NationStates Jolt Archive

That 9-11 was not terrorism, it has been proven to be terrorism over and over again... i mean al queda even claimed responsibility for it, if you have a confession, why would you believe anyone else?... it is rediculious to think that is was all a government conspiricy to start a war, No one wants a war at all, our government was not is the financial position to start an unnessecary"war" so unless it needed to be done we would not have to go to war

DO NOT FLAME ME IT IS A QUESTION NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TROLLS AND FANATIC CONSPIRICY THEORISTS TO FLAME ME!!!! I AM SERIOUS IF YOU ARE GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION I DO NOT WANT YOU TO USE VULGAR LANGUANGE OR DISRESPECTFUL WORDS PHRASES LIKE SO MANY ON NS DO THIS IS A SERIOUS TREAD NOT A FLAMEFEST

I'm not about to start spouting conspiracy theories, but for the moment consider some of the other facts:


Bush said prior to 9/11 he wanted to invade Iraq.
Bush presidency was unspectacular, in fact his poll numbers were not at all impresssive.
The Bush family owes a lot people a lot of political favors and needs a means to grant those.
The Bush family is in bed with the families which control oil in the Middle East, most specifically Saudi Arabia.


And on a more subjective note: Bush has shown time and time again that he is willing to put his, or his family's, interests above that of the United States proper.



Considering all of the above is it really so hard to believe that he might have had a hand in 9/11? There are quite a few people who consider the possibility that Roosevelt had a hand in setting up Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt needed a reason to get involved in WWII, but the current political climate did not allow for that. And so the theory goes he "invited" such an attack. Afterall it does seem rather odd that the pacific fleet would all pretty much be on training exercises at that time right? So why would it be unreasonable for Bush to have used a similar tactic to get what he wants.


Powerful people are not above using tragedy to get what they want; history has shown us time and time again that tragedy is a powerful motivator for change, but that it is also easily manipulated as people rarely take the time to reflect and self-analyze during times of tragedy.



Now I'm not going to sit here and claim that Bush did call for 9/11 to happen. There does not exist any hard and fast proof of anything which calls for anything more than speculation, and so it remains speculation. I will not, however, entertain the notion that he is above doing so morally or otherwise. He and his bedfellows love money, and there is not mistaking this fact. And before someone tries to give me an economics lesson on the importance of the twin towers: consider how much oil interest there was in the twin towers, or any interest which was tangentially related to Bush or his family or cronies.



At this point though even if you accept that Bush was involved the act itself was still terrorism. No amount of local aid will ever change the fact that 9/11 was terrorism, and was itself a horrible tragedy the likes of which no decent human being can ever hope will ever be repeated ever again. Those who are responsible should be judged according to the nature and gravity of their actions and have sentence passed on them accordingly.

But one must carefully consider where the whole of blame lay before passing judgement over anyone, and while at this point there is only a shadow of doubt this does not preclude the possibility that Bush may have been involved in some way. Of course, if you consider how good his people are at cover up and political manipulation in all likelihood no evidence would ever surface even if he was involved; heck it took 40 years before anything resembling evidence of Roosevelt's possible involvement came to light, and I doubt anything less would suffice in the case of the Bush family.

NT

That 9-11 was not terrorism, it has been proven to be terrorism over and over again... i mean al queda even claimed responsibility for it, if you have a confession, why would you believe anyone else?... it is rediculious to think that is was all a government conspiricy to start a war, No one wants a war at all, our government was not is the financial position to start an unnessecary"war" so unless it needed to be done we would not have to go to war

[b] DO NOT FLAME ME IT IS A QUESTION NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TROLLS AND FANATIC CONSPIRICY THEORISTS TO FLAME ME!!!!

Well, as long as it's a "question"...

I am neither a troll nor a fanatic conspiracy theorist. I have, however, done a respectable amount of research into said conspiracists for a conference paper I wrote criticizing conspiracism as a counterproductive form of critique.

Anway, here goes...

1) "How" can anyone think things that are contrary to appearance?

There are essentially two components that go into the conspiracist psyche, with proportions varying according to the individual: first, a strong distrust of official sources, sometimes stemming from actual experience being lied to by them; second, a self-defeating conviction that the powers-that-be are all but omnipotent.

The first is rather obvious. The second, however, is more important. Plenty of people distrust the government without weaving improbable stories of government conspiracy. The reason some people go to such lengths, however, is that they (defensively) refuse to believe that anyone could have actually "gotten a shot off" against said government.

In other words, when a handful of Arab terrorists manage to outwit the CIA, the FBI, the FCC and countless other government agencies, some people are simply unwilling to admit that this could have happened. This dogma essentially boils down to the belief that "the government just could not have dropped the ball that badly." Much of the time, there is also an element of racism or ethnocentrism involved. When such beliefs are held by long-time critics of the government, they usually also involve a sort of defense-mechanism: since they (the conspiracists) have not managed to strike any blows against their opponents, they defend themselves from blame by pretending that it would be impossible--thus, if anyone else does it, the government must have allowed them to.

2) So how exactly do conspiracists manage to get around inconvenient facts, such as Al Qaeda's claim for the 9/11 attacks? There are essentially two branches of thought in this respect: first, it is held that while Al Qaeda may have planned and executed the attacks, someone high up in the U.S. administration must have "allowed" them to happen. This is, admittedly, the most plausible of all conspiracy theories: what it requires is a believable motive. I leave others to judge whether it is believable that members of the United States government would allow an attack such as that on 9/11 in order to start a war, or attack civil liberties, or whatever.

