Printable View
Was it terrorism or was it a natural (unatural, however you want to take it) act of war, the pentagon was a military installation was it not?
Taken there are civilians that were killed as well but when the U.S. bombs a "terrorist" hideout in Iraq and kills some civilians that isn't terrorism it's an act of war.
hmmm, thats a damn good point. It very well could have been considered an act of war, or a decleration of war. I think the deciding factor would be did the government ok the attack/crashes. If it was not an action started by the ruling government then it would be terrorism.
while both are beyond a doubt 'acts of war' the islamonazis' bombing was meant to cause a maximum amount of terror. the more civialians killed the greater the shock.
and while our bombing of hideouts and dinner parties are sure to terrorize those involved they are meant to cause the 'least' amount of harm to the innocents...and can you really call the family that gathers the quida together for supper and a meeting... civilians?
There is a big difference between, bombing a target of hostiles when it is a military establishment, and bombing cowards who use civilians for shields, of course there is going to be collateral damage in these cases.The fact that this is a war against terrorisim does not change those tactics.The people of Iraq, in some cases know full well who the insurgents are, heck even some of the supposedly new security forces of Iraq have been infiltrated by these fanatics,and continue to place the innocent civilians of Iraq in danger.Quote:
Taken there are civilians that were killed as well but when the U.S. bombs a "terrorist" hideout in Iraq and kills some civilians that isn't terrorism it's an act of war.
When a suicide bomber targets random civilians, there is no "hard target" when the Israeli's retaliate they are trying to target a "hard target" usually a fatwah leader, but of course they surround themselves with innocents, and the Israeli's end up trying to defend their reason for striking back, and causing some civilian deaths (actually what is a civilian in the palestinian camps?)
Anyhow, all three incidents (Towers,Pentagon,Pittsburgh) were technically acts of war, the only reason it wasn't declared a war (War was declared against terrorisim) is because there was no country behind it, like Japan and Pearl, or Germany and Poland, clear cut antagonists.It was hard to put a face on this enemy (Al Quida)(but we all know Saudi Arabia was behind it.wink wink).
If it had been that easy to declare war openly on a particular country, we would have been in and out long before now, as there would be nothing left to rebuild or occupy, the first Gulf War is an example of an open declaration of war, because Iraq, occupied an ally (Kuwait), the same for the Falklands, the Argentinians didn't count on the old Iron Lady (Thatcher) to take their little illegal occupation so seriously, well weren't they surprised.....
OK, I will "nit pick" on this one.
The Pentagon is not a military target. It is an administrative centre...........like Congress, the IRS (no Mr. Bin Laden, I am not advising you as to how to obtain universal popularity :D ) and so on.
Administration = infrastructure, and infrastructure is a legitimate target in war.
Fort Benning is military, the White House is infrastructure...............flammable at that............not that Canadians and their British mates would do anything along those lines?..............it was the French ;)
Does anyone have any proof a plane actually crashed into the pentagon??? noone has any photographs of any plane wreckage in or areound the building, and from what I am to understand many photographs were taken within the first 30 mins of the 'impact'
the whole 3 planes deal sounds like a real good story for mike moore.
what happened to the plane that went down in the field? noone talks about that either.
Yeah, let me hold your proof right up here...
Why dont you go read the 9/11 report, and ask the agencies and people who investigated these 'incidents'.
All this discussion is doing is trolling for an argument.
@tt!tud3
Get a life huh?
A Boeing 737 at 600Mph and you expect to find anything larger than a matchbox?
Ack! phtt! :rolleyes:
Hate to say it but the US is the only country to call terrorist’s attacks an act of war. For most other countries they are criminal acts. The important thing is you can’t go to war with a criminal organisation. War is a political act and as such, it needs a legitimate political opponent. Bush legitimised Al queada by declaring war on terrorism. Then again it means that the powers that be can keep the American public in a war mentality for as long as they want. Which is every politicians dream.
