[Cabbie]

A bit long but interesting read

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_26/ai_91236225

[Carl]

we did.

[vyper]

I am not responsible for the emotional distress caused by the arguments made on these sites.

Remember, questioning one's own government is the ultimate act of patriotism so I hope all the US folks here will pay attention. For the rest of us, it's a warning bell about what will happen in our own countries as the war on terror progresses:

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
http://www.wtc7.net/
http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/9-11bulletpoints.html
http://www.standdown.net/
http://www.infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm

[Rictor]

Carl, did you read it? Thats the general point of such threads, to read the provided material. In any case, I think you can do better than "we did".

[vyper]

[q]we did.[/q]

And J Edgar Hoover liked girls.

[Grey Wolf]

I haven't read the articles yet, but by behaving rationally, do you mean doing things like not infuriating the entire Muslim world and not invading countries that had nothing to do with it? Or do you mean by not panicing and giving the government the ability to intrude upon our civil liberties?

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I haven't read the articles yet, but by behaving rationally, do you mean doing things like not infuriating the entire Muslim world and not invading countries that had nothing to do with it? Or do you mean by not panicing and giving the government the ability to intrude upon our civil liberties?

I would think he means both.

[Mr. Vega]

Nothing new for me, but well written.

[Flipside]

Well, I don't think we could expect anyone to behave entirely 'rationally' after an event like that, had it happened in London or Sydney or wherever, I'm sure the reaction from the country involved would be the same kind of outrage.

 I think the Americans cannot really be expected to be Vulcans. The government used the peoples fear immediately afterwards to take advantage, but I am praying they will speak with their feet and their pens in November

As for the whole Muslim thing, once again, sleight of hand and misdirection. A lot of Americans got bulldozed into that, and once you are in the boat and at Sea, you may as well join the crew, especially when the Captain is trying to make the other choice walking the plank

[Rictor]

Am I the only one who is inevitably reminded of the Reichstag fire?

[Flipside]

Thing is, I've seen equally believable evidence that it was down to structural design and the fact the building simply wasn't designed to be almost cut in half by a 767.

I've always found it interesting that the Bin Ladens were flown out when all other flights were grounded, especially as I don't think it was officially known for a few days that Osama Bin Laden was the one responsible.

Theres more going on than we know, but as to how truly 'ominous' those truths are, I'm unsure.

[vyper]

Read the links I posted, you'll get some interesting points there on the issues you've just raised.

[Flipside]

I've checked out some of them, the Building #7 thing was very interesting, not unheard of for internal collapse, but strange that there was a building between it and the Towers themselves. I know no steelframe building has ever collapsed from fire, but it may have just been shaken loose by the collapse, been damaged internally through gas main fire, collapsed under it's own weight and poor design, I don't know, the scene could have been cleared so quickly simply because there were delicate government documents in there etc. I'm not saying it's definately not suspicious, because it is, but I'm open to options at the moment

I'm not saying I wouldn't put it past the Cheney/Rumsfield express to consider this kind of thing a 'worthwhile investment', which, for them it certainly has been, and it's not the first time something like this would have been planned (See the plans the US Government made to villainise Cuba, Rictor will probably have a link ).

The handy passports, Quorans and 'How to Fly an Airliner' books always made me laugh as well.

I suppose the question remains, did they allow it to happen or assist in it happening. The answer is a betrayal of the people either way, but how deep does the rabbit hole go?

[Max Sterling]

I think the premise the author makes is a bit ridiculous.

The only comparison is that people died. That's it.

What is under attack here, besides our people, is our entire way of life. The terrorists (read Osama's statement of why he attacked us) hate us and all we stand for. They hate our ablity to be free, to make choices, to not choose their way. They hate that because our freedom is so powerful, some of their own people choose it. The purposeful, direct attack to kill our people was carried out with the intent to frighten, to damage, and take away our freedom. This has no comparison to car accidents. Even before there was the automobile, people died in accidents. There always have been and always will be accidents.

Our response to terrorism is appropriate. The author of the article makes the riduculous conclusion that our reaction only makes things worse. How else could we respond? Of course we took action to prevent it happening again. This is only logical.

The fact is, they already hated us, and already attacked us. Our defending ourselves does in no way make it worse. If we weakly let it happen, let them control us, they would only do it again and again, because they hate our freedom and want to take it.

For some reason, authors like this tend to forget who is the problem here -- the terrorists. They are the ones to blame for this, no one else. They intentionally killed people out of murderous desire. I dare say that this is wrong. I say their idea of killing people and inspiring terror as a way of spreading their agenda is wrong. I also say that there is no reasoning with these kind of ruthless killers. They must be met with force, to defend the very freedom we have as a nation.

[icespeed]

hey, terrorists are people too. let's not demonise them and just turn them into words to hate randomly. even in the US there are murderers and rapists and all that- what's to distinguish those people from terrorists except they happen to live in a different place?

besides, defending freedom by attacking another's freedom to attack seems a bit stupid to me. true freedom is being able to choose not to attack.

[Liberator]

icespeed, you are wrong.

The terrorists and those that support them are not fighting for freedom.  They are keeping people oppressed.

The difference between common murderers and rapists and the terrorists is quite simple.  Common murderers and rapists are criminals, they don't have ulterior motives for their actions other than money or a sense of power.  The terrorists are a whole 'nother level of evil, they are will to kill, and worse brainwash ignorant children to kill for them, any and all who stand in the way of their schemes to maintain the status quo of their power base.

In 1776, the world turned a corner, a nation was formed that was in exactly the right place at exactly the right time in history and led by some of the greatest men who have ever lived.  The first free nation of the modern era was born.  It was a long and winding road from that birth to now and we didn't all get here at once.  But the idea of freedom was set loose upon the world.  The terrorists want to keep/return the world to a sociopolitical enviroment that existed in that part of the world almost half a millenia ago.

The world teeters on the edge of a knife.  If the West stood united and said "You will no longer terrorize or oppress you're peoples, you will allow them to be free" and really mean it, the 21st century could go down as one of the most peaceful century in history.  Terror could be stricken from the face of the world.  Instead, they're playing bloody politics with thousands of lives.

[Flipside]

http://www.magnacartaplus.org/magnacarta/

We got there 500 odd years earlier

As for your opinion of Terrorists, you define them by their leaders and 'alleged; representatives (i.e the ones that appear on the news the most), just as they define you by yours.

[Liberator]

Yes but ours aren't out to kill hundreds or thousands to acheive their political aims.

And before you spout off about Afganistan and Iraq, I'll remind you that there are now something on the order of 40 million people free where they were once oppressed by the some of the most brutal governances of the last 30 years.

[Flipside]

Free? Free to do what? To hide in their houses and hope an artillery shell doesn't turn them into a statistic?

Trust me, from a Middle Eastern point of view, you could say that the Whitehouse has already killed far more poeple to achieve it's political goals than the Terrorists have.

[Rictor]

What about all those people that America killed during the Cold War, for doing nothing more than electing a slightly leftward government, not even socialst or communist but only moderately left?

Is a death by suicide bomb any worse than death by IMF "structural readjustment" or by Agent Orange induced birth-defect?