PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Hypothetical: What do you think the US response should be if...


patteeu
08-20-2011, 02:26 PM
... definitive proof was discovered that Iran was behind the 9/11 attacks?

Would it make a difference whether the 9/11 idea came from Tehran first or if it was bin Laden's but the Iranians helped facilitate it?

VAChief
08-20-2011, 03:33 PM
Assuming definitive evidence that our allies confirm as well, then it would seem to me that Congress would easily term it an act of war. It would make a difference depending on what type of support I would imagine. The Soviet Union and China both provided support to efforts that killed US citizens, but we didn't invade or declare war on those nations.

It would certainly be a sour pill for Americans to swallow after 10 years of misdirected engagements. It would certainly open up a lot of questions for the intelligence community to answer.

evenfall
08-20-2011, 05:16 PM
Even if they were behind it, we're in a position right now where the economy has been run into the ground with no hope of recovery soon, the anti war candidate has us fighting 3 wars instead of two... And this regime is not even basically competent on foreign policy.

I would hope that we'd be smart enough to realize that sometimes even when you would be justified, to fight is not always the right answer. We are too overextended right now given that we are being spent into financial ruin.

Whether you let the proof leak out or not I don't know, but... We can't do anything at this point.

alnorth
08-20-2011, 06:48 PM
What do you think the US response should be if...

space aliens from another galaxy flew down to South America and started blasting Brazilians with laser beams?

BucEyedPea
08-20-2011, 07:25 PM
What do you think the US response should be if...

space aliens from another galaxy flew down to South America and started blasting Brazilians with laser beams?

I was kinda thinkin' along the same line. :hmmm:

Dave Lane
08-20-2011, 07:25 PM
I can't speak for the US government, but personally I welcome our new galactic overlords.

Especially if they have some cool telescope toys with them.

kstater
08-20-2011, 07:27 PM
I would wonder if it came from the same intelligence that led to the Iraq war.

HonestChieffan
08-20-2011, 07:32 PM
What do you think the US response should be if...

space aliens from another galaxy flew down to South America and started blasting Brazilians with laser beams?


Take over Brazils oil business and send the aliens to Iran.

ClevelandBronco
08-20-2011, 07:51 PM
Assassination is affordable.

durtyrute
08-20-2011, 08:20 PM
... definitive proof was discovered that Iran was behind the 9/11 attacks?

Would it make a difference whether the 9/11 idea came from Tehran first or if it was bin Laden's but the Iranians helped facilitate it?

That would be an interesting way to get the boys in there and to get the American people behind them. Because eveyone can see that soon we will be blowing shit up over there as well because, hell, "it's what we do."

KILLER_CLOWN
08-20-2011, 09:32 PM
The true Neocon response would be to unleash the death star on planet earth, no one gets out alive!

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2011, 10:07 PM
... definitive proof was discovered that Iran was behind the 9/11 attacks?

Would it make a difference whether the 9/11 idea came from Tehran first or if it was bin Laden's but the Iranians helped facilitate it?

Pat, why are you getting the nancys all worked up? Some of these guys are fundamentally damaged and broken by the past 10 years. It's best to just let them blame Bush and that Bill Kristol guy and be done with it.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-20-2011, 10:15 PM
Pat, why are you getting the nancys all worked up? Some of these guys are fundamentally damaged and broken by the past 10 years. It's best to just let them blame Bush and that Bill Kristol guy and be done with it.

Like the entire country no thanks to Obushma?

patteeu
08-20-2011, 11:58 PM
What do you think the US response should be if...

space aliens from another galaxy flew down to South America and started blasting Brazilians with laser beams?

Start your own thread.

patteeu
08-21-2011, 12:00 AM
I would wonder if it came from the same intelligence that led to the Iraq war.

It wouldn't matter what the source was because according to the hypothetical, you're convinced that it's definitive.

patteeu
08-21-2011, 12:07 AM
If we were convinced that Iran was behind 9/11, it would become even more obvious that we can't let them acquire nuclear weapons. VAChief mentioned the fact that the Soviets were behind a lot of bad stuff during the Cold War and we just took it. We took it because we had to because they had a nuclear arsenal and a conventional army much larger than ours. That's what happens when your adversary has a nuclear shield. You have to take their shit.

It's funny to me that people suddenly don't think we can afford military action. The debt problems we're having now were obviously in our future a decade or more ago but very few people were interested in fixing the entitlements then. And, frankly, it doesn't seem like many people want to fix them now either. A lot of people would rather just gut the military and kick the entitlement can a little farther down the road. I don't think we should seek to invade, occupy and rebuild Iran (under the hypothetical scenario), but I definitely think we should use all means necessary, including a military incursion if required, to prevent Iran from finishing their bomb. Assassination works for me too, but the bomb has to be stopped as a part of it.

teedubya
08-21-2011, 12:14 AM
Americans could be convinced of anything.