As for the rest of what was said both the allies and the axis during the second world war attacked soft targets such as cities to break enemy moral using the terror generated by bombing attacks. A couple of examples Cologne, Coventry, London ect.
Also take the American bombing raids of the 80's and 90's on different middle eastern cities. Were they terrorist attacks by the definitions given here or were they a legitimate political response?
Who here believes America is in a state of war? (Outside of Iraq that is.)
Is Bush a war time president?
If Bush is war time president doesn’t that mean that every president elected from now on will be a war president with all the powers that go with it?
Oh Nihil are you up early or late. 6AM post my time ouch.
I have followed 9/11 very closely since it took place and the aftermath that led afterwards. There was a film banned in the USA that spoke about Bush and his connections to the middle east etc. When 9/11 took place, Bin Laden advisors wwere having a meeting down the road from the twin towers. All aircraft was forbidded to take flight however they (Bin ladens advisors) were put on a flight straight away back to the middle east. Very interesting. The documentary also suggested that a missile hit the pentagon and showed visual information about it. Bush has oil connections with the bin ladens and it was the USA (CIA) whom trained him and funded him to take on the USSR in Afgan. A terrorist attack was bound to happen and in my opinion the CIA was involved with this whole scandal. Some of you may disagree with my theories but we are entitled in my opinions.
NO!
The Bin laden family are construction/civil engineeringQuote:
Bush has oil connections with the bin ladens
A fundamental error?
Hi cider.
You are right every one is entitled to there opinions but if you post here you need to be ready to defend your position. :D I have seen the missile theory and for me it just doesn't wash. The terrorists had already hijacked a number of planes why complicate things with a missile strike?
The U.S. has been bombing Iraq since......Saddam's been in power, whether it's before or after CNN's "War In Iraq" is irrelevant.
Hhhmmm...these must all be part of some conspiracy, I wonder if Elvis is involved.....are you serious @tt!tud3??? I suppose these are fake???Quote:
Originally posted here by @tt!tud3
Does anyone have any proof a plane actually crashed into the pentagon??? noone has any photographs of any plane wreckage in or areound the building, and from what I am to understand many photographs were taken within the first 30 mins of the 'impact'
the whole 3 planes deal sounds like a real good story for mike moore.
what happened to the plane that went down in the field? noone talks about that either.
Flight 77 in the Pentagon
There may not be many pictures of flight 93 in Pittsburgh, so then all of these people are in on the conspiracy as well???[sarcasm]We are all lying, really[/sarcasm].... :rolleyes:
As for those planes going into the towers, well they must be part of this conspiracy theory as well, actually they are still there, but are hidden behind a huge holograph of just air/space???
Of course Bush has oil connections with the bin ladens, they basically own saudi arabia. How do you plan on getting decent priced oil without them in the picture? Osama was a crazy son who was disowned by his family. Don't hold his actions against them, for that is utter ignorance.
And did you notice how much racial violence there was against arabs/muslims soon after 9/11? Ever think maybe Bush didn't want the people he was making an oil deal with for the country to not get rocks thrown at their cars? hmmm.
Quote:
Originally posted here by MURACU
Hate to say it but the US is the only country to call terrorist’s attacks an act of war. For most other countries they are criminal acts. The important thing is you can’t go to war with a criminal organisation. War is a political act and as such, it needs a legitimate political opponent. Bush legitimised Al queada by declaring war on terrorism. Then again it means that the powers that be can keep the American public in a war mentality for as long as they want. Which is every politicians dream.
As for the rest of what was said both the allies and the axis during the second world war attacked soft targets such as cities to break enemy moral using the terror generated by bombing attacks. A couple of examples Cologne, Coventry, London ect.
Also take the American bombing raids of the 80's and 90's on different middle eastern cities. Were they terrorist attacks by the definitions given here or were they a legitimate political response?
Who here believes America is in a state of war? (Outside of Iraq that is.)
Is Bush a war time president?
