no video of the first plane? geez, some people have really selective memories.
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/first.plane.hits.gp.med.html
i guess if you hate the us enough, you can make yourself believe whatever you want…
and since 911, we’ve seen multiple instances of what happens when small planes crash into large buildings. and yet people still want to believe that a small plane loaded with explosives could have caused all that damage to the fortified structure of the pentagon. as if anyone actually knew what kind of damage a small plane with explosives could do. it’s so much easier to throw out wild theories ignoring the HUGE GAPING HOLES in them(like where were the people who got on those flights at the airport and who were making calls from their cell phones) than to try back up their assertions.
Yeah, what is all of this X-files crap anyhow?
Scully: Moulder, I think Mr. Hanson was hit over the head with a two by four by someone who didn’t want him around.
Moulder: No Scully, because the answer seems so obvious and blatantly apparent, it couldn’t possibly have happened that way. Back in the medieval ages there was a coven of virgins enslaved by the Rosicrucians who eventually decided to take revenge on their evil masters through telekinesis. They were called the Mordannas and could transmogrify themselves into subatomic particles that vibrated at speeds well past the speed of light, thus moving objects at will, and with great force. They would encirle their victim and in a relentless frenzy, move large wooden boards until the object fell on the head of their prey. I think that is what happened to our Mr. Hanson here…
And I wonder if anybody who has been bringing up these so-called points has the slightest idea of what they are talking about. It seems that one would probably have to have a fair bit of physics, engineering and architecture under the belt to come close to substantively addressing issues such as what temperatures can break down certain metals and what conditions could cause extrordinarily high temperatures etc.
A lot of this thread is utter blather.
I agree that the US government hasn’t answered good questions such as why weren’t its intelligence agents not well enough informed, and how is it the government is willing to just throw more money at them without seeing first if some kind of reform might be better suited to the task. Or why the Bush administration still coddles the Saudi government when most of the guys on the planes were Saudis and Egyptians.
But the titillating conspiracy exercise comes off as disrespectful.
I suggest if you guys are serious about debating “questions,” perhaps you should start a new thread that does not merely pretend to address the issues.
Well-reasoned debate does not vitiate the memory of the dead.
It’s like Umberto Eco in “Foucault’s Pendulum”. There is so much information and there are so many subcultures in the world anything is possible. It makes good fiction.
Still, we should remember Spock when he said something like: anything is possible, but it is logical to focus on the probable. Therefore, getting a little crazy is acceptable, but go overboard and you end up flying a plane into a building like that boy in Florida.
quote[quote] It's like Umberto Eco in "Foucault's Pendulum [/quote]Yeah exactly. You want my take on the old conspiracy theory thing? (probably not). Just read Foucault’s Pendulum, especially the end. What a great book.
Bri
Hmm, but if we can put conspiracy aside for a moment and just look at a few facts:
I’m not a US citizen, but afaik the FBI is responsible to investigate acts of terror within the US borders - at least that’s what they claim on their website. On May 1st the FBI announced that after more than six months of investigation they found in fact: Nothing.
Only a few hours after the attacks, the US government seemed to be pretty sure “it was Bin Laden”. The US government even presented some kind of information (or whatever) that was described as “evidence” to politicians of other countries’ governments to convince them to join the “War on Terror”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in my understanding a war is something fought between two or more countries. Crimes (like acts of terror) otoh, are usually processed by a country’s investigative forces and judicial system.
The investigative institution responsible in case of the 9-11 attacks is the FBI. Now, the FBI has found nothing, while its government presented evidence more than half a year ago to foreign politicians. Does that mean that politicians of other countries are trusted more than the own investigative forces? Or why did the US government not provide their information to the FBI? This way, the FBI is on the same level as the Taliban: When the US government demanded the extradiction of Bin Laden, the Taliban demanded evidence of his involvement. That request was denied and bombs sent instead.
