What a moronic insinuation!

[Aegis]

Then has he said that the States will attack any country harbouring known Terrorists? To me, that is almost like saying they're declaring war (which they've done against Terrorists). Bush's actions have done little to help World Peace. He has insulted other nations, withdrawn from the talks to dismantle nuclear weapons, bullied the Middle East, and now has issued a statment saying that those who harbour terrorists deserve the same as the terrorists.

I do agree that this isn't about war, to the American people anyway. To him, I beleieve it is a different story.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>I wasn't saying don't spy on potential enemies. My point was that Bush was giving China a real hard time for not giving it back (Assembled anyway). He has been pushing minor things like that since his acceptance into office.

Also, this ins't a "half-baked" conspiracy, as you put it. It is completly plausible, as it has been done in the past. I'm not saying this wasn't a tragedy, because it was, I'm just trying to make a point that people can't always jump up and point the finger at the first person that crosses their path, which is what half the world did when Bin Laden was mentioned. It hasn't yet been confirmed that he ahs done it. If he had, wouldn't he have issued a statment of why he did it, or at least take credit for it? The fact that no one has taken credit for this is rather suspicious, becuase the point of most Terrorists attacks is to make a point, or issue some form of demand on the government. In this case, nothing was demanded, and no one has stepped up to make a point.

Don't dismiss something because it's unlikly. Sometimes the correct answer is the most unorthadox one, or simpleist one.

(Just so everyone knows, and especially Quark, I do greive for those lost, and I don't think this is a conspiracy. I'm just saying its possible.)</STRONG>

Actually, it is implausible. An American would not go as far as to harm American civilians just to get a war started with someone else. There is a war going on, but it is against Terrorism. If a war does start with another country, it will be because they refused to give up the terrorist.

Yes, terrorist attacks are meant to make a point. This attack has made a point. It has shown that the USA is not invulnerable. It is simple why no one has declared themselves responsible. The point has been made without a declaration of responsibility and, by declaring oneself responsible, that person would be saying, "Come and kill me now, USA."

Also, the USA has united together and is ready to fullfill the deathwish of whoever was responsible for the attack, thus making it even less likely that radicals would declare responsibility whether they are responsible or not. The few who have declared responsibility didn't have the resources to pull something like this off so they aren't even mentioned. Mentioning them would merely give them what they want, recognition.

[ThorinOakensfield]

I agree with you Aegis.
Like i said in another topic,
A woman in one of the hijacked planes called on her cell phoen some governemnt or somebody.
The person asked her what race are these terrorists? But the woman couldn't tell. Muslims from the Middle East can't be that hard to tell apart.

[Aegis]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Actually, it is implausible. An American would not go as far as to harm American civilians just to get a war started with someone else. There is a war going on, but it is against Terrorism. If a war does start with another country, it will be because they refused to give up the terrorist.

Yes, terrorist attacks are meant to make a point. This attack has made a point. It has shown that the USA is not invulnerable. It is simple why no one has declared themselves responsible. The point has been made without a declaration of responsibility and, by declaring oneself responsible, that person would be saying, "Come and kill me now, USA."

Also, the USA has united together and is ready to fullfill the deathwish of whoever was responsible for the attack, thus making it even less likely that radicals would declare responsibility whether they are responsible or not. The few who have declared responsibility didn't have the resources to pull something like this off so they aren't even mentioned. Mentioning them would merely give them what they want, recognition.</STRONG>

It;s not implausible, becuase it not's the only times it's happend in the States! It happend before the Civil War. Thats only one instance that comes to mind, but before the Civil War started, there was an act of terrorism (Northerners attacked a southern Plantation, and had no affilitian with the military, but it wasn't a peasant revolt) It's also happend in Europe since the Birth of Christ. It is a completly plausible idea, and should not.

Also, if the Terrorist responsible were to reveal himself, the States could really do nothing against him without starting international war. The States have no jurisdiction over other countries. What really peeves me though is that the States wouldn't give a damn if this happend to Canada (the government anyway). Sure, people would be greiving and all, but they wouldn't hunt the people down. But this all seems to easy. Terrorist attack on the States, they stand up and declare a war on terrorism, and they've sworn to punish the one responsible, yet they have no clue who has done it, and the have no clue where the culprit is. For them just to declare a war on terrorism, is almsot like declaring a war on the middle east as that area is ripe with Terrorism. Every month there is a terrorist attack over there.