If Bush is war time president doesn’t that mean that every president elected from now on will be a war president with all the powers that go with it?
Oh Nihil are you up early or late. 6AM post my time ouch.
(Emphasis mine) That's a good point - you can only really declare war on a sovereign nation, not a band of criminals or terrorists. I think the 'war on terror' is not a real war, that's why al Queda prisoners aren't worthy of protection under the Geneva convention. It wasn't so much a declaration of war as it was a declaration that they were going to be hunted down and killed as they should.
I'm not saying that a missile did hit the pentagon just stating what has been said. And yes the planes did hit the twin towers - not a conspiracy that they did hit however the reasons behind it. There are so many negatives going towards bush. His military record has been brought up - he never went to vietnam instead stayed @ home flying over texas -"defending Texas from invasion". However that is going off topic. The point is Bush attacked a nation (afgan, Iraq) which violates United nation clauses instead of going for the terrorists themselves. Did he accomplish anything? Not really but gaining more Oil Depots in Irag. This is an endless argument so both arguments wont be satisfied. Anyway I am really keen for your replies as history is my main hobby.
The Royal Family own Saudi...............the bin liners are an irrelevancy ;)Quote:
Of course Bush has oil connections with the bin ladens, they basically own saudi arabia.
Consider this one what if Bush didnt attack Iraq for the oil but because he was told to by the saudis? Consider that the only country that islam did not have a strangle hold on in the whole area was Iraq. Saudi arabia is more or less the center of the islamic faith. Saddam scared the **** out of them when he invaded Kuwait. Bush is a
Quote:
Originally posted here by nihil
The Royal Family own Saudi...............the bin liners are an irrelevancy ;)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family here.Quote:
The immensely rich bin Laden family, intimately connected with the innermost circles of the Saudi royal family was thrown into prominence through the activities of Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family own and operate a global corporation annually grossing 5 billion U.S. dollars, based upon the largest construction firm in the Islamic world, with offices in London and Geneva. [1]
All of this could have been avoided if said host nations didn't protect the criminals(terrorists), if you aid and abet, then you are part of the problem. Just as in law, if you harbour a known criminal from the justice system then you can be charged.Quote:
The point is Bush attacked a nation (afgan, Iraq) which violates United nation clauses instead of going for the terrorists themselves.
How would you go about going after the terrorist themselves???, if they go to a nation that is willing to let them in, then what, we just hold up at the border until we get clearance from the host nation allowing us to proceed, meanwhile ol'd Osama goes out the back door.....
If you do not want to bring terrorism to your own front door, then get rid of these idiots that will use every means possible to avoid getting caught...
Bush, as much as I dislike him, had it right when he said...your'e either fur us or agin us... :rolleyes:
Consider this one what if Bush didnt attack Iraq for the oil but because he was told to by the saudis?
Consider that the only country that islam did not have a strangle hold on in the whole area was Iraq.
Saudi arabia is more or less the center of the islamic faith.
Saddam scared the **** out of them when he invaded Kuwait.
Bush is a close family friend to the royal family.
The saudis have about 10 trillion dollars invested in the american economy.
Iraq was the country in that area that had the least connections to the 9/11 bombers. I dont think any of the bombers were Iraqi. Quite a few of them were Saudi.
The US already had control of the iraqi oil fields through the UN. Dont forget this was at the time the UN was still doing as it was told by the US. And before any one starts saying oil for food scandel take a look at the amount of funds that have been misused since the liberation of Iraq by US comapnies and diplomats.
edit : Dalek the terrorist were never in Iraq.