In all the above is not a single piece of conspiracy. No, I don’t say the US government faked the attacks or sent the bombers by themselves (those were sent by the Marsians, of course…), but as a few other readers already pointed out, it may be that the “chance” of the attacks were used to follow own goals and it might be a good idea if also US citizens have a little more doubt in their government and question governmental activities instead of nodding to everything…
quote:
Originally posted by Flipper: no video of the first plane? geez, some people have really selective memories.http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/first.plane.hits.gp.med.html
i guess if you hate the us enough, you can make yourself believe whatever you want…
That is not a video of the first plane. It doesn’t show the plane. It shows a fireman who sees the plane, and then it shows the explosion in the WTC building after the impact. If you can find a video clip that actually shows the plane, please let us know! Apart from the sound - which I would say does sound like an airliner - the video clip doesn’t tell us anything about what kind of a plane it was - but the fireman could. Wasn’t he interviewed?
quote:
Originally posted by Flipper: and since 911, we've seen multiple instances of what happens when small planes crash into large buildings. and yet people still want to believe that a small plane loaded with explosives could have caused all that damage to the fortified structure of the pentagon.
But the small planes to which you refer (the ones flown by an American schoolboy and an Italian businessman) were not loaded with explosives, were they? Duh!
quote[quote]as if anyone actually knew what kind of damage a small plane with explosives could do. [/quote]Ever heard of a cruise missile?
Olaf,
You definitely have some good points here. I am an American and have been critical of many US foreign policy initiatives for a long time. I haven’t looked at the Web site yet, but from what I gather from reading the news, the US did at that time and does have some circumstantial evidence linking bin-Laden to the attacks. The evidence provided was part of a larger plan to coerce or convince other governments to get involved, not to prosecute al-Qaeda or Osama in a court of law which certainly would have been more difficult.
If the FBI had absolutely nothing, then I don’t think there would be the current brouhaha about the Bush administration failing to take action on bureau reports.
Though bin Laden didn’t have the same prominence as he does now, Western journalists have been doing their own research on him long before the attacks, just as they did with Khomeni in France before he led the '79 revolution in Iran. Bin Laden has made numerous statements before Sept. 11 indicating that the US is his number one target.
A thorough investigation of the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania led US authorities to the al-Qaeda organization. Even Bill Clinton made a few half-hearted attempts to “get rid of him.”
That there have been several arrests of people proven to be affilated with al-Qaeda in Germany, France, Spain, England and even Syria with incriminating evidence of various plots ranging from embassy bombings to civilian attacks leads me to believe that these guys aren’t exactly pussycats interested in pursuing world peace. Does it prove beyond a doubt that the organization is responsible for Sept. 11? No, but it does make it more probable.
I for one don’t know for sure if bin Laden organized and perpetrated Sept. 11. But (and I do consult other news sources beside American ones such as CNN and the NY Times) it is beginning to look like the Bush team made a damn good educated guess.
Your questions are far too difficult to try to answer in one post. I am no cheerleader of the Bush administration and am very concerned about what they have allowed John Ascroft to get away with in the name of the war at home, things such as trashing habeus corpus, allowing the feds to set up surveillance systems with impunity and negating attourney-client privledges.
However, though I do not like most of his policies, I don’t think that the president is a sinister bad guy such as the ones featured in James Bond movies who laughs maniacally as he plans to take over the world (or the oil, or sell huge defense contracts).
One would have to have been born yesterday though to believe that any country in the world only looks at the interests of others before they work on their own. France’s forays into violent espionage (The New Zealand GreenPeace ship bombing comes to mind) show that the US is not the only one caught up in this game.
You noted that you thought crimes such as “terrorism” were prosecuted and not seen as an opportunity to go to war. Well, the US has tried this route for almost 20 years; the first WTC bombing suspects were tried in a court of law. But apparently that route wasn’t too effective. Now, before you upbraid me for suggesting that the US is throwing its principles out the window, what, I ask, would you suggest they do?
Finally, it is a historical truth that any government that undertakes a military campaign is going to obfuscate issues, tell half-truths, commit the sin of omission and lie. In democratic countries, it almost always comes out in the wash, it may take five years or 20, but I agree with you that the US isn’t a shining example of moral leadership but then again neither is Germany, Taiwan or the UK.