[Word]

i see this as a war as well. I sorry but this is not a "justice" hunt. How do you know what FBI is really finding. It could be a smaller lesser known terrorist group that did this foul act. But we could blame bin landen because it is easiest to do so. i fear that over everything else in or goverment the ability to manipulate our people.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>Then has he said that the States will attack any country harbouring known Terrorists? To me, that is almost like saying they're declaring war (which they've done against Terrorists). Bush's actions have done little to help World Peace. He has insulted other nations, withdrawn from the talks to dismantle nuclear weapons, bullied the Middle East, and now has issued a statment saying that those who harbour terrorists deserve the same as the terrorists.

I do agree that this isn't about war, to the American people anyway. To him, I beleieve it is a different story.</STRONG>

First off, you're wrong about Bush.

Second, you obviously don't understand the concept of his statement. Anyone who harbors the terrorist is an accomplice. They are helping hte terrorist escape from 'the law'(Justice). It's the same thing if you protect a murderer in your home. He did not say that they deserve the same as terrorists. He said no distinction will be made. The point of this is to prevent the nation that is harboring the terrorist from continuing to do so. It is now up to whoever is harboring the terrorist to decide whether or not a war will occur.

This actually shows some of the implausibility of your USA Conspiracy theory. Too many variables. Even if the US did this and have set up all the "proof" to point directly 100% at Bin Laden, it is still upto Afghanistan as to whether or not they hand over Bin Laden or go to war with the US.

If it were about war to him, then he would have already attacked Afghanistan before today, without even giving them a chance to turn over Bin Laden.

No offense, Aegis, but I think you need to open your eyes and stop viewing things in such an apparently narrowminded way.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>Also, if the Terrorist responsible were to reveal himself, the States could really do nothing against him without starting international war. The States have no jurisdiction over other countries. What really peeves me though is that the States wouldn't give a damn if this happend to Canada (the government anyway). Sure, people would be greiving and all, but they wouldn't hunt the people down. But this all seems to easy. Terrorist attack on the States, they stand up and declare a war on terrorism, and they've sworn to punish the one responsible, yet they have no clue who has done it, and the have no clue where the culprit is. For them just to declare a war on terrorism, is almsot like declaring a war on the middle east as that area is ripe with Terrorism. Every month there is a terrorist attack over there.</STRONG>

That's bullsh*t. True, we don't know 100% for sure who did it, but we do have clues and such to go by.

If this had happened to Canada, the US would be backing Canada just as other countries are backing the US. If not, there would be a lot of angry Americans(including me).

If the terrorist did reveal himself, we would be able to do something about it. It might require a war to do something, but something would be done about it. Whether or not a war occured, though, would still depend on the choices made by the country harboring the terrorist.

[Word]

@SS do I smell a hypocrite?
You already assume Aegis was wrong without listening to the points. Aegis is not saying that it happened but that it could. Bin landen as the culprit is not set in stone either. And since when did the law become justice.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Word:
<STRONG>i see this as a war as well. I sorry but this is not a "justice" hunt. How do you know what FBI is really finding. It could be a smaller lesser known terrorist group that did this foul act. But we could blame bin landen because it is easiest to do so. i fear that over everything else in or goverment the ability to manipulate our people.</STRONG>

Actually, if you look at how complex and well organized the attack was, you'd see that the possibilities of who could have done it are greatly limited.

[Aegis]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>First off, you're wrong about Bush.

Second, you obviously don't understand the concept of his statement. Anyone who harbors the terrorist is an accomplice. They are helping hte terrorist escape from 'the law'(Justice). It's the same thing if you protect a murderer in your home. He did not say that they deserve the same as terrorists. He said no distinction will be made. The point of this is to prevent the nation that is harboring the terrorist from continuing to do so. It is now up to whoever is harboring the terrorist to decide whether or not a war will occur.