The United Nations Could not intervene with Americas invasion of Afgan and Irag. There are five major players: Britain, France, Russia, America and China. If a country does something that goes against the UN's clauses these five players come together and vote. However with America invading the five players came together can called a vote to stop America. All the Americans did was "veto" this and the UN couldn't. In the early 1900s (1930 for example) the League Of Nations (known as the UNO today) was a complete failure. Today some people might see the UN as a failure as they couldnt intervene. Its stupid really that if one of those five nations invade forgein land the UN cant do anything as they will just veto. This was huge discussions during the cold war and America and the USSR were both part of the league of nations so they couldnt sanction each other :P
d0pp
You are history boy :D ;) :cool:
You don't really know that for sure do you???, as far as I know, the Iraqi's Baath party are pretty tight with Syria, and we all know that Syria is the epitomy of nice right?Quote:
edit : Dalek the terrorist were never in Iraq.
Oh so now it's a bad thing for the US to veto a UN security sanction, where were the rest of the world when the then USSR invaded Afghanistan, and the US along with the UK protested, but because the Soviets and Chinese are also on the Security council, they were able to veto the proposals brought forward by the US and the UK.Quote:
All the Americans did was "veto" this and the UN couldn't.
Two problems with today's UN....1.Corruption 2. Too many "old Boy's" making the decisions. One of the major reasons the US won't ante up it's share of the UN dues, is because they want reform, and I agree, when they clean out the petty bureaucrats, and put in place an International Peacekeeping Force, that can flex it's muscles and not be hidebound by petty squabbles then maybe it will work...
Until then the only cop around is the US, I mean really what are we all going to do, if China decides that it's time for Tiawan to come back into the fold, and moves in militarily, who is realistically going to stop them. No One....
Dalek the us is no more a cop than russia or china is. As for corruption look at the corruption in iraq since the US took over. The Us is doing what any major power will do and that is looking out for number one. The big differance between the US, Russia and China is that the US tries to candy coat what it does and then get pissed off when the world doesn't buy it.
MURACU you may have a point, but if I had my "druther's" I think I would go with what the US has to offer, as I am sure you are just as familiar with the records of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, when it comes to interfering with other countries, let alone their own citizens very lives.
As for the US is no more a cop then Russia or China, I have to disagree.....even with all of their warts, the US is by far the preferable of the three, from my perspective, we may not like the way they go about doing things on the world stage, but until someone bigger comes along, we are kinda stuck with it, and just suppose Kennedy hadn't of called Breshnev's bluff in 62, or if the US without MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) or Detente where would this planet be today....do you seriously think Russia or China's way of doing things would have been better???
The US along with NATO (not the UN) are responsible for basically keeping the Soviets under heel, until they went bankrupt trying to outbuy Reagan...
I am also sure the majority of the people who used to live under the yoke of the Warsaw Pact are better off today, maybe a little poorer because of corrupt politicians, but eventually they will get it together.
look at China, and what they are doing today, they are "Communist" in name only, and the ruling party are trying to figure out a way to survive, when the sh*t hits the fan, because 1.5 billion people are going to want their iPods........ :p
Actually dalek I would as well but for arguments sake I am sure that a lot of people would say that russia was the only thing that kept America honest.
Touche..... ;)Quote:
Originally posted here by MURACU
Actually dalek I would as well but for arguments sake I am sure that a lot of people would say that russia was the only thing that kept America honest.
Dalek you are defending Americas actions as they are the strongest nation and no one can really stand up to them. Yes they are the main superpower with China right behind them however I dont agree with there actions. The point still remains: Attacking Afgan was a total mistake which cost civilian lives. Yes 9/11 cost lives too however does two wrong make a right. People say that on the day of the japanese attack on Pearl Harbour they "awoke alseeping giant" but America just awoke the right wing muslims by doing what they doing. Yes the suicide bombers were always there but America should have gone a different route. As you read in the bible that the end of the world will take place in the middle east > it is just a matter of time before it begins. Nostradamus predicted 2012 will be the year that the world ends. So good luck to us all.
Cider I would love to see the source where Nostrodamus states that the world will end in 2012. Nostrodamus never gave dates in any of his predictions. He was too smart for that.
As I stated earlier, better them, then the Russians or Chinese, or Idi Amin..... :rolleyes:Quote:
Dalek you are defending Americas actions as they are the strongest nation and no one can really stand up to them. Yes they are the main superpower with China right behind them however I dont agree with there actions.