While a bit off topic, I would certainly rather enjoy the benefits of writing posts like this than give in to moral relativism and see how my intellectual life would fare as a citizen of Saudi Arabia (oligarchy-dicatorship), Taliban-Afghanistan (theocracy-dictatorship), Pakistan (dictatorship) and countless others. Yes, the US and the West can take partial responsiblity for the suffering of people in countries like this but the bulk of the blame lays with such citizens for tolerating medieval governments and the governments themselves.
And Olaf, I’m curious, what do you make of Gerhard Schroeder accepting this evidence and signing up? Is he in on this secretive who cares if we accidently frame bin Laden ploy or is he just along for the ride?
Hi Jellymister,
Many thanks for answering seriously. I already expected another JFK, UFO or the like reply - nice surprise…
quote:I tried to avoid anything looking like it could be labeled "conspiracy" because that wouldn't make much sense to discuss. The above statement was made by FBI officials and quoted in a BBC article published on May 1st, the link can be found in one of my previous postings. My main point is that there are quite a number of contradictions, even if you mute all the conspiracy talk. If the Bush administration has evidence, why did they only show it to foreign politicians, but did not provide such information to its own investigative forces? I can think of two reasons, both not looking very good...
Originally posted by Jellymister: If the FBI had absolutely nothing, then I don't think there would be the current brouhaha about the Bush administration failing to take action on bureau reports.
quote[quote]Though bin Laden didn't have the same prominence as he does now, Western journalists have been doing their own research on him long before the attacks, just as they did with Khomeni in France before he led the '79 revolution in Iran. Bin Laden has made numerous statements before Sept. 11 indicating that the US is his number one target.[/quote] Here we arrive at another contradiction. Bin Laden should have been known to US intelligence institutions. Than how can they claim there was no advance hint at all of the 9-11 attack, but only a few hours after the attack even the person behind the crime is found already?quote[quote]A thorough investigation of the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania led US authorities to the al-Qaeda organization.[/quote] Someone in Germany made a search in publicly available newspaper archives for keywords like "Bin Laden" and "al-Quaida" (that's the way we write it in Germany) and found the first quotations right after the embassy bombings. At least to german newspapers both keywords were unknown before that time.quote[quote]That there have been several arrests of people proven to be affilated with al-Qaeda in Germany, [/quote] Yes, there were quick arrests in Germany, but afaik no-one has been convicted...quote[quote]I for one don't know for sure if bin Laden organized and perpetrated Sept. 11. But (and I do consult other news sources beside American ones such as CNN and the NY Times) it is beginning to look like the Bush team made a damn good educated guess.[/quote] And it is ok to "guess" because the people dying due to bombs, starvation or deseases are not US citizen? Did you notice (though this was afaik never mentioned on CNN) that the number of afghan people that died or will die as a result of the war is counted in millions? If that is "acceptable" (iirc this is one of the words used by US officials), one US life seems worth hundreds of afghan lives. What would happen if the police or FBI in the US while hunting a criminal drives over dozens of innocent people and shoots down others "accidentally standing in the way"? The media might response in a slightly different way...
quote[quote]I am no cheerleader of the Bush administration and am very concerned about what they have allowed John Ascroft to get away with in the name of the war at home,[/quote]
This is (among others) what I meant with “using the chance to follow own goals”. As you are asking about Germany: Yes, we had similar problems. During the 70’s (while hunting german terrorists) the german police introduced a method called “Rasterfahndung” (probably something like “grid tracing” in English), which only yielded one single success after enormous efforts and expenses. As this kind of tracing invades the privacy of many innocent people, there must be a very good reason to get the green light from a court. The Rasterfahndung was revived after 9-11, but recently a few courts found the courage to cancel the previous permission, because “there is no direct and eminent threat to Germany and its people.”