Secondly, some conspiracists may go further, insisting that the ostensible opponents of the United States are actually somehow our allies. This belief takes several forms, some specific and some more general. An example of the specific variety is the widely held belief that Osama bin Laden is currently, and always has been, an agent of the United States. These conspiracists commonly rely on bin Laden's well-known antipathy to secular Muslim states, which arguably outweighs his dislike for the Western infidels. The argument is that bin Laden only attacked the United States in order to provoke a war with secular Iraq... nevermind that the new government is hardly more tolerant of Islam than the old one.

The more "general" version of this is the idea that all (or most) global elites are part of a vast conspiracy, stretching back hundreds or even thousands of years, to consolidate a global government.

It's tiring even talking about these things.

you are defending both points... okay so lets say he did have a hand in planning it

Why?.... why would the president kill so many innocent people for his own interest... if he is in bed with the enimies why not just have them invade?

and when you say either way it is terrorism i agree no matter how you say it it was terrorism.. i am tired of people saying it wasnt

a quick question the boston tea party was terrorism right?

Why?.... why would the president kill so many innocent people for his own interest... if he is in bed with the enimies why not just have them invade?
Sweeping aside the innuendo inherent in that second sentence...

LESSON ONE: People are bad.

People can do very bad things for their own interests, including cause the deaths of thousands. It's not unheard-of. Believing otherwise strikes me as naïve and unrealistic.

Lesson over.

Sweeping aside the innuendo inherent in that second sentence...

LESSON ONE: People are bad.

People can do very bad things for their own interests, including cause the deaths of thousands. It's not unheard-of. Believing otherwise strikes me as naïve and unrealistic.

Lesson over.

i guess i may be an exception?... i would never do something like that..

amd what innuendo... i didn't mean for it to sound that way is was supposed to be subjective. ohhhh well.

Well, for part a. People believe what they want to believe. Hell, we have folks convinced that the Moon landings never happened, Elvis is alive and well, and they will win the lotto.

I just normally don't pay attention to them except to laugh.

a quick question the boston tea party was terrorism right?
Yes, in terms of what it was trying to do, it was terrorism.

Well, for part a. People believe what they want to believe. Hell, we have folks convinced that the Moon landings never happened, Elvis is alive and well, and they will win the lotto.

I just normally don't pay attention to them except to laugh.


Yes, in terms of what it was trying to do, it was terrorism.


some conspiricy theorists are really funny. fun to laugh at.

And hah i have used the boston tea party as an example of non-fatal terrorism and people almost convinced me that is wasn't terrorism that is why i asked

i guess i may be an exception?... i would never do something like that..
Yes, you're one of a small group of exceptions. I know I would, if certain of my interests were at stake, toss aside human lives to protect them. Then again, I'm also a very cruel person who likes torturing and killing innocent and sickeningly cute little bunnies and kittens, then eating them for breakfast.

amd what innuendo... i didn't mean for it to sound that way is was supposed to be subjective. ohhhh well.
The words "in bed" in conjunction with "have them" and "invade" was what I was referring to. A sort of obvious example, actually.

And hah i have used the boston tea party as an example of non-fatal terrorism and people almost convinced me that is wasn't terrorism that is why i asked
Some people don't want to think of what is now viewed as a patriotic act as terrorism, but since it was an attempt to use violence to force an issue with Brittan, and it DID cause economic damage, it 'twas indeed.

Some people don't want to think of what is now viewed as a patriotic act as terrorism, but since it was an attempt to use violence to force an issue with Brittan, and it DID cause economic damage, it 'twas indeed.

people are so oppininated on what terrorism actually is.. they think of suicide bombs/people dying... so many political rights activists are terrorism ( ALF, that phelps woman, etc)

9lol i dunno if phelps is a terrorist but she is in my eyes)

Bush said prior to 9/11 he wanted to invade Iraq.Yep. And if there is a conspiracy, it lies not in the 9/11 attacks but in the brilliant machinations undertaken to "prove" that Iraq had something to do with it.

If the purpose of 9/11 was to provide a reason for war with Iraq, it could have been done a lot better. 9/11 was usable as an excuse for such a war... It was hardly a good excuse.

Bush presidency was unspectacular, in fact his poll numbers were not at all impresssive.Lots of presidencies have been unspectacular without resorting to ridiculous conspiracies. Moreover, it is a somewhat dubious proposition to suggest that Bush and his cronies could have successfully planned and executed the 9/11 "conspiracy" in the short time they had between his inauguration and the actual event. By all appearances, it was in the works for years... and what motive shall we attribute to Clinton for acquiescing in such an endeavor? Surely he did not think it would help his poll numbers....
The Bush family owes a lot people a lot of political favors and needs a means to grant those.Well, "needs" is a little strong. Bush and his family would have gotten along fine without repaying their favors, or without repaying them as well as they have. Again, I think 9/11 was convenient for Bush, not planned by him.

The Bush family is in bed with the families which control oil in the Middle East, most specifically Saudi Arabia.While this is true, it is unclear (at best) how these families have directly benefited from 9/11. Sanctions against Iraq effectively prevented oil production or reduced the amount of Iraqi oil available on the market... a situation that probably would have continued for many years to come. While for the moment this situation remains largely unchanged, assuming Iraq actually attains some stability production and distribution may improve... which can only mean lower prices for Saudi oil producers.