This actually shows some of the implausibility of your USA Conspiracy theory. Too many variables. Even if the US did this and have set up all the "proof" to point directly 100% at Bin Laden, it is still upto Afghanistan as to whether or not they hand over Bin Laden or go to war with the US.

If it were about war to him, then he would have already attacked Afghanistan before today, without even giving them a chance to turn over Bin Laden.

No offense, Aegis, but I think you need to open your eyes and stop viewing things in such an apparently narrowminded way.</STRONG>

How do we know if a country is harbouring a Terrorist willingly? What if the country has been quielty theartend with some devestaing act if they didn't keep the man safe? The same is with if a murderer hides in your home. You know that if you turn the man in, he'll probably kill you, well, it's the same case with Terrorists hiding countries.

Also, if I were veiwing things in a narrow minded way, then why would've I offered points for and against this potenital American conspiracy, and the facts that we know. I have no once supported the this as being a conspiracy, I just said it's possible. Also, I have never stated support for or against Bin Laden's invovlement. All I have been saying is that no one should be pointing fingers until we're sure.

Lastly, what I said about terrorism in other countries, it's already a fact! Terrorism happens in the Middle East every month, if not every week. No one, and I mean NO ONE in North America cares, or even knows about it! Why? Becuase Media is American driven, and they choose not to show it for the most part. Why is it we don't see the amount of support for those countries when they're attacked, but the second the Untied States of America is attacked, the whole world stands up, and calls it the injustice of the Century! I'm sorry, but far worse has happend to other countries.

If this makes me look narrowminded, while then I guess I'm narrowminded, but I least I entertain other possibilities, and not hop on the band wagon.


Just noticed this...

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Actually, if you look at how complex and well organized the attack was, you'd see that the possibilities of who could have done it are greatly limited.</STRONG>

This is a rather interesting statment. How many Terrorist groups have the sort of money to send people to train as pilots, train them to be able to hijack a plane in American soil, and convince them to Kamikaze?

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: Aegis ]

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Word:
<STRONG>@SS do I smell a hypocrite?</STRONG>

You're one to talk.

Originally posted by Word:
<STRONG>You already assume Aegis was wrong without listening to the points. Aegis is not saying that it happened but that it could. Bin landen as the culprit is not set in stone either. And since when did the law become justice.</STRONG>

I have read everything Aegis has said. I'm pointing out reasons why his "plausible conspiracy idea" isn't plausible. I have stated many times that we do not know for absolute certainty that Bin Laden did it, but we are fairly sure it was him. That is why we have yet to attack.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>They are helping hte terrorist escape from 'the law'(Justice).</STRONG>

Notice the apostrophes around "the law." That is meaning I am using that term loosely. I did not state that the law is justice. The point is that whoever did this must be brought to justice. Harboring the terrorist thus protects him from justice. In the US, we have laws against doing such things. That is the principle that Bush stated when he made that statement.

Don't accuse someone of being a hypocrite when you yourself are being a hypocrite.

[Aegis]

@SS: Explain to me how Word is a hypocrite? I seem to be lost with that one.

Also, about your law comment. Yes, the responsible party must be brought to justice, but for the States to do it, they need to have them in custudy, in the States. They have no jurisdiction in other countires. Also, please refer to me last post about the whole harbouring issue.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>How do we know if a country is harbouring a Terrorist willingly? What if the country has been quielty theartend with some devestaing act if they didn't keep the man safe? The same is with if a murderer hides in your home. You know that if you turn the man in, he'll probably kill you, well, it's the same case with Terrorists hiding countries.</STRONG>

We don't. That is what makes deciding whether or not to go through with the attack is difficult. It gets down to a "Who do you fear most?" thing. It's sad that it has to be this way, but it does.

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>Also, if I were veiwing things in a narrow minded way, then why would've I offered points for and against this potenital American conspiracy, and the facts that we know. I have no once supported the this as being a conspiracy, I just said it's possible. Also, I have never stated support for or against Bin Laden's invovlement. All I have been saying is that no one should be pointing fingers until we're sure.</STRONG>

I'm not saying that you are narrowminded. I'm saying that you seem narrowminded with some of the things you are saying.