RNR
08-21-2011, 03:27 AM
Americans could be convinced of anything.

This is true~

donkhater
08-21-2011, 04:28 AM
Americans could be convinced of anything.

Exhibit A: Iraq
Exhibit B: Obama

BucEyedPea
08-21-2011, 07:43 AM
Al Qaeda was always Iran's enemy. We did Iran a favor when we went into Afghanistan.

Ace Gunner
08-21-2011, 08:55 AM
Americans could be convinced of anything.

similar to germans and jews of the 1930's. but don't be concerned - there is no plot to assimilate as much of the world population as possible..

patteeu
08-21-2011, 12:16 PM
Al Qaeda was always Iran's enemy. We did Iran a favor when we went into Afghanistan.

It's clear that al Qaeda hasn't always been Iran's enemy. There's no reason to even begin that they have, particularly since Iran has cozied up to the Taliban in the last several years. There's certainly no religious obstacle since Iran has no problem working with Sunni Hamas as well as Shia Hezbollah. Having said that, it's not clear that Iran had anything to do with 9/11. Here's the story that inspired this thread.

9/11: al-Qaeda didn’t act alone (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8712299/911-al-Qaeda-didnt-act-alone.html)
For their new book, 'The Eleventh Day’, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan trawled through thousands of documents, piecing together a definitive account of the attacks.

By Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan7:30AM BST 20 Aug 201186

On September 11, bereaved family members will mark the 10th anniversary of the cataclysmic terrorist attacks on American cities....

...

Where the Commission found "no evidence" that Iran or Hizbollah, the paramilitary organisation it supports, knew in advance of the 9/11 plot, the Havlish memorandum asserts that they not only knew about it but were complicit.

This court document draws on affidavits by former 9/11 Commission staff members, a French investigative magistrate, former CIA officers, and an Israeli intelligence analyst. Great weight is given to sealed testimony obtained from three defectors – identified only as "X", "Y" and "Z" – who had worked for Iran's Ministry of Information and Security.

The submission tracks Iran's involvement with al-Qaeda back to 1993. That year, it states, Hizbollah's Iman Mughniyah, a terrorist credited with multiple operations against US citizens, met in Sudan with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, who, following bin Laden's death in May, has now assumed the al- Qaeda leadership.

According to the Havlish memorandum, Iran facilitated bin Laden's move three years later to Afghanistan. An Iranian intelligence officer met bin Laden there at about the time he first discussed airborne suicide attacks on American cities. During the ensuing period, when bin Laden was using a satellite phone, 10 per cent of his outgoing calls were to Iran.

Al-Qaeda operatives received training in Iran in airline hijacking, according to the memorandum. Significance is given to a communication four months before 9/11, in which a leading Iranian intelligence official authorised support for "al-Qaeda's future plans". The communication emphasised that "no traces must be left…" and that activity was to be limited to "existing contacts" between bin Laden's henchman Zawahiri and Hizbollah's Mughniyah.

...more... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8712299/911-al-Qaeda-didnt-act-alone.html)

durtyrute
08-21-2011, 02:36 PM
It's clear that al Qaeda hasn't always been Iran's enemy. There's no reason to even begin that they have, particularly since Iran has cozied up to the Taliban in the last several years. There's certainly no religious obstacle since Iran has no problem working with Sunni Hamas as well as Shia Hezbollah. Having said that, it's not clear that Iran had anything to do with 9/11. Here's the story that inspired this thread.

9/11: al-Qaeda didn’t act alone (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8712299/911-al-Qaeda-didnt-act-alone.html)
For their new book, 'The Eleventh Day’, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan trawled through thousands of documents, piecing together a definitive account of the attacks.

By Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan7:30AM BST 20 Aug 201186

On September 11, bereaved family members will mark the 10th anniversary of the cataclysmic terrorist attacks on American cities....

...

Where the Commission found "no evidence" that Iran or Hizbollah, the paramilitary organisation it supports, knew in advance of the 9/11 plot, the Havlish memorandum asserts that they not only knew about it but were complicit.

This court document draws on affidavits by former 9/11 Commission staff members, a French investigative magistrate, former CIA officers, and an Israeli intelligence analyst. Great weight is given to sealed testimony obtained from three defectors – identified only as "X", "Y" and "Z" – who had worked for Iran's Ministry of Information and Security.

The submission tracks Iran's involvement with al-Qaeda back to 1993. That year, it states, Hizbollah's Iman Mughniyah, a terrorist credited with multiple operations against US citizens, met in Sudan with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, who, following bin Laden's death in May, has now assumed the al- Qaeda leadership.

According to the Havlish memorandum, Iran facilitated bin Laden's move three years later to Afghanistan. An Iranian intelligence officer met bin Laden there at about the time he first discussed airborne suicide attacks on American cities. During the ensuing period, when bin Laden was using a satellite phone, 10 per cent of his outgoing calls were to Iran.