And on a more subjective note: Bush has shown time and time again that he is willing to put his, or his family's, interests above that of the United States proper.That may be true, but it ignores the question of scale. To believe that Bush would allow this level of harm to the country just to take it into a selfishly motivated war... well, he would have to be pretty close to Satan himself on a scale of ethics. I find that somewhat hard to swallow.

If there is a conspiracy (who knows?), I suspect that Bush himself was at the margins, if he was aware of it at all.

There are quite a few people who consider the possibility that Roosevelt had a hand in setting up Pearl Harbor.Actually, this is basically accepted history now. We excuse it (perhaps rightfully) on the presumption that Roosevelt could see just how important it was for the United States to enter the war--both for the nation's good and for the good of the world.

And so the theory goes he "invited" such an attack. Afterall it does seem rather odd that the pacific fleet would all pretty much be on training exercises at that time right?Actually, he did more than "invite" the attack: he actively provoked it, making it clear to the Japanese that they could not control significant parts of the Pacific (critical to their war effort) as long as the United States fleet was hanging around.

So why would it be unreasonable for Bush to have used a similar tactic to get what he wants.Because Roosevelt used underhanded tactics to achieve a public good--making him at worst a kind of republican anti-hero. To believe what people say of Bush, however, one would basically have to believe that he is the anti-Christ--which, no doubt, many people do. Still, this reduced plausibility certainly shifts the burden of proof.

And before someone tries to give me an economics lesson on the importance of the twin towers: consider how much oil interest there was in the twin towers, or any interest which was tangentially related to Bush or his family or cronies.Yeah, except that Bush and his fellow buffoons got it wrong.

When Wolfowitz tried to turn over the oil reserves in Iraq to his oil-company buddies, they laughed him out of the conference room... and ultimately out of any role having to do with Iraq. They didn't want the oil. They were much happier when no one had access to it, thus increasing prices.

The Bush family is in bed with the families which control oil in the Middle East, most specifically Saudi Arabia.

While this is true, it is unclear (at best) how these families have directly benefited from 9/11. Sanctions against Iraq effectively prevented oil production or reduced the amount of Iraqi oil available on the market... a situation that probably would have continued for many years to come. While for the moment this situation remains largely unchanged, assuming Iraq actually attains some stability production and distribution may improve... which can only mean lower prices for Saudi oil producers.

You noticed the price of oil these last few years? ;) If your theory is correct, then the "opening" of the Iraq oil supplies is struggling against some stronger factor (Peak Oil?)

EDIT: That's silly. Sorry. I'm still waking up :confused:

It is hard to see how the Saudis princes would benefit from a real democracy in Iraq, I agree. But big oil certainly would! Looking at the influence they have on US politics, what hope for a new democracy with a horrible history, ethnic divisions and psychotic neighbours ? They'd be owned, literally.

Look I'm not going to suggest that Bush is guilty; I do still actually believe that someone lacks guilt until proven otherwise, but that said there is just enough material out there to make it plausible. I'll be the first to admit that it does border on ridiculous, but some of the most ridiculous things in life turn out to be true: like they say sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.


And by no means was I suggesting that Bush planned, or even took part in its orchestration, but rather that had he known about it he might have been willing to turn a blind eye to such things because he "wanted" a reason to invade Iraq.


There are quite a few "convenient" things which all went Bush's way, especially during elections, and so to think that Bush didn't have help in orchestrating all that he accomplished through both his terms seems ignorant to me.



Like I said I am not willing to assert that Bush had anything to do with it, but with that said I won't overlook the possibility as non-sense either. Would it take a lack of ethics on the scale of some of the worst offenders in human history? Yes, but that doesn't seem to be a very good condemnation of the idea since it is obvious that people with a serious lack of moral fibre can and do make it into political office.

NT

i mean al queda even claimed responsibility for it, if you have a confession, why would you believe anyone else?...
3 different groups claim responsibility every time there's a bomb attack anywhere in the Middle East. I'm not saying that "Bush did it!" but I certainly won't take any word from "al qaeda" either.

That 9-11 was not terrorism, it has been proven to be terrorism over and over again... i mean al queda even claimed responsibility for it, if you have a confession, why would you believe anyone else?... it is rediculious to think that is was all a government conspiricy to start a war, No one wants a war at all, our government was not is the financial position to start an unnessecary"war" so unless it needed to be done we would not have to go to war

DO NOT FLAME ME IT IS A QUESTION NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TROLLS AND FANATIC CONSPIRICY THEORISTS TO FLAME ME!!!! I AM SERIOUS IF YOU ARE GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION I DO NOT WANT YOU TO USE VULGAR LANGUANGE OR DISRESPECTFUL WORDS PHRASES LIKE SO MANY ON NS DO THIS IS A SERIOUS TREAD NOT A FLAMEFEST

I like you. You're silly. :)

That 9-11 was not terrorism, it has been proven to be terrorism over and over again... i mean al queda even claimed responsibility for it, if you have a confession, why would you believe anyone else?... it is rediculious to think that is was all a government conspiricy to start a war, No one wants a war at all, our government was not is the financial position to start an unnessecary"war" so unless it needed to be done we would not have to go to war

DO NOT FLAME ME IT IS A QUESTION NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TROLLS AND FANATIC CONSPIRICY THEORISTS TO FLAME ME!!!! I AM SERIOUS IF YOU ARE GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION I DO NOT WANT YOU TO USE VULGAR LANGUANGE OR DISRESPECTFUL WORDS PHRASES LIKE SO MANY ON NS DO THIS IS A SERIOUS TREAD NOT A FLAMEFEST

You know, if you start a criminal investigation, the first thing you ask is "Who profitted from this in any way?"