Due to the shock after the 9-11 attacks, it seems that a number of laws and measures that would usually have been heavily discussed and probably rejected were in fact easily introduced. I would like to see people view those things frome some distance and then ask themselves: If it had been before 9-11, would you have accepted it?
quote[quote]Now, before you upbraid me for suggesting that the US is throwing its principles out the window, what, I ask, would you suggest they do?[/quote]
Actually, I have a suggestion, but the US government does not like it at all. There is an international court to be established in the Netherlands. To give that court the power it needs to solve international problems, it will need the recognition and support of the majority of countries - including the large and strong ones. It will be necessary, that countries will accept not only decisions in their favour but all. Unfortunately, the US so far has not only shown no sign of support, the government even works against that court and will not accept any of its findings. There already were a number of concessions made only for the US: Soldiers could not be taken to court for instance. But still, the US administration found this not enough and even decided to free any US citizen ever being taken to that court - with whatever measure necessary. And still, they don’t recognise it…
9-11 would have been a very good chance for the global community to make use of such an international court and if that court would have found Bin Laden guilty, who would have spoken against the US? Unfortunately, from outside the US, the behaviour of the current government looks a lot like the wild wild west pictured in Hollywood movies: Wait for the judge? Why? Let’s go and hang them…
quote[quote]And Olaf, I’m curious, what do you make of Gerhard Schroeder accepting this evidence and signing up? Is he in on this secretive who cares if we accidently frame bin Laden ploy or is he just along for the ride?[/quote]
A very sad topic… It is probably hard to understand how happy many Germans were after the previous german government (with Kohl) finally was replaced. Now everything would become better - or so we thought. While Kohl had at least his ambitions, Schroeder looks like a shiny but hollow media star, I can’t remember anything really substantial from him. Like many other politicians, he was a lawyer once. Our minister of defense was a pacifist and did not serve in the army, but still he was among the first to vote for sending german troops - since WW2, Germany is VERY sensitive on this topic. Our minister of interior was the defense lawyer for a number of german terrorists during the 70’s, but now he wants to introduce even stricter control than your Ashford. At least our minister of foreign affairs who had been active in the peace movement has regained conciousness and began to question the “unlimited solidarity” our chancellor announced so quickly. No, Germany isn’t heaven (If it were, why should I have left?) at all, but if you compare quotations from various politicians, it will mostly be US politicians who know what is good for the world (“Only we can lead…”). If the US administration wants to be the leader of the whole world, they will also have to accept criticism from all parts of the world. This is mine…
If the US administration wants to be the leader of the whole world, they will also have to accept criticism from all parts of the world.
They are probably going to hunt you down for that.
As I said before I don’t believe in the conspiracy theorie but there are a lot of unanswered questons.
But I do believe the action taken was not right. You ask what they should have done? Alternatively to using the intl. court they could have sneaked in some ‘specialists’ and track Bin Laden and associates down instead of bombing the whole country into ashes. Track him, arrest him and bring him to justice. Perhaps it would have taken a long time but at least it would have avoided hurting innocent, civilian people.
But I know, that would have been to easy. Quick promises for action by American politicians lead to the current situation and as a result - yeah, what result?
Maybe they managed to slow down any plans the terrorist had, but do you really think it will prevent any such action in future, with the masterminds behind (most likely) still at large?
I hope you can sleep safe because I know I couldn’t if I lived in the US!
Does it prove beyond a doubt that the organization is responsible for Sept. 11? No, but it does make it more probable.
But (and I do consult other news sources beside American ones such as CNN and the NY Times) it is beginning to look like the Bush team made a damn good educated guess.
And guessing justifies such action?
You noted that you thought crimes such as “terrorism” were prosecuted and not seen as an opportunity to go to war. Well, the US has tried this route for almost 20 years; the first WTC bombing suspects were tried in a court of law. But apparently that route wasn’t too effective.
So you actually do justify this action? What about proscecuting murderes? Does it stop others from doing so? What about rapist? Do you think cutting of their dick would stop others from doing so? Not that I mind but though laws do not prevent such crimes to happen you can IMHO not jutify to hunt down each and every suspect and kill innocent bystanders while at it.
I am quite sure should the US lead another attack against other countries the world will not just stand by and watch, perhaps some countries will even retract from their promise of full support.
A critical situation as you would probably agree which could lead to WWIII, and for what!?