Al-Qaeda operatives received training in Iran in airline hijacking, according to the memorandum. Significance is given to a communication four months before 9/11, in which a leading Iranian intelligence official authorised support for "al-Qaeda's future plans". The communication emphasised that "no traces must be left…" and that activity was to be limited to "existing contacts" between bin Laden's henchman Zawahiri and Hizbollah's Mughniyah.

...more... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8712299/911-al-Qaeda-didnt-act-alone.html)

Kook

patteeu
08-21-2011, 02:51 PM
Kook

:LOL:

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 01:47 AM
Kook

NeoCon lies generally are kooky.

Garcia Bronco
08-22-2011, 09:33 AM
I would say the response should be to level their capital.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 09:40 AM
I would say the response should be to level their capital.


WTF? You're gonna wipe five million plus people off the planet, including women and children, as your retributive strike? You think that will help prevent future terrorism?

:spock:


Decapitation strike would be fine with me. Tomahawks targetting the leading mullahs, the Revolutionary Guards HQ and the intelligence agency HQ.

Avoid mosques, however, even if it means missing the mullahs. If Ahamenajihdahahahaahd was the President then too, then target him also. Simultaneous strikes, though. One and done on whatever targets we pick.

A Presidential news conference explaining the reasons the strike to follow shortly thereafter, telling the world that the 9/11 strikes were an act of war, to which we have taken a measured response, etc. etc.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 09:41 AM
Separate note -- you better have damn good proof. The world remembers the lack of WMD in Iraq too...

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 09:51 AM
A Lesson That May Not Be Lost on Others
Posted by Lew Rockwell on August 22, 2011 04:35 AM

1) Gaddafi, at the behest of the US, gives up his WMD.

2) The US overthrows him.

Iran, is about REGIME CHANGE folks—not nukes. Keep drinkin' the Kool-Aid.

Donger
08-22-2011, 09:54 AM
Iran, is about REGIME CHANGE folks—not nukes. Keep drinkin' the Kool-Aid.

You act as if those are mutually-exclusive.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 09:54 AM
You act as if those are mutually-exclusive.

"Those"? Which of those. Also, I thought you didn't read my posts or barely?

Donger
08-22-2011, 09:56 AM
"Those"? Which of those. Also, I thought you didn't read my posts or barely?

Both of those. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Nukes don't just create themselves out of thin air. A regime has to make the decision to create them.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 10:20 AM
Iran, is about REGIME CHANGE folks—not nukes. Keep drinkin' the Kool-Aid.


His own people overthrew him, not the US.


And Donger is making the point regarding the two not being mutually exclusive, which is fairly obvious.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 11:08 AM
His own people overthrew him, not the US.


And Donger is making the point regarding the two not being mutually exclusive, which is fairly obvious.

Al Ciaduh is his own people, thanks for clarifying that for us.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 11:18 AM
LMAO

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LGe8eFKBZmA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

patteeu
08-22-2011, 12:15 PM
Decapitation strike would be fine with me. Tomahawks targetting the leading mullahs, the Revolutionary Guards HQ and the intelligence agency HQ.

Avoid mosques, however, even if it means missing the mullahs. If Ahamenajihdahahahaahd was the President then too, then target him also. Simultaneous strikes, though. One and done on whatever targets we pick.

A Presidential news conference explaining the reasons the strike to follow shortly thereafter, telling the world that the 9/11 strikes were an act of war, to which we have taken a measured response, etc. etc.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. The gulf between full invasion plus occupation and do nothing is huge and you've, appropriately IMO, found something in the middle. At some point, we might quibble about details, but at the broad brush level, we agree.

patteeu
08-22-2011, 12:16 PM
Iran, is about REGIME CHANGE folks—not nukes. Keep drinkin' the Kool-Aid.

What point do you think you're making here?

PunkinDrublic
08-22-2011, 12:31 PM
Ask Dick Cheney what the best course of action to take would be, and then do the exact opposite. He's been so consistantly wrong in his middle east assesments, doing the opposite of what Dick would do would almost guarantee success.

go bowe
08-22-2011, 12:36 PM
oh my...

disparaging words about the best president since washington?

beware the wrath of patteeu... :eek: :eek: :eek:

PunkinDrublic
08-22-2011, 12:45 PM
oh my...

disparaging words about the best president since washington?

beware the wrath of patteeu... :eek: :eek: :eek:


May God have mercy on my soul because pat won't.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 12:48 PM
Both of those. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Nukes don't just create themselves out of thin air. A regime has to make the decision to create them.

That has nothing to do with my point.

Donger
08-22-2011, 12:51 PM
That has nothing to do with my point.

Your point doesn't make any sense. If we attack Iran, it will be because:

1) We want to stop Iran from getting nukes.