Al-Qaeda? Not really, now, did they? Unless of course their aim was to have the Taliban removed from power in Afghanistan, which I find hard to believe just yet.
Bush? That war won him his second turn in office, if you get down to it. He suddenly had something in hand that allowed him not only to intimidate the general public whenever it suited him, he also could present himself as a war hero and saviour and protector of the "American way of life" with his poor stereotypical rethoric. It took all attention away from his general shortcomings as president and even boosted the economy.
Now, at the time of the attacks, there also was a German minister of defense, Rudolf Scharping, who was about to be forced to abdicate due to a scandal about him using military planes to travel to holiday destinations. He must have been the single one person to profit most of the attacks, as all attention on the scandal disappeared overnight and he stayed in office till 2002.

Another question to ask

Hmm... imagine you were a religious fanatic with a burning hatred for a country, and you suddenly had a rather massive weapon at your disposal, a way to kill several hundered thousand people, maybe even damaging the infrastructure of the nation. Would you really use it to simply destroy symbols like the WTC and damage the Pentagon? Would you settle for that, if you could instead deal them a really hard blow?
They could instead have flown those planes into, say, nuclear power plants across the country, killing several thousands instantly, and more in the long run, and seriously damage the power grid of the United States, which, incidentally, is rather old and frail as it is.
Why waste a one time chance like this on the WTC, which was a symbol, and definitely spectacular, but not really effective for the terrorists' cause? It didn't kill that many people (I mean no disrespect here, I'm trying to look at the event in as rational a way as possible), and it helped George W. to control the population and stay in power....

Yep. And if there is a conspiracy, it lies not in the 9/11 attacks but in the brilliant machinations undertaken to "prove" that Iraq had something to do with it.

Wich really, Bush has managed to do by sheer repetition of untrue facts.
After all, look how many Fox News viewers said that WMD'S have been found in Iraq.


If the purpose of 9/11 was to provide a reason for war with Iraq, it could have been done a lot better. 9/11 was usable as an excuse for such a war... It was hardly a good excuse.

If Bush has shown us anything in these last few years, its that he insists upon the flimsiest of exscuses.
He doesnt NEED a good, reason, becuase all your getting, is the lame one.


Lots of presidencies have been unspectacular without resorting to ridiculous conspiracies. Moreover, it is a somewhat dubious proposition to suggest that Bush and his cronies could have successfully planned and executed the 9/11 "conspiracy" in the short time they had between his inauguration and the actual event. By all appearances, it was in the works for years... and what motive shall we attribute to Clinton for acquiescing in such an endeavor? Surely he did not think it would help his poll numbers....

Or....instead of that, what if Bush merely allowed it to happen, by purposely NOT taking the needed steps to stop it.

We know for certain that the day Bush took office, Clinton left him a full dossier on Al-Qeada, informing him that this group would be America's #1 threat, and that a major terrorist attack would occur, using commercial jets as weapons, possibly in the Greater Metro New York area....
We just didnt know exaxctly when, or exactly where.

Bush took no action towards this threat.





Well, "needs" is a little strong. Bush and his family would have gotten along fine without repaying their favors, or without repaying them as well as they have. Again, I think 9/11 was convenient for Bush, not planned by him.

I dont think anyone except the Bush's know exactly what kind of favors they owe,or to whom.


While this is true, it is unclear (at best) how these families have directly benefited from 9/11. Sanctions against Iraq effectively prevented oil production or reduced the amount of Iraqi oil available on the market... a situation that probably would have continued for many years to come. While for the moment this situation remains largely unchanged, assuming Iraq actually attains some stability production and distribution may improve... which can only mean lower prices for Saudi oil producers.

Oil companies are having record profit years.
This means The Saudis are even richer now.
The less oil Iraq pumps, the more we have to buy from Venezuela, and S.A.



That may be true, but it ignores the question of scale. To believe that Bush would allow this level of harm to the country just to take it into a selfishly motivated war... well, he would have to be pretty close to Satan himself on a scale of ethics. I find that somewhat hard to swallow.

Believe it.

Whats 3000 lives, compared to billions of dollars in revenue, 8 years as leader of the most powerful nation in the world, and the chance to put your personal stamp on the entire planet, and its future?

Nothing.


If there is a conspiracy (who knows?), I suspect that Bush himself was at the margins, if he was aware of it at all.

No, he was smack dab in the center, its just that guys like Cheney, and Rove are the brains behind it.
Bush is the just the "Down-home good ol' country boy"
Hes the Templeton Peck of that particular A-Team.

Or how about the old one, you know the one I mean , go have a lil' guess?
no , okay I'll say it then. One mans terroist is another mans freedom fighter..

Or how about the old one, you know the one I mean , go have a lil' guess?
no , okay I'll say it then. One mans terroist is another mans freedom fighter..


I wonder what the difference between an "Insurgent", of modern day Iraq, and a "Minute Man" patriot of colonial America is.