If only the US could step back and stop playing world police all the time it would perhaps have prevented some of the terrible incidents.
There are a lot of good points in the two previous posts.
My comments about the “educated guess” were not intended to be a justificaction for US action in Afghanistan. Press accounts from Europe, al-Jazeera and the US all suggest that bin Laden is the architect of 9/11. I have yet to see any compelling arguments otherwise. Subqequent action in the US is immaterial to whether the “guess” was right or not. I’m not addressing moral equivalence here. Do you have any other suspects in mind? (Please don’t say the CIA.)
Olaf, I have no truck with most of your points and I have a lot of questions myself. Dubya’s administration (even before Sept. 11) is characterized by a secrecy unbecoming of a democracy. When he was the governor of Texas during his father’s administration, he sent many high-level state documents to Washington to prevent the people of Texas from having access to the documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
The international court is a viable option. But it will be a cold day in hell before the US signs on. As long as the grand poobah of US foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, is alive, the Republicans will never allow it. Though he is wanted for questioning in Chile, France, Spain, Brazil and maybe eventually the UK, party stalwarts revere him as foreign policy mentor.
Again, the Bush administration’s behavior up to this point clearly indicates that they do not have enough evidence to CONVICT Osama and his cronies before a court of law, hence the suggestion for military tribunals.
One elision that has not been addressed is that 9/11 was an unprecedented attack. The Nuremberg trials and the Treaty of Versailles were victor’s justice. The war crimes tribunal at The Hague has, to my knowledge, only addressed crimes within countries commited by governments against their own people (Yugoslavia and Rwanda.) There simply isn’t a system in place to address 9/11.
Rascal writes
quote[quote]So you actually do justify this action? What about proscecuting murderes? Does it stop others from doing so? What about rapist? Do you think cutting of their dick would stop others from doing so? [/quote]While the content of these questions raise some legitamate concerns, the histrionics dilute the message. Domestic criminal law in democratic institutions and defense against foreign attackers are and should be two separate issues. Just as US criminal law makes distinctions between misdemeanors (small crimes such as shoplifting) and felonies (larger offenses such as rape and murder), it seems reasonable to me that distincions should be made between a citizen comitting a felony and non-citizens commiting an ULTRA-felony (slamming two airliners into buildings to the toll of 3,000 deaths.) Don’t make the mistake of assuming what I think those distinctions should be.
In the end, until the Palestinian-Israel situation is dealt with, the US will see no security whether it upholds the rule of law or goes to war.
To be honest, I have vehemently opposed most US military action during my lifetime; Panama, Grenada, Iraq and covert operations in Nicaragua were, in my opinion, morally reprehensible. Somalia and Kosovo were very difficult calls. Somalia, I think, was probably wrong (admittedly I am least informed on this one.) Now, I support the Kosovo action (But I have been there and all the Albanians I met supported the US and NATO action unequivocally.) Afghanistan has, by far, been the most gut-wrenching to weigh in on. I’ve had days when I thought it was all a huge mistake. There have been other times when I supported the effort. But the US should pull out now and let the UN do its work (no matter how incompetent it may be.)
Olaf writes
quote[quote]Did you notice (though this was afaik never mentioned on CNN) that the number of afghan people that died or will die as a result of the war is counted in millions? [/quote]I’m sorry, but you’ll have to provide a lot more information before I will swallow this assertion. The very word “will” screams speculation. Who are these prescient ones who can predict the number of lives to be lost? I have seen casualty reports including Taliban, al-Qaeda and civilians set at 3,000 (US military perhaps trying to downplay the carnage) to 5,000 (UN and other relief organizations maybe exaggerating it for their purposes.) As far as I know, there are no sanctions against Afghanistan, so one cannot ramp up the figure as was done for Iraq.
Drought, starvation and horrid medical and hygine conditions all exist. Afghanistan has, for many years before the US entered the fray, suffered the exigencies of poverty and war. Yes, I’ll acknowledge that the US has exacerbated the sitution, but I am not so sure all of these deaths can be laid at the feet of the US.