This is where the taliban were located, so to get to them, Afghanistan had to be liberated,civilian's are always going to be the loser in any conflict, and in modern warfare Hitler started it by bombing civilians, prior to that, most of the battles waged between two or more antagonists where conducted on the battlefields, WWII was the end of "chivalrous" conduct during a war.(why the Geneva Convention was created to set standards of conduct, and not everyone proscribes to this, least of all terrorists).Quote:
The point still remains: Attacking Afgan was a total mistake which cost civilian lives.
Not sure what point your'e trying to make with this one, 9/11 was a cowardly act against unarmed civilians, the actions against the Taliban were as precise as it could possibly be, with an opponent that can blend into the background, and rely on their fear mongering to keep the locals quiet, then yeah there will be collateral casualties.(If the locals are upset because they are targeted along with the insurgents then what they have to do is uproot the bastar*ds themselves, sort of help themselves instead of relying on others), stop crying about it and do something about it....Quote:
Yes 9/11 cost lives too however does two wrong make a right
And what route would that be, when the majority of the countries that either butt up against these problem areas or are connected in some way, don't give 100% to fight or locate these terrorists....Quote:
Yes the suicide bombers were always there but America should have gone a different route
Not in my bible (ICBM verse 1.1) a well placed tactical nuke on the trouble spots will bring a sigh of relief to the majority of this planets people who just want to enjoy life without the daily crap.Quote:
As you read in the bible that the end of the world will take place in the middle east > it is just a matter of time before it begins. Nostradamus predicted 2012 will be the year that the world ends. So good luck to us all.
;) ( I know I can live with the possibilty that the middle east after being totally nuked will be off limits for the next 120,000 years)
Dalek: All I am saying is that by the Americans killing "muslim civilians" they have given Jihad more justification to go more radical. Yes I understand civilians will die but there must have been another way to go around it.... dont you think?
Quote:
Originally posted here by dalek
Hhhmmm...these must all be part of some conspiracy, I wonder if Elvis is involved.....are you serious @tt!tud3??? I suppose these are fake???
Flight 77 in the Pentagon
There may not be many pictures of flight 93 in Pittsburgh, so then all of these people are in on the conspiracy as well???[sarcasm]We are all lying, really[/sarcasm].... :rolleyes:
As for those planes going into the towers, well they must be part of this conspiracy theory as well, actually they are still there, but are hidden behind a huge holograph of just air/space???
Hegelian Logic. Great stuff. :D
How will it ever work, if my Bible say's to turn the other cheek and their Bible (Koran) say's to go out and kill the non believers..Quote:
Originally posted here by Cider
Dalek: All I am saying is that by the Americans killing "muslim civilians" they have given Jihad more justification to go more radical. Yes I understand civilians will die but there must have been another way to go around it.... dont you think?
How would the Muslim world react, if we suddenly found a few passages in our Bible that when interpreted differently we discover it say's all "Non Christians" shall be put asunder, and expunged from the face of the earth, because our God is bigger then your'e God.
Too many "fundamental differences" between the two, IMO this was due to happen and will not be resolved until either the religion of Islam comes to it's senses or is obliterated, you can argue all you want about the West meddling into Middle Eastern politics and that they have every right to declare Jihad, against non believers, but the fact remains that Islam is still in the Dark ages and needs to grow up.....and that is why it will never happen, too much individual power in the hands of despot imans and the males of that society, the thought of allowing their women to be able to see whomever they want, or to divorce when the relationship becomes too abusive must really freak these stupid mother's out...I mean it's great that I can take ownership of the remote here in my home, and allow my other half go and spend my (our) money....that's life, that's the western style of life, it's a given, just try and tell the women of North America or Europe that in the best interests of keeping the Muslims happy, we will require all Christian women to wear the burka....yeah right, you though the First World War and second World War was a fight...