Clearly, both were fighting against a regime they viewed as immoral, and oppressive.

The English, however, had the decency not to build military bases on thier current enemies holy ground then, having learned the folly of that old bag centuries before.

Or how about the old one, you know the one I mean , go have a lil' guess?
no , okay I'll say it then. One mans terroist is another mans freedom fighter..


Then let me say this to you:

if your freedom fighters are Al Qaeda or Hamas or the 'heroes' of Bezlan, we just gonna wipe you OUT.

Then let me say this to you:

if your freedom fighters are Al Qaeda or Hamas or the 'heroes' of Bezlan, we just gonna wipe you OUT.


Even if that means leveling a city block full of peaceful citizens.

Why?

Because we are no less terrorists they they, we can just afford better weapons.

Then let me say this to you:

if your freedom fighters are Al Qaeda or Hamas or the 'heroes' of Bezlan, we just gonna wipe you OUT.


Heheh shit man, I was only answering the mans question. He asked how can anybody say that 9/11 was not a terrorist act. I just pointed out that terroist would call them self freedom fighters and not see it as terroism. Jobdone question answered, it is all perspective I guess.

I don't belive that 9/11 was a good thing, nor can it be said that I am on 'that ' side, but being told if I am on that side then i shall get wiped out just shows me what a bigot you have to be.

So let me ask you this then, what lenghts would you not go to to protect your family, your country and your way of life, would you harm civilians for example if it was the only way to get your message across?

Even if that means leveling a city block full of peaceful citizens.

Why?

Because we are no less terrorists they they, we can just afford better weapons.

If one supports the right of the likes of Al Qaeda to exist in the first place, then I am unwilling to accord such a person the genteel title of peaceful citizen.

If one supports the right of the likes of Al Qaeda to exist in the first place, then I am unwilling to accord such a person the genteel title of peaceful citizen.


Hahahah man you are a card, so you want to what abolish human rights cept for a select group of people? I.E. people that agree with you!

Heheh shit man, I was only answering the mans question. He asked how can anybody say that 9/11 was not a terrorist act. I just pointed out that terroist would call them self freedom fighters and not see it as terroism. Jobdone question answered, it is all perspective I guess.

I don't belive that 9/11 was a good thing, nor can it be said that I am on 'that ' side, but being told if I am on that side then i shall get wiped out just shows me what a bigot you have to be.

So let me ask you this then, what lenghts would you not go to to protect your family, your country and your way of life, would you harm civilians for example if it was the only way to get your message across?

2 different questions, really.

So let me ask you this then, 1. what lenghts would you not go to to protect your family, your country and your way of life, 2. would you harm civilians for example if it was the only way to get your message across?

1. Whatever length I deem necessary. Including exterminating another ethnicity.
2. No. But I can't honestly answer it: never have been on that side.
But there is a question 3 implicit in your question:
3. Do I grant others the right that I grant myself? My answer: why should I do a silly thing like that? Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi!

Then let me say this to you:

if your freedom fighters are Al Qaeda or Hamas or the 'heroes' of Bezlan, we just gonna wipe you OUT.
None of those has been wiped out. When you're going to do that?

If one supports the right of the likes of Al Qaeda to exist in the first place, then I am unwilling to accord such a person the genteel title of peaceful citizen.


So, answer the question I asked earlier, then.

"Whats the difference between a colonial Minuteman, and an "Insurgent" of modern Iraq?

Hmm... imagine you were a religious fanatic with a burning hatred for a country, and you suddenly had a rather massive weapon at your disposal, a way to kill several hundered thousand people, maybe even damaging the infrastructure of the nation. Would you really use it to simply destroy symbols like the WTC and damage the Pentagon? Would you settle for that, if you could instead deal them a really hard blow?
They could instead have flown those planes into, say, nuclear power plants across the country, killing several thousands instantly, and more in the long run, and seriously damage the power grid of the United States, which, incidentally, is rather old and frail as it is.
Why waste a one time chance like this on the WTC, which was a symbol, and definitely spectacular, but not really effective for the terrorists' cause? It didn't kill that many people (I mean no disrespect here, I'm trying to look at the event in as rational a way as possible), and it helped George W. to control the population and stay in power....I never really thought of that. That's an interesting argument right there.

So, answer the question I asked earlier, then.

"Whats the difference between a colonial Minuteman, and an "Insurgent" of modern Iraq?

The fact that titles like "freedom fighter" are given to them by the winner of the conflict. And as the one in Iraq is still going on, we'll have to wait to see which side wins ...

So, answer the question I asked earlier, then.

"Whats the difference between a colonial Minuteman, and an "Insurgent" of modern Iraq?

Regulations and officering. That's an easy one.

2 different questions, really.

So let me ask you this then, 1. what lenghts would you not go to to protect your family, your country and your way of life, 2. would you harm civilians for example if it was the only way to get your message across?

1. Whatever length I deem necessary. Including exterminating another ethnicity.
2. No. But I can't honestly answer it: never have been on that side.
But there is a question 3 implicit in your question:
3. Do I grant others the right that I grant myself? My answer: why should I do a silly thing like that? Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi!


Then that would make you in your mind a freedom fighter, and to those others that you exterminate you would be called a terrorist.

Point 2 I say that if you was fighting against superioir firepower, and training, then gurrila warfare and civilian tagets would not dent your conciose at all.