I’m tapped out…
Oh, now I know the reason you answered: Just to let your post counter run…
OK, serious again. There is a small contradiction within your own article:
quote:I think the international court IS an option that should be considered. But unfortunately, the actual US government seems not really to like international obligations - like the Kyoto treaty and other occasions (chemical and biological weapons...) show. You asked where the "millions" of civilian victims I mentioned come from. I only mentioned it that vaguely because the figuresd differ depending on the source and their calculations. Yes, the direct civilian victims probably count "only" about 3000-5000. More details about these figures are [url=http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm]here[/url].
The international court is a viable option. ... There simply isn't a system in place to address 9/11.
quote[quote]Drought, starvation and horrid medical and hygine conditions all exist.[/quote] Correct. But have you ever thought that some of those conditions originate in destroyed infrastructure? Already before the US started its attack on Afghanistan, about four million people had to rely on foreign food supply. Yes, that food was mostly supplied by the US. But now, due to the destructions the war came along with, five to seven million people are expected to die from starvation. Yes, such figures are calculated, not exactly counted, but if you only take the direct civilian victims, we come to the simple calculation that for each US citizen who died on 9-11, an innocent citizen from another country had to die. It is such attitude that frightens me... Btw, the death toll of US citizens caused by privately owned firearms each year is higher than the number of 9-11 victims - but did anyone start a discussion about firearms? Probably not...
Well, I’ll try to keep this one shorter…
Not exactly a contradition, (However, I did make a note that you qualified the comment with “small”)-I think that the court is a viable option, but that cannot alter the fact that pre- Sept. 11 a world court was not in place nor would have been even if the US had signed on. I was under the impression that once established, the court would not prosecute retroactively, meaning Osama would, for 9/11 at least, be beyond its jurisdiction.
You still didn’t tell me where your information on Afghan casualties came from. I too can speculate on how those figures were calculated, what I want to know is- where are the sources? (I’ll try to be more specific next time.)
And on the final point, yes there has been a discussion on firearms in the US and I believe that debate has been raging for almost 200 years. I would imagine that the concensus usually stands around 50% for and 50% against. The problem here is that there are virtually no organizations dedicated to members who don’t like firearms. Yet hobbyist clubs bring people together to talk about the things they like. So the pro-gun folks tend to be much better organized and better funded as well. Though, I must say, I really don’t see the connection to the subjects we’ve touched on so far.
Hi Jelly,
I gave neither exact figure nor source for the “millions” because as I said before those numbers might differ “a bit” - depending on source and method of calculation. The “primary source” (if it can be called that) of those informations is www.heise.de/tp, which is a german online magazine that will also publish articles one wouldn’t see in the mainstream media (because they might not be “politically correct”, “inconvenient”, do not sell or whatever). After 9-11, for a (long) while almost all german media basically copied CNN, just as if they were their german branch… TP was one of the few media that did NOT mute critical voices, but unfortunately most of their articles are in German (Though the “weekly overview” and a few other articles are available in English too - and some (though rather rarely) only in English.) Heise is a publishing company with a quite good reputation on the IT sector and Telepolis (the name of the magazine) usually asks their authors to support links to their sources of information. (It is a bit like slashdot where readers can comment and discuss articles, so some information can also be found in the responses.) Of course, there were several articles about the war in Afghanistan (or should I better say “the war on terror”?), where also figures were mentioned. As those figures were taken from several organisations and persons, I could provide you with links to a few relevant articles, but at least the orgiginal article (most links lead to english language websites) will be in German.
The link between firearms and the 9-11 attack consists of dead human beings. In both cases, it was not impossible to avoid those deasth tolls. To avoid further casualties similar to 9-11, the US government started the “war on terror”. What I’m still missing is their “war opn firearms”, which should be pursued even more intensively as firearms cause much more deaths of innocent US citizens (which the US government of course wants to protect). But I’m still waiting for Bush to ask the german chancellor to send the german GSG-9 for support in that war…
But I’m afraid waiting is useless, because such war would not bring the same publicity as a “war on terror”. Germany has a similar problem at the moment where firearms should be, but computer games are actually blamed…
Sorry, Olaf my man, gotta take a rest. Maybe next time I make it down to Taichung, we could hook up for a brew and figure out these conundrums.