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>Lastly, what I said about terrorism in other countries, it's already a fact! Terrorism happens in the Middle East every month, if not every week. No one, and I mean NO ONE in North America cares, or even knows about it! Why? Becuase Media is American driven, and they choose not to show it for the most part. Why is it we don't see the amount of support for those countries when they're attacked, but the second the Untied States of America is attacked, the whole world stands up, and calls it the injustice of the Century! I'm sorry, but far worse has happend to other countries.</STRONG>

True, far worse has happened to other countries. You want to know what this difference is? I'll tell you what the difference is. America is the most powerful individual nation. We, up until now, have been seemingly invulnerable. This has proved we are not invulnerable. Also, the specific places hit effect the entire world both directly and indirectly.

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>If this makes me look narrowminded, while then I guess I'm narrowminded, but I least I entertain other possibilities, and not hop on the band wagon.</STRONG>

Very little makes me mad as fast as someone accusing me of "hopping on the bandwagon." I have not hopped on the bandwagon, just because I seem to agree with "everyone else." My beliefs are my own. If 'everyone else' agrees with me, than yippee for them. I'm the one who, either in this topic or in another topic, proposed the 'possible' idea that Isreal was behind the attack to try to gain more support and 'freedom' to attack Palestinians. I also thought of, though never stated, the same USA Conspiracy theory you mentioned. I have thought of at least a hundred different "possibilities" involving nearly every nation I know of. That's just the way my mind works.

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>@SS: Explain to me how Word is a hypocrite? I seem to be lost with that one.</STRONG>

He first stated that I had not read what you had written. Then he stated some things about what I had written that were saying that I said something I didn't say, thus he did not read what I had written. He had done what he accused me of doing, thus being a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>Also, about your law comment. Yes, the responsible party must be brought to justice, but for the States to do it, they need to have them in custudy, in the States. They have no jurisdiction in other countires. Also, please refer to me last post about the whole harbouring issue.</STRONG>

It is imperative that the one responsible is brought to justice. The only way to do this is to make a threat. We hope that the threat will not have to be carried out, but that is the only way it can be done. I wish and I now that Bush wishes there was another way but there is no other way known to any of us. We won't know if this is the right decision until after it is all said and done.

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>This is a rather interesting statment. How many Terrorist groups have the sort of money to send people to train as pilots, train them to be able to hijack a plane in American soil, and convince them to Kamikaze?
</STRONG>

Very few, I'm sure. The only one I know of is Bin Laden, as far as the resources to have these people trained. As far as convincing them to kamikaze, that just requires some religious brainwashing...

[Maharlika]

Whoa...whoa...things are getting a little steamy here... lighten up guys!

Hmmm... probably I've been reading too much Tom Clancy, but hey, I do understand the gist of Aegis' argument.

For the sake of argument that it is an American Conspiracy, it would not perhaps be the Bush Administration itself, but the guys are high enough and well connected to produce the results of the recent tragedy. Probably people who have their selfish motives and are totally amoral as to non-chalantly consider taking the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of American and foreign lives. Motive? Good question. Money perhaps? Coulds be. Revenge? Vengeance? Sick sense of righteousness? Whatever.

The problem with us "ordinary" people is that all we can do is just speculate. If anything, we must understand that governments make their constituents know WHAT THEY NEED TO KNOW. These governments think that for the sake of national (and probaly even international) security, there are some things that the public does not need to know --- perhaps not yet, anyway.

Well not unless you can convince me that you got "reliable" sources, all we can do is just speculate.

Yes, anything is possible. But if there is anything, the WORLD MUST BE CONVINCED that the accused IS INDEED RESPONSIBLE before America does what America has to do.

@Aegis: True enough, and glad to hear it coming from an American. Terrorism has been occuring much more than a cassanova gets his conquests. They just don't get enough media mileage (CNN is an American company, right?)and entice enough emotion from other people around the globe to finally say that we had enough of terrorism.

Sad thing that it had to take a great American tragedy for the rest of the world to realize that Terrorism is for real and that it knows NO boundaries.