2) Remove the regime that pursued nukes.

It isn't one or the other. Like I said, those two aren't mutually exclusive.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 12:55 PM
Your point doesn't make any sense. If we attack Iran, it will be because:

1) We want to stop Iran from getting nukes.

2) Remove the regime that pursued nukes.

It isn't one or the other. Like I said, those two aren't mutually exclusive.

For those pushing the attack the nukes are simple the vehicle to get public support. So it is exclusive for them. The nuke is a red herring. But you already know that I think this so why are you opening up the same old debate again for what, the tenth time. Do you actually think I am trying to persuade you are anyone at this point, other than to state my position and nothing more. I have no intention of wasting my time here for hours with you for another rinse and repeat.

Donger
08-22-2011, 12:57 PM
For those pushing the attack the nukes are simple the vehicle to get public support. So it is exclusive for them. The nuke is a red herring. But you already know that I think this so why are you opening up the same old debate again for what, the tenth time. Do you actually think I am trying to persuade you are anyone at this point, other than to state my position and nothing more. I have no intention of wasting my time here for hours with you for another rinse and repeat.

I didn't bring it up, sugar. You did.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 01:00 PM
I didn't bring it up, sugar. You did.
You're preachin' to the choir Capt Obvious. I will continue to restate my position with each new thread on it too. I repeat—I didn't bring it up for the purposes of another long wasteful debate with Donger. May I ask what part of my stating I was just stating my position, as opposed to debating it, you do not understand? Psst....I already know where you stand on it. No need to redo it.

go bowe
08-22-2011, 01:19 PM
but honey, it's a really boring day around here...

give us a little drama, please?

patteeu
08-22-2011, 01:35 PM
Ask Dick Cheney what the best course of action to take would be, and then do the exact opposite. He's been so consistantly wrong in his middle east assesments, doing the opposite of what Dick would do would almost guarantee success.

Your post started out with a lot of promise and then failed. :shake:

:)

Jaric
08-22-2011, 02:13 PM
Freedom Bombs.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 02:14 PM
Freedom Bombs.

They melt cheese.

BigChiefFan
08-22-2011, 02:16 PM
Same old bloodlust. You neo-cons make me sick.

Donger
08-22-2011, 02:17 PM
You're preachin' to the choir Capt Obvious. I will continue to restate my position with each new thread on it too. I repeat—I didn't bring it up for the purposes of another long wasteful debate with Donger. May I ask what part of my stating I was just stating my position, as opposed to debating it, you do not understand? Psst....I already know where you stand on it. No need to redo it.

Your position is wrong, as usual, as I explained above.

Donger
08-22-2011, 02:18 PM
Same old bloodlust. You neo-cons make me sick.

LMAO

BigChiefFan
08-22-2011, 02:21 PM
LMAO

I rest my case.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 02:23 PM
Same old bloodlust. You neo-cons make me sick.



Let's assume they find incontrovertible proof that Iran was involved in actively supporting the 9/11 operation. What do you suggest we do? Turn the other cheek?

How many Americans died? 3,000?

BigChiefFan
08-22-2011, 02:26 PM
Let's assume they find incontrovertible proof that Iran was involved in actively supporting the 9/11 operation. What do you suggest we do? Turn the other cheek?

How many Americans died? 3,000?

It's a HYPOTHETICAL, so IN REALITY it doesn't exist. I'm not going to play what ifs, when it comes to killing people. The wars need to stop.

Jaric
08-22-2011, 02:28 PM
Let's assume they find incontrovertible proof that Iran was involved in actively supporting the 9/11 operation. What do you suggest we do? Turn the other cheek?

How many Americans died? 3,000?

Change Iran to China. What's your course of action now?

What about Russia? How about France or England?

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 02:29 PM
It's a HYPOTHETICAL, so IN REALITY it doesn't exist. I'm not going to play what ifs, when it comes to killing people. The wars need to stop.



Well, the people I have killed are only killed hypothetically as well, so I'm sorry you're so offended.

I wish you luck in helping to stop war. In mankind's long existence, we haven't been able to do it yet, nor even come remotely close.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 02:32 PM
Change Iran to China. What's your course of action now?

What about Russia? How about France or England?


France or England is pretty silly, since they'd have no motive, etc. etc.

China or Russia -- either the same response, or a different, measured yet targetted attack to take into consideration their substantial military capabilities. Whether that means delivering the package a different way or not I'd leave to the experts.

Bottom line is that in my view if you have INCONTROVERTIBLE proof that Country X was behind an attack on our country, then there MUST be a response. A measured one.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 02:34 PM
Change Iran to China. What's your course of action now?

What about Russia? How about France or England?

Bachmann is also saying Russia is a threat too. We're surrounded Dorothy!

