against India daily.  The then USSR vetoed all resolutions.  Is it diplomacy?  Is siding with the offender diplomacy?  USA helped our enemy... that is all.

            Pakistan never offered to turnover East Pakistan without a war.  Immediately after cancellation of the election results,  Pak's Gen.Yahya Khan ordered military action on his own people... More than a lakh people were killed and wounded.  (All on the advice of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, for which he was killed / hanged by Pak army for not taking responsibility for the defeat.)   While Indira Gandhi ordered her troops to treat women with honour, Pak soldiers went on raping and killing women.  They even kept women and children as a human shield against Indian bombings.

            President Nixon was hell bent to defeat India in the war.  Almost all muslim countries came directly to Pak's help.  Even the pro-Pakistan elements in India hoisted Pak's flag during the war.  But it is the most decisive military victory in the 20th century.  We won and 90,000 Pak. soldiers surrendered.

            1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
              Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this



              The U.N. offered to help with the refugees but were denied contact.  Didn't India receive financial aid to help the refugees?

              If I am wrong I apologize, but didn't the U.S. have a treaty with Pakistan to defend her and didn't the arms shipments into Pakistan stop long before the conflict erupted?

              Nixon was not the most charismatic man that is a fact and I do believe he insulted Ms. Gandhi during her visit.

              So you know where I have learned this history is from the Kissinger books, which I take with a grain of salt.

              1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image58
                VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The UN should have prevailed upon Pakistan to take back the refugees. But they needlessly offered to "help" which is not lacking in India.  Not to create a mess during wartime, they were not allowed to contact. They may have contacted the remaining suffering Bengalis in Bengal itself.. why do they try to contact refugees in India and not potential refugees stranded in Bengal?

                As early as August, 1971, India banned overflights by Pakistan. Its coastline came under India's scanner.  So, USA could not supply arms prior to and during the war.  Soviet navy just days before the war began,  provided a security umbrella  and warned any other country's ships not to enter the area of conflict.   Only because of these, US did not supply arms.

                The only man in Nixon administration for India was Mr.Kissinger.  Thanks to him.  But he was kept aside by Nixon  for his comments that India was winning the war.

                1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
                  Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  In Kissinger's memoirs India's conflict almost caused a World War.

                  I know many people from Bangladesh and I consider them my friends.

                  They are kind and compassionate people. I feel bad that their ancestors had to suffer through such a bloody conflict.

                  I also have many friends from India, who are also very kind.

                  Is there still friction between India and Pakistan over Kashmir?

                  1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image58
                    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    The main dispute according to Pakistan is over Kashmir only.  They keep that problem alive to get aid from muslim countries and military help from USA. But the Indian problem is: when will divided India unite?

                    Bangladesh and India have almost similar culture..  Bengali is the official language of Bangladesh and West Bengal in India.  One poet has penned the national anthem for India and Bangladesh.

                  2. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image58
                    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, there is friction between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.   But India has another problem... to bring back a United India.

    2. leeberttea profile image57
      leebertteaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with that too much of Americans' tax money ends up in the wrong hands, often our very enemies.I will agree that some of our nation's friends aren't good people and they get American tax money to keep themselves in power and promote corruption and evil against their own people.

      We in America are getting tired of this. It's obvious politicians have other interests in mind than that of American taxpayers. It's time to stop foreign aid. It's time countries learn to stand on their own. It's time these people fight their own battles. It's time foreigners stop blaming America for their problems, and it's time they stop using America's dominance as justification to export their violence.

      1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image58
        VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If America has got money in excess, they may open orphanages, old age homes, charity organisations, hospitals and choultries in Africa, where people live far below living standards.

        Mr.Obama has a special responsibilty in this.

        Better save the dying lives... Dont kill the living lives.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          "Mr.Obama has a special responsibilty in this."

          You and he may think he has a special responsibility, most Americans don't.

          And we are the only ones who matter when it comes to spending our money.

          1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image58
            VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Mr.Obama is the President of USA and he has certainly a special responsibility for spending the govt. money.

            You cant take the responsibilty to yourself.  You can just write in the hubpages about this.

            1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
              Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Only our Congress has the authority to provide funding.

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                That's what the "black budget" is for. *wink*  *wink*
                When Congress says no....let the alphabet soups do the talking!!

                (Iran/Contra...billions "missing" in Iraq....the recent finding of billions MORE "missing" in Iraq......) (Halliburton.....Blackwater....it's endless how they steal money!!!)

              2. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image58
                VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                It is only a conventional mechanism in a democratic set up.  Congress also has some responsibiltiy in govt. spending.

          2. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, most Americans do, as they voted for him.
            We know the rest of the citizens don't matter to the baggers, but sorry....we outnumber them.

            bwahahahaha......so get thee behind me Satan!!!
            The Synagogue of Satan, that is. It's in the Bible...really.

            You remember...the Pharisee? The Sadducees? The Money-Changers in the Temple.

            Fox/Baggers=Same suit, different tie.

            1. Joni Douglas profile image85
              Joni Douglasposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Not exactly,  it is the progressives and this president calling for collective salvation, similar to Pharisees and Sadducees who saw their little group as above the others.  Collective salvation as mentioned by Pres Obama himself.
              It is the TeaParty who reminds us the our Founding Fathers believed in individual salvation and therefore the individual has rights.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The Tea Party doesn't know squat about the founding fathers.

                "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole
                taxes of the General Government are levied.The poor man, who uses nothing but wha is made in his own farm or family, or within
                his own country, pays not a farthing of tax to the General Government...   Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, &c., the farmer will see his
                government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without
                his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings. *

                Thomas Jefferson

                I would not suggest that the author of the Declaration of Independence spoke for ALL the founding fathers, who actually had a diverse not unanimous view. But TJ obviously believed that the rich should pay to provide for the poor, a principle the teabaggers deny. The belief that the view of conservatives represents the thoughts of the founding fathers is a hoax.

                1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                  Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  The liberal (maybe progressive) thinking of Thomas Jefferson has not escaped the notice of conservatives.

                  "(March 12) -- Widely regarded as one of the most important of all the founding fathers of the United States, Thomas Jefferson received a demotion of sorts Friday thanks to the Texas Board of Education.

                  The board voted to enact new teaching standards for history and social studies that will alter which material gets included in school textbooks. It decided to drop Jefferson from a world history section devoted to great political thinkers."

                  http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/t … d/19397481

                  Revisionist history - wingnut style. The problem is that Texas is a big state with a lot of clout in the textbook business. When the history books for TX are rewrittent o reflect the ban on Jefferson, those are the textbooks that will be offered to the other states - they won't be rewritten and reprinted to include the truth for the other 48 states.

                2. Arthur Fontes profile image88
                  Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I like the Jefferson quote:

                  I believe income tax is an evil. By reading this quote would you support the destruction of the income tax.

                  Income that is derived from wages , from the sweat ,time and labor of the citizens.

                  Earnings such as dividends , annuities, rents, etc...and such that require no participation from the individual should be the only income that is taxable.

  3. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Yeah, aren't they replacing him with Calvin? That tight-lipped mean-spirited one?

    Whipping and gnashing of teeth for the poor.
    You deserve it! you deserve it!

    "But Calvin, where's the Love of Jesus?????"

    "It's been REVISED!"

  4. ftclick profile image61
    ftclickposted 7 years ago

    Iranian president/leader Ahmadinajad says yes it was a large conspiracy to gain access to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq invasion was definitely BS, a waste of much needed money in a declining economy. Politicians all the same. They talk big, and don't accomplish jack &*^.

 
working