Now I don't say that is a good nor bad thing(well it is always bad to attack civilians) just that if I put myself in that place I too could justify my actions.

So where is the differance between terroist and freedom fighters? It depends what side you are on, and what perception you have because actualy, there is no differance.

As for the wired bit of what,Latin? at the end, sorry can't read it, nor speak it, I don't know what you just said?

As for the wired bit of what,Latin? at the end, sorry can't read it, nor speak it, I don't know what you just said?

I translates as "What's allowed to Jupiter is not equally allowed to an oxen", meaning essentially that some animals will always think they are more equal than others...

Regulations and officering. That's an easy one.


Wow.

What a way to avoid the whole point.

Im reffering to the similarities between the two, and how both causes they werre/are involved in are more alike then you probably care to admit.
One we look at as a heroic freedom fighter, and the other has been villianized to where the average layman probably thinks "Insurgent" means "bad guys".

The two, are vastly similar, and the causes not all that different.

I've always operated on the battlefield as a member of an official, national Army.

Quod licet iovi, non licet bovi = what is allowed to Jove, is not allowed to a cow, oxen, or bull.

Wow.

What a way to avoid the whole point.

Im reffering to the similarities between the two, and how both causes they werre/are involved in are more alike then you probably care to admit.
One we look at as a heroic freedom fighter, and the other has been villianized to where the average layman probably thinks "Insurgent" means "bad guys".

The two, are vastly similar, and the causes not all that different.


Are you familiar with Legalist Philosophy?
Not meant as churlish...
( link in a couple of seconds )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_%28philosophy%29

Are you familiar with Legalist Philosophy?
Not meant as churlish...
( link in a couple of seconds )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_%28philosophy%29


Vaugely, but Im afraid I missed your point....

I wonder what the difference between an "Insurgent", of modern day Iraq, and a "Minute Man" patriot of colonial America is.



It will all depend on the eventual outcome. To the British forces at the time, they would both be the same.

History is written by the winners.

I've always operated on the battlefield as a member of an official, national Army.

Quod licet iovi, non licet bovi = what is allowed to Jove, is not allowed to a cow, oxen, or bull.


Ahhhh yeah very enlightend, so not every one is equal then?

If memeory serves me right you are the chap that I was talking to the other week about my dislike for sqauddies? Or more correctly my dislike for how the goverement takes young lads, traisn them to kill and then discharges them afterwards without adequate re-training to intergrate them back into society, an de-brainwash if you like.

And you disagreed with me saying that you have not been brainwashed? So please tell me again, how this type of thinking you have shown(you know kill the enimy, anybody who says a good word about the enimy is the enimy - please excuse my spelling it is shit) has not come about because of your military training?

It will all depend on the eventual outcome. To the British forces at the time, they would both be the same.

History is written by the winners.


I think its all in how we choose to perceive them.

Its easy for you or I to have an image of the Minuteman, in his homemade uniform, bravely protecting his home from the evil British army...but thats not exactly realistic, is it?

Nor is it realistic to assume that every Iraqi who has had enough of Americas meddling, or the Sunni government, is willing to blow up a nursery school.
Yet, we paint a picture of an evil "Terrorist" living in a cave in Afghanistan, plotting to posion your local well with anthrax.

History, is indeed written by the winners, but reality, is perception.

Well since the definition of terrorism is where the purpose is to use terror to change the situation, one way or another it was terrorism. In the same way freedom fighters are terrorists, no matter what the cause.

It's all bullshit

Thats all you need to know.

Following this surprisingly slow thread, I'm inspired to strap explosives to every part of my body, run screaming into the deep desert where I won't hurt other living things, and blow MYSELF up.

I'm reminded of Strange Attractors. No matter how eccentric the initial impetus, the debate spirals into almost the same place as if it had started with "Sucide bombing is wrong. Let's kill the suicide bombers." This effect should be called the Dumb Attractor.
:D

Vaugely, but Im afraid I missed your point....


Let me try to clarify it ( still not in churlish-mode) : either a group is fully compliant with international law and regs ( colonial militia men), or a group is just a bag of Valid Military Targets( al qaeda in mesopotamia).

My take is simple: be fully compliant with regs, or dance on a rope.

Ahhhh yeah very enlightend, so not every one is equal then?
SNIP
?

I don't do 'englightened', and I don't do equality.

Furthermore, you can't even spell, and I have no intention whatsoever of excusing you.

It's all bullshit

20 years from now when people are talking about Bush's terms, they're just gonna say:

Cheney shot a man in the face, it was funny, and everything else was a bunch of bull. (shit)

I don't do 'englightened', and I don't do equality.

Furthermore, you can't even spell, and I have no intention whatsoever of excusing you.


Hah yeah typical army view, anyhoo cheers for not ignoring my question. Yep I can't spell but I don't really care at least I can think for meself, instead of towing the crap that has been fed me.

Hah yeah typical army view, anyhoo cheers for not ignoring my question. Yep I can't spell but I don't really care at least I can think for meself, instead of towing the crap that has been fed me.

Personally I think you're both morons.

it is rediculious to think that is was all a government conspiricy to start a warEven if it was a conspiracy, it would still be terrorism. The only difference is who's reponsible.
Terrorism is anything done to instill terror in a population. And you don't fly planes into buildings to make people feel at ease. (Well, unless it's a test to show a building can withstand an airplane hitting it, but then the building and plane would be empty during the event.)