Jaric
08-22-2011, 02:36 PM
France or England is pretty silly, since they'd have no motive, etc. etc. Lets say England is still pissed off about the war of 1812 and has just been biding their time until the right moment to strike. And the French don't need a motive to be assholes. That's just what they do.

Besides, these are all hypotheticals. I'm curious as to what you do.
China or Russia -- either the same response, or a different, measured yet targetted attack to take into consideration their substantial military capabilities. Whether that means delivering the package a different way or not I'd leave to the experts.

Bottom line is that in my view if you have INCONTROVERTIBLE proof that Country X was behind an attack on our country, then there MUST be a response. A measured one.Are you willing to go war with one or both of them? If you attack either China or Russia it WILL result in all out war. Getting into a major war/wars with the other worlds superpowers when our economy is a hair away from going completely into the shitter is not a good idea. I'm sure even if the war itself was won we'd still end up losing in the long run.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 02:36 PM
It's a HYPOTHETICAL, so IN REALITY it doesn't exist. I'm not going to play what ifs, when it comes to killing people. The wars need to stop.

That's all they got though...and they say we're not dealing with reality. LMAO
Then there's the whole who creates the information and if it's true or not. We know that trick! How can you tell a politician is lying—his lips are moving.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 02:36 PM
Well, the people I have killed are only killed hypothetically as well, so I'm sorry you're so offended.

I wish you luck in helping to stop war. In mankind's long existence, we haven't been able to do it yet, nor even come remotely close.

So we should embrace the finer points of war right? Vaudeville would be proud!

Donger
08-22-2011, 02:37 PM
I rest my case.

Aren't you a 9/11 conspiracy believer, too, or am I confusing you with someone else?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 02:38 PM
Aren't you a 9/11 conspiracy believer, too, or am I confusing you with someone else?

The butler did it, it's always the butler!

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XfuBREMXxts?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XfuBREMXxts?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 02:50 PM
Lets say England is still pissed off about the war of 1812 and has just been biding their time until the right moment to strike. And the French don't need a motive to be assholes. That's just what they do.


In those particular cases I might spend more time figuring out which specific individuals were behind the attack and then do targetted assassinations. But then, I admire Machiavelli, so...

The problem there is that now that it's 10 years past there might be a complete turnover in leadership such that a decapitation strike is hitting the wrong people. Possibly people who had no idea and/or would never have supported such a move, etc.


Besides, these are all hypotheticals. I'm curious as to what you do.Are you willing to go war with one or both of them? If you attack either China or Russia it WILL result in all out war. Getting into a major war/wars with the other worlds superpowers when our economy is a hair away from going completely into the shitter is not a good idea. I'm sure even if the war itself was won we'd still end up losing in the long run.


They started the war when they decided to roll the dice on 9/11. I'd do the decapitation strike and then basically tell them -- look, that was tit for tat, and now we're done, but you let me know if you want to keep playing because if you want to bring it, BRING IT.

The Chinese cannot fight a war with us. They are not yet capable of bringing full war onto our shores. Similarly, we have no interest in getting into a land war in Asia.

Pretty much ditto for Russia, though I have no idea how good their navy is these days.

Bottom line though is that I'm NOT going to ignore a foreign nation's involvement in the murder of 3,000 American citizens. That IS an act of war, and there WILL be consequences (not just economic).

BigChiefFan
08-22-2011, 02:52 PM
Aren't you a 9/11 conspiracy believer, too, or am I confusing you with someone else?

If more than one person is involved it's a conspiracy, by definition. I believe there was more than one hijacker, according to the official story, no?

Donger
08-22-2011, 02:53 PM
If more than one person is involved it's a conspiracy, by definition. I believe there was more than one hijacker, according to the official story, no?

No, no. That it was an "inside job."

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 02:53 PM
So we should embrace the finer points of war right? Vaudeville would be proud!


No. I didn't support going into Iraq. The Vietnam War was a horrific and stupid mistake.

I view war as something that is within the range of options that a country may use in its foreign affairs, but one that should be used as sparingly as possible. Too many view it in far too cavalier a fashion.

I understand the logic behind Vietnam, dramatic mistake though it was, within the context of its times. I seriously have no idea WTF BushCo was thinking when it came to Iraq.

I did support Desert Shield/Storm in the immediate aftermath of Iraq conquering Kuwait, however.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 02:53 PM
Bachmann is also saying Russia is a threat too. We're surrounded Dorothy!


Bachmann is a nut job.

BigChiefFan
08-22-2011, 02:54 PM
No, no. That it was an "inside job."

Let's get on the same page, before we continue. Was 9/11 a conspiracy or not?

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 02:57 PM
If more than one person is involved it's a conspiracy, by definition. I believe there was more than one hijacker, according to the official story, no?

...and it has to involve a crime. It can't just be a hidden agenda.