[Aegis]

@SS: Your argument is very strong, and thats good. The only problem I have with it is your comment about Terrorist attacks on the US, as opposed to attacks on the Middle East. From what you said, because the States beleived themselves to be invincble, it is wrong to attack them, but because we all know the Middle East isn't, that makes it not a big deal? Last I checked, it should be a big deal regardless. People should be standing up and helping those in the Middle East when they get attacked. The States offer a show of support for other countires, but that is all it is. A show. When they get attacked, it became a lot more personale, and devestating.

Anyway, It's late, I got school, I'm going to the other thread, then I'm off to bed.

[Quark]

#Aegis: Funding. That I know of bin Laden is one of the very few terrorists that could pull this off. Either that or it was a state-sponsered attack. If that is the case then we will go to war, no matter what any of you say.

Oh yeah, didn't I say the Taliban confirmed they have bin Laden under thier protection? 'House arrest' as they put it. Bullsh*t. bin Laden is a hero to the Taliban, sadly enough.

There is some evidence that Iraq was behind this, too. That is being followed up on, too.

Oh yeah, it won't matter if bin Laden was behind this or not. Bush said this is the time to take out all known terrorists - it's better to be proactive than reactive. Or, since bin Laden may not be guilty of this one (but many other past ones), should we let him go so he can pull of something twice as bad in three years? I don't care if bin Laden organized this - he is a terrorist who has taken American lives. America should do what ever it can to return the favor.

[Maharlika]

Ooops! Sorry. Aegis is probably a Canadian.

[Aegis]

@Quark: If Bin Laden is a Taliban hero, than why would they annouce his whereabouts? It seems to make more sense that they would protect him by feeding the states false information.

Also, this will the LAST I should have to say this, but I am not denying that Bin LAden has done this. Get that fact thorugh your minds. I have merely said that it is plausible that others could be behind, even your beloved United States. It's reality. Not always is the country just the victim, as it is in Games. Sometimes, the country is both the victim and the assailant. The whole point of my argument is Theory and Speculation. Until all the facts are known, anything is possible.

[Maharlika]

It could well be an orchestrated effort by more than just one group who would want to have America taste what it is like to have one's country and community get bombed and people dying en masse. Like taking the fecal matter back to one's own back yard.

This is probably why Bin Laden could well be right when he said that I am NOT the one responsible. More likely not the only one...

Oh well, let's just wait for further updates...

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>@SS: Your argument is very strong, and thats good. The only problem I have with it is your comment about Terrorist attacks on the US, as opposed to attacks on the Middle East. From what you said, because the States beleived themselves to be invincble, it is wrong to attack them, but because we all know the Middle East isn't, that makes it not a big deal? Last I checked, it should be a big deal regardless. People should be standing up and helping those in the Middle East when they get attacked. The States offer a show of support for other countires, but that is all it is. A show. When they get attacked, it became a lot more personale, and devestating.</STRONG>

I did not say it wasn't a big deal, nor that it shouldn't be. What I stated is how America and the world view these things. I do not say that it is right, but it is true. As far as American media not showing the things that happen elsewhere...it's because of what they do show of what happens elsewhere and here that I avoid the news. I know it happens and that not enough, if anything, is done about it. I can't handle the effect those have on me. I am saddened that it requires a direct attack on our country to get us to stand up and make terrorists pay for their evil acts; but the important thing is that we have stood up and we will make the terrorists pay. War is sad indeed because it is never limited to just the militarists. The civilians always end up getting hurt. Do not think that I'm saying this is okay. It is a terrible thing, but it is something that can not be avoided.

If someone at school bullies you and you never do anything about it, he'll keep bullying you. You have to make him stop or he'll just keep bullying you. That's what a terrorist is. A large scale bully. Terrorism has gone way too far. Something must be done. The longer we wait to do anything about it, the worse it'll get. Sometimes, you must decide between the better of two evils. Risk killing 20,000 civilians now by doing something or do nothing and end up with 50,000 civilians dying in the next terrorist attack? The best thing would be to avoid both, but this is a case where one must choose one or the other. Which would you choose? Are you so sure you would actually make that choice if you were in that position? Are you sure that is the correct choice?