Even if it was a conspiracy, it would still be terrorism. The only difference is who's reponsible.
Terrorism is anything done to instill terror in a population. And you don't fly planes into buildings to make people feel at ease. (Well, unless it's a test to show a building can withstand an airplane hitting it, but then the building and plane would be empty during the event.)

I agree with you!

Personally I think you're both morons.


Hahah cheers! Thats like my son tellin me that though, but cheers anyway.

Hahah cheers! Thats like my son tellin me that though, but cheers anyway.

Everyone on this siteknows I'm thirteen? Wow. But cheers anyway. I'm young, so Mike's Hard Lemonade? Or Mike's Hard Berry? Mmm, good stuff.

Let me try to clarify it ( still not in churlish-mode) : either a group is fully compliant with international law and regs ( colonial militia men), or a group is just a bag of Valid Military Targets( al qaeda in mesopotamia).

My take is simple: be fully compliant with regs, or dance on a rope.

http://www.scottishloyalists.com/paramilitaries/stone.htm

RUC terrorism of a civilian population. Documented. Published on a loyalist website too. What do you do when the system is rotten to the core? When the police are killing children, like in the streets of the UK, or in Israel.

for a very long time, i was found in the group that argued that 9/11 conspiracy theories were just plain ridiculous and the product of delusional minds. more recently, i must admit i have seen some stuff that made me challenge my beliefs. while i would never state adamantly that this was an inside conspiracy, i have moved to the position where i really don't know anymore. also, take into account that, whoever did this, there was a conspiracy (even if by or including Al Qaeda). a conspiracy happened, it's just a question of who organised it and why. this post does not provide you with an answer.

you ask why i may have moved into a more neutral ground? first, because there are signs that a very similar script has happened in our recent past history and there is some evidence that could point to things being not so black and white, as the Bush administration has led people to believe.

let me go through the bits that made me move to the middle position:

A. history repeats itself?
we've all heard the sentence right? now read this article about the rise of Nazism and allow me to make a crude analogy [in red] to the solidification of the Bush's hawkish right. also, i must state clearly here that i do not know what happened, neither i believe that the motivation of Bush (big if he was somehow involved) was necessarily those of Hitler. there are many possibilities as to why they could have done it.

The Reichstag Fire Decree (Reichstagsbrandverordnung in German) [patriot act] is the common name of the decree issued by German president Paul von Hindenburg [US president GWB] in direct response to the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933 [attack on the WTC]. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German [US] citizens. With Nazis ["Bushistas"] in key positions of the German [US] government, the decree was used as the legal basis of imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis ["Bushistas"], and was used to suppress publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany.

background of Nazism
Adolf Hitler had been named chancellor of Germany [US] and invited by President von Hindenburg to lead a coalition government only four weeks previously, on January 30, 1933. Hitler's government urged von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and to call elections for March 5.
On the evening of February 27, 1933 — six days before the parliamentary election [shortly before presidential elections]— fire broke out in the Reichstag chambers [the WTC was attacked]. While the exact circumstances of the fire remain unclear to this day, what is clear is that Hitler [Bush] and his supporters quickly capitalized on the fire as a means by which to speed their consolidation of power. Seizing on the burning of the Reichstag building as the opening salvo in a communist [islamic] uprising, the Nazis [Bushistas] were able to throw millions of Germans [Americans] into a convulsion of fear at the threat of Communist [Islamic] terror. The official account stated:

The burning of the Reichstag [attack on the WTC] was intended to be the signal for a bloody uprising and civil [religious] war. Large-scale pillaging [more attacks] in Berlin [the US] was planned.... It has been determined that ... throughout Germany [the US] acts of terrorism were to begin against prominent individuals, against private property, against the lives and safety of the peaceful population, and general civil war was to be unleashed.... [the american way of life]

The decree was improvised on the day after the fire (February 28) after discussions in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior, which was led by Hermann Göring, and was then brought before the Reich cabinet. In the ensuing discussions, Hitler stated that the fire made it now a matter of "ruthless confrontation of the KPD" and shortly thereafter, President von Hindenburg, 84 years old and lapsing in and out of senility, signed the decree into law.
The decree, officially the Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat (Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State), invoked the authority of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution which allowed the Reichspräsident to take any appropriate measure to remedy dangers to public safety.

The decree consisted of six articles. Article 1 suspended most of the civil liberties set forth in the Weimar Constitution — freedom of the person, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of free association and public assembly, the secrecy of the post and telephone, not to mention the protection of property and the home. Articles 2 and 3 allowed the Reich government to assume powers normally reserved to the federal states (Länder). Articles 4 and 5 established draconian penalties for certain offenses, including the death penalty for arson to public buildings. Article 6 simply stated that the decree took effect on the day of its proclamation.

this is not evidence against Bush, just a very bizarre coincidence of the development of events, which could point to "inspiration". obviously, it didn't take long before the Nazis invaded Poland, just like Bush invaded Iraq. also, it is obvious that the Patriot Act doesn't go as far as the Reichtag Fire Decree, but it certainly goes in the same direction (of removal of some civil rights).

now for the second part.