Donger
08-22-2011, 02:59 PM
Let's get on the same page, before we continue. Was 9/11 a conspiracy or not?

Meh, sure. A conspiracy among terrorists.

Now, was 9/11 an "inside job"?

*EDIT* Nevermind, suspicions confirmed:

It's easily explained, if the plane is an UNMANNED DRONE, loaded with explosives.

Jaric
08-22-2011, 03:05 PM
In those particular cases I might spend more time figuring out which specific individuals were behind the attack and then do targetted assassinations. But then, I admire Machiavelli, so...

The problem there is that now that it's 10 years past there might be a complete turnover in leadership such that a decapitation strike is hitting the wrong people. Possibly people who had no idea and/or would never have supported such a move, etc.





They started the war when they decided to roll the dice on 9/11. I'd do the decapitation strike and then basically tell them -- look, that was tit for tat, and now we're done, but you let me know if you want to keep playing because if you want to bring it, BRING IT.

The Chinese cannot fight a war with us. They are not yet capable of bringing full war onto our shores. Similarly, we have no interest in getting into a land war in Asia.

Pretty much ditto for Russia, though I have no idea how good their navy is these days.

Bottom line though is that I'm NOT going to ignore a foreign nation's involvement in the murder of 3,000 American citizens. That IS an act of war, and there WILL be consequences (not just economic).What if, hypothetically, the course of action that is best for the American people is to do nothing?

I'm not even saying I disagree with your reasoning here for the record. Only that I don't think the decision to attack is as cut and dry as is being made out to be.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 03:05 PM
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kyE4CLM0QIA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 03:06 PM
...and it has to involve a crime. It can't just be a hidden agenda.


Usual rule is that it has to involve an overt act in furtherance of the crime. If you plotted with someone to commit murder, then buying chloroform, duct tape, plastic sheets and lime might be sufficient, just for example.


I don't think anyone opposed to the Truther arguments who understands what a "conspiracy" is would disagree that the 9/11 attacks were a "conspiracy" in the sense of two or more individuals plotting to commit an illegal act. When we talk of "conspiracy", it's in the sense of one involving insiders in the American government etc., not the obvious "19 hijackers plus whatever Al Quada or other support staff they had behind them."

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 03:10 PM
What if, hypothetically, the course of action that is best for the American people is to do nothing?

I'm not even saying I disagree with your reasoning here for the record. Only that I don't think the decision to attack is as cut and dry as is being made out to be.


I would be very hard-pressed to reach that conclusion. You'd have to establish, somehow, that those who planned and executed the attack would DEFINITELY not take encouragement from America's failure to respond despite knowing who the attackers were.

Let's say that Russia committed it, but that Putin was somehow able to prove that it was a rogue group within whatever their former KGB group was called, and that he had already had them all executed. I mean PROVE -- since we're not going to just take the word of a former KGB guy (Putin himself) on the matter. In addition to whatever he had to say, I'd probably need independent verification -- say we had a few highly placed spies who confirmed it was an isolated conspiracy within a very tight-knit group of former Commies or whatever the hell whacky hypothetical you want to make up.

Then maybe.

But we're pretty far into unlikely-land here.

Next best alternative would be for the foreign government to turn over the conspirators to us, with all evidence they had and to help us convict them of the crimes they committed. If the act wasn't government sanctioned, that might fly.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 03:12 PM
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kyE4CLM0QIA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



I agree. Lewrockwell.com does seem to be increasingly ludicrous.

Jaric
08-22-2011, 03:18 PM
I would be very hard-pressed to reach that conclusion. You'd have to establish, somehow, that those who planned and executed the attack would DEFINITELY not take encouragement from America's failure to respond despite knowing who the attackers were.That is the issue isn't it. Weighing that (which I recognize as a legitimate reason to justify military action) against the loss of men, resources, and treasure not to mention the absolute shitstorm globally it would create. If the rest of the world sides against us for example. Not to mention all the unintended consequences (like what does this mean to all the money we owe china for example) that might come into play.

I don't think I'd be out of line to suggest neither you or I would be able to predict what would happen if we woke up tomorrow to announcements that we were bombing China or Russia.

What I think the best solution would be, would be to work diplomatically to have those responsible turned over to us for trial. And if that doesn't work then we'd have to explore other options.

Amnorix
08-22-2011, 03:36 PM
That is the issue isn't it. Weighing that (which I recognize as a legitimate reason to justify military action) against the loss of men, resources, and treasure not to mention the absolute shitstorm globally it would create. If the rest of the world sides against us for example. Not to mention all the unintended consequences (like what does this mean to all the money we owe china for example) that might come into play.


I'd measure the response and face the shitstorm.

I also find it hard to believe the rest of the world would side against us.

Ultimately, however, I'm a firm believe of realpolitick. Just as people are in a rat-race to get ahead, so are nations. If I couldn't do something overt, I'd sure as hell be doing something covert, though. No way 3,000 Americans die with no consequences.