You give up already? Though it is really not easy to argue FOR GW…
Hmm, I don’t drink alcohol, but aside from that…
While the content of these questions raise some legitamate concerns, the histrionics dilute the message. Domestic criminal law in democratic institutions and defense against foreign attackers are and should be two separate issues. Just as US criminal law makes distinctions between misdemeanors (small crimes such as shoplifting) and felonies (larger offenses such as rape and murder), it seems reasonable to me that distincions should be made between a citizen comitting a felony and non-citizens commiting an ULTRA-felony (slamming two airliners into buildings to the toll of 3,000 deaths.)
Well, the destinction is fine if it’s based on FACTS and not suspicions or unproven aquisations. I thought the US is the place where people are innocent until proven guilty!? Just because you can’t come up with a real suspect shouldn’t give you the right to go for the next best one and, while doing so, harming and even killing thousands of innocent bystanders.
That is something I cannot agree to and alternatives have been named.
I never had much against the US but slowly I start to feel upset by those actions. Not that I will become a terrorist therefore but just don’t count on my support or sympathy in future.
My, my, all of the sudden I have morphed into the American government. Rascal writes:
quote[quote] I thought the US is the place where people are innocent until proven guilty!? Just because [b]you[/b] can't come up with a real suspect shouldn't give [b]you[/b] the right to go for the next best one and, while doing so, harming and even killing thousands of innocent bystanders. [/quote]Rascal, I think if you had done a careful reading of the earlier posts, you would see that I am ambivalent about US action in Afghanistan.
I really started these posts not so much to defend Dubya and his cronies as to disabuse the notion of wacko conspiracy theories. I am hashing out some issues of my own. In some ways I have been playing devil’s advocate to explore where I stand.
I think, if you step back for a minute and look at your last post you will find that you are guilty of some of the crimes you accuse me of. Indeed, it seems you may have gone a step further and convicted an entire country (or at least me depending on whether your “you” was singular or plural).
Maybe you get some kind of strange catharsis by fuming and whipping out the moral indignation, when all I was doing was trying to have a reasonable debate on the issues.
My, my, all of the sudden I have morphed into the American government. Rascal writes: …
Sorry for causing a missunderstanding: “You” was referring to the US (government), not you as an individual.
You said earlier:
Subqequent action in the US is immaterial to whether the “guess” was right or not. I’m not addressing moral equivalence here. Do you have any other suspects in mind? (Please don’t say the CIA.)
Isn’t that the point? Just because you (see above) don’t have a better suspect should not give you the right to pick the next best one.
Judging by the action taken the US is not treating him like a suspect but instead has already convicted him.
I think, if you step back for a minute and look at your last post you will find that you are guilty of some of the crimes you accuse me of.
Which are? What did I accuse you off?
Indeed, it seems you may have gone a step further and convicted an entire country (or at least me depending on whether your “you” was singular or plural).
In a way perhaps. The government is elected by the people. Sure, there are those who are against it but isn’t it what the majority American people called for: Swift action and results against… ? - Yes, who? Anybody who could be a possible suspect! So the government picked one and the whole thing started.
Maybe you get some kind of strange catharsis by fuming and whipping out the moral indignation, when all I was doing was trying to have a reasonable debate on the issues.
Well, perhaps I slipped a bit or blame it on my poor English but I still believe that neither proof has been brought to clearly identify the culprit nor to justify such action - but I also believe it was not the CIA who masterminded it.
I am just worried that the reason of “war against terror” will be missused and that activities against other countries will be carried out in future under this “excuse” - which I consider offensive rather then defensive.
As most likely such an action will be lead by the US you may start to see why I (and many others I assume) can’t accept this anymore.
Just imagine Germany withdraws their initial promise for support if e.g. Irak is attacked. Will this then be a question of “you are either with us or against us” and give reason to attack Germany, too? Perhaps a bit far fetched and unlikely scenario but possible.