B. circumstantial evidence
here, if you are really interested into delving deeper into the possibility of something other than a plain Al Qaeda attack, you should read the two articles provided to their full extent. they are very well written and they don't try to offer an explanation into who organised the attacks or why; all they do is looking into the scientific evidence of the strange symmetrical collapse of the 3 towers (according to these scientists this would be very unlikely to happen, unless there were explosives strategically allocated), plus some circumstancial evidence.

the website is by PHYSICS 911: (not really the usual conspiracy theory type of website)
"PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven.

you really have to read the full articles but here are just a few examples of their findings:

1. firemen at the site reported seeing flashes and bangs as the towers collapsed, pointing to a hypothetical reversed implosion.
For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox *News anchor reported:**

There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building!* Then another explosion.” (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)

*

Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:*

[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)

And assistant fire commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional insights:

When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building.*** You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me…* He said did you see any flashes?*** I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.* (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)
2. these flashes are recorded in videos provided on the website
3. WTC7, which was not hit by any of the planes, took 6 seconds to collapse in a way similar to a controlled implosion.
If you've forgotten, WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge steel supports.
WTC7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the buildings from WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 happened to contain the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a facility that was, according to testimony to the 9-11 Commission, one of the most sophisticated Emergency Command Centers on the planet. But shortly after 5:20 pm on Sept. 11, as the horrific day was coming to a close, WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.
4. Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself.
5. Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing rights for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001 for $200 million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement right after 9-11 - yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by claiming the two hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist attacks. He stood to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment.

link 1: http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones.htm
link 2: http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm

C. other weird events (picked up from a few websites, not so reliable but which provide facts that should be somewhat easy to check:
1. Marvin Bush was on the governing board of Securacom, the company in charge of security for the WTC complex when it was hit.
2. Jeb Bush visited the Florida training school of the ‘hijackers’ a mere 12 hours after the 9/11 event, and together with FBI agents confiscate all of the archives and records of that flight school.
3. On the morning of 9/11, father George Bush met with Osama bin Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden, at a conference sponsored by the Carlyle Group in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington, DC.
4. New evidence alledgly links the owner of the Venice Florida flight school which trained Mohamed Atta to the Central Intelligence Agency

now, investigate further and draw your own conclusions if you wish (and can). i really don't know what happened, but i do know that the world is full of dangerous and greedy power-mongers. it certainly seems crazy to think of the possibility, but the fact is that people in the past have used similar tactics for their own purposes. when you consider Bush's profile of many lies and deceit, the allegations of ellection fraud, the bypassing of federal courts for wiretapping (which he now wants a secret court to allow)...

finally, consider these 3 sentences by GWB:
[B]"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/98)
-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

obviously, the idea that Bush somehow might be involved is very very very scary and would require a tremendous organisation of movements and of very sick and dangerous people.

what can i say more? would i trust Bush with my life after reading all this? personally i wouldn't for a split second but then, he's not my president (which doesn't mean i'm safe from the consequences of his hypothetical actions, like the spanish could say)

I'm not about to start spouting conspiracy theories, but for the moment consider some of the other facts:


Bush said prior to 9/11 he wanted to invade Iraq.
Bush presidency was unspectacular, in fact his poll numbers were not at all impresssive.
The Bush family owes a lot people a lot of political favors and needs a means to grant those.
The Bush family is in bed with the families which control oil in the Middle East, most specifically Saudi Arabia.


And on a more subjective note: Bush has shown time and time again that he is willing to put his, or his family's, interests above that of the United States proper.



Considering all of the above is it really so hard to believe that he might have had a hand in 9/11? There are quite a few people who consider the possibility that Roosevelt had a hand in setting up Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt needed a reason to get involved in WWII, but the current political climate did not allow for that. And so the theory goes he "invited" such an attack. Afterall it does seem rather odd that the pacific fleet would all pretty much be on training exercises at that time right? So why would it be unreasonable for Bush to have used a similar tactic to get what he wants.


Powerful people are not above using tragedy to get what they want; history has shown us time and time again that tragedy is a powerful motivator for change, but that it is also easily manipulated as people rarely take the time to reflect and self-analyze during times of tragedy.



Now I'm not going to sit here and claim that Bush did call for 9/11 to happen. There does not exist any hard and fast proof of anything which calls for anything more than speculation, and so it remains speculation. I will not, however, entertain the notion that he is above doing so morally or otherwise. He and his bedfellows love money, and there is not mistaking this fact. And before someone tries to give me an economics lesson on the importance of the twin towers: consider how much oil interest there was in the twin towers, or any interest which was tangentially related to Bush or his family or cronies.



At this point though even if you accept that Bush was involved the act itself was still terrorism. No amount of local aid will ever change the fact that 9/11 was terrorism, and was itself a horrible tragedy the likes of which no decent human being can ever hope will ever be repeated ever again. Those who are responsible should be judged according to the nature and gravity of their actions and have sentence passed on them accordingly.

But one must carefully consider where the whole of blame lay before passing judgement over anyone, and while at this point there is only a shadow of doubt this does not preclude the possibility that Bush may have been involved in some way. Of course, if you consider how good his people are at cover up and political manipulation in all likelihood no evidence would ever surface even if he was involved; heck it took 40 years before anything resembling evidence of Roosevelt's possible involvement came to light, and I doubt anything less would suffice in the case of the Bush family.

NTIf he was going to do something like this to justify the war in Iraq, he would have used a group with a dirrect connection. Think about how thin his arguement that Saddam supported terror was, don't you think he would have used dirrect links?