And China can't unilaterally make us default by just saying so. That has nothign to do with anything.

I don't think I'd be out of line to suggest neither you or I would be able to predict what would happen if we woke up tomorrow to announcements that we were bombing China or Russia.

What I think the best solution would be, would be to work diplomatically to have those responsible turned over to us for trial. And if that doesn't work then we'd have to explore other options.


The trial thing only works if it's not sanctioned by the government itself.

Jaric
08-22-2011, 04:01 PM
I'd measure the response and face the shitstorm.

I also find it hard to believe the rest of the world would side against us.Do you? I don't. We're not quite as popular these days as we used to be. And sadly, the international community has heard this kind of story from us before as a justification for war. Even if this time we're right, I imagine there will be a significant level of skeptisism on any claims we might make about undisputable evidence of a country consipring to attack us.

Not to mention that other countries might be tired of us being top dog for so long. Who knows. I don't think international support is as cut and dry as you seem to think it is.

Ultimately, however, I'm a firm believe of realpolitick. Just as people are in a rat-race to get ahead, so are nations. If I couldn't do something overt, I'd sure as hell be doing something covert, though. No way 3,000 Americans die with no consequences.I get what you're saying, but those consequences may very well endanger the lives of far more Americans than 3,000. I'm just saying that we have to above all else keep the big picture in focus. What is best for America.
And China can't unilaterally make us default by just saying so. That has nothign to do with anything.
Wasn't saying they'd make us default. Only that it would be one of a thousand other issues that would become more complicated should we get into a war with them.

The trial thing only works if it's not sanctioned by the government itself.If it avoids a war, I'd be perfectly happy making a big show about prosecuting whoever is determined as the fall guys. It allows both countries to save face without resorting to a war that I doubt anyone wants to have happen.

I just don't see any possible positive outcome in going to War with China or Russia. I accept that we can't allow ourselves to be attacked with no response lest we appear weak internationally and thus inviting further attacks. But if we bring the country to ruin in the process then we've lost anyway.

patteeu
08-22-2011, 04:58 PM
Same old bloodlust. You neo-cons make me sick.

Are you taking the "3000 American lives aren't worth getting bothered over" position?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2011, 04:59 PM
Are you taking the "3000 American lives aren't worth getting bothered over" position?

Pssst. it's the opposite of that.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2011, 05:04 PM
J.H.C. as if killing over 100,000 Iraqis who didn't do it isn't enough? How many did we get killed under sanctions prior to 9/11?

patteeu
08-22-2011, 05:13 PM
Do you? I don't. We're not quite as popular these days as we used to be.

We've never been all that popular. The biggest difference between now and then isn't the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those are just convenient excuses. The biggest difference is the fact that people no longer perceive a need for protection from the menacing Soviet Bloc and international communism. They feel comfortable being anti-American now.

Jaric
08-22-2011, 08:31 PM
Are you taking the "3000 American lives aren't worth getting bothered over" position?

What about the 6000 that died afterwards?

patteeu
08-23-2011, 05:38 AM
What about the 6000 that died afterwards?

You mean the ones who died voluntarily defending their country as opposed to being murdered in cold blood? If so, I think their country owes them a debt of gratitude.

Jaric
08-23-2011, 07:37 AM
You mean the ones who died voluntarily defending their country as opposed to being murdered in cold blood? If so, I think their country owes them a debt of gratitude.

Yes, them. I agree they are owed a debt of gratitude we can never repay.

But a good start would be to be more cautious when making the decision to put their brothers and sisters into harms way. The fact that they volunteered to serve their country does not make them expendable.

patteeu
08-23-2011, 08:03 AM
Yes, them. I agree they are owed a debt of gratitude we can never repay.

But a good start would be to be more cautious when making the decision to put their brothers and sisters into harms way. The fact that they volunteered to serve their country does not make them expendable.

No, they're not expendable, but they are of a completely different type than the unwilling victims of 9/11 (who, btw, weren't expendable either).

If you grin and bear it when 3000 of your people are murdered, do you grin and bear it when 3000 more are killed? And then another 3000? And another? Or what if it was 5000 or 10,000 the first time. Where do you start drawing your lines if 3000 isn't enough for a serious response? Your calculations seem to be based on a naive assumption that 9/11 was a one time deal and that our response will do nothing to change the probabilities of future incidents. Perhaps if Reagan had responded differently when 241 marines were killed or if we had taken some of the other Islamist attacks against Americans more seriously in the years since then, 3000 civilians might not have died ten years ago in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. We've already tried the turn the other cheek approach and it failed.

Jaric
08-23-2011, 08:29 AM
No, they're not expendable, but they are of a completely different type than the unwilling victims of 9/11 (who, btw, weren't expendable either).

If you grin and bear it when 3000 of your people are murdered, do you grin and bear it when 3000 more are killed? And then another 3000? And another? Or what if it was 5000 or 10,000 the first time. Where do you start drawing your lines if 3000 isn't enough for a serious response? Your calculations seem to be based on a naive assumption that 9/11 was a one time deal and that our response will do nothing to change the probabilities of future incidents. Perhaps if Reagan had responded differently when 241 marines were killed or if we had taken some of the other Islamist attacks against Americans more seriously in the years since then, 3000 civilians might not have died ten years ago in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. We've already tried the turn the other cheek approach and it failed.

Pat, my response has always been the same. What is best for the American People. If the answer to that is to not start a war, then I would not start a war. If it is to start a war, then so be it. Despite what you're arguing, this isn't a numbers game.

In other words, the issue is not that 3000 people died, it's that we were attacked. We then have to decide what the best response is. And don't you dare try to turn that into me saying I don't care about the lives of those people.

I don't think at this time right now, the best thing for the America people is to start a war with China or Russia (which is what Amnorix and I were discussing)

Pat are you familiar with the term "vendetta?" And more specifically where it comes from?

BucEyedPea
08-23-2011, 08:32 AM
Voluntarily defending their country? The military is the ONLY job you can't quit despite the 13th Amendment!

Not only that why does Ron Paul get the most donations from our military? Do I have to put up that letter from another military person, again, about how these wars have nothing to do with defending our country or replay a video of some military in Afghanistan discussing the same?

whoman69
08-23-2011, 10:14 AM
Bachmann is also saying Russia is a threat too. We're surrounded Dorothy!

No, she is worried about the Soviet Union.

Jenson71
08-23-2011, 10:21 AM
Voluntarily defending their country? The military is the ONLY job you can't quit despite the 13th Amendment!

Well, they volunteered to start.

Not only that why does Ron Paul get the most donations from our military? Do I have to put up that letter from another military person, again, about how these wars have nothing to do with defending our country or replay a video of some military in Afghanistan discussing the same?

Doesn't Ron Paul get more donations from people as a percentage of the general population? I doubt every, or even a majority, of the soldiers prefer Ron Paul as president, despite a video or letter showing support from one or several.

BigChiefFan
08-23-2011, 12:10 PM
Well, they volunteered to start.



Doesn't Ron Paul get more donations from people as a percentage of the general population? I doubt every, or even a majority, of the soldiers prefer Ron Paul as president, despite a video or letter showing support from one or several.Not always...don't forget the little thing called the draft, that they used to use.

patteeu
08-23-2011, 12:51 PM
Pat, my response has always been the same. What is best for the American People. If the answer to that is to not start a war, then I would not start a war. If it is to start a war, then so be it. Despite what you're arguing, this isn't a numbers game.

In other words, the issue is not that 3000 people died, it's that we were attacked. We then have to decide what the best response is. And don't you dare try to turn that into me saying I don't care about the lives of those people.

I don't think at this time right now, the best thing for the America people is to start a war with China or Russia (which is what Amnorix and I were discussing)

Pat are you familiar with the term "vendetta?" And more specifically where it comes from?

I know the term but don't know it's origin.

Your discussion with Amnorix (changing the hypothetical) has nothing to do with me or our exchange. As far as the numbers game is concerned, I'm not the only one who quoted a number so when you said "you're arguing", you should have said "we're arguing".

I agree that what's right for the country matters more than the numbers. If you're for anything close to the Ron Paul "we're creating the problem so we should leave them alone and hope for the best" approach though, we'll have to agree to disagree.

patteeu
08-23-2011, 12:56 PM
Not always...don't forget the little thing called the draft, that they used to use.

There wasn't a single person killed in post-9/11 Afghanistan or Iraq who had been drafted but hadn't had the opportunity to leave the service. By President Bush's re-election, most of those who died in those conflicts had either voluntarily joined or voluntarily re-upped with their service branch after 9/11.

Amnorix
08-23-2011, 01:00 PM
There wasn't a single person killed in post-9/11 Afghanistan or Iraq who had been drafted but hadn't had the opportunity to leave the service. By President Bush's re-election, most of those who died in those conflicts had either voluntarily joined or voluntarily re-upped with their service branch after 9/11.


Further to your point, the draft ended in 1973. Everyone since then is volunteer (or voluntarily re-enlistment).

Donger
08-23-2011, 01:02 PM
Not always...don't forget the little thing called the draft, that they used to use.

Cruiser, there ain't no draft no more.

BigChiefFan
08-23-2011, 01:02 PM
There wasn't a single person killed in post-9/11 Afghanistan or Iraq who had been drafted but hadn't had the opportunity to leave the service. By President Bush's re-election, most of those who died in those conflicts had either voluntarily joined or voluntarily re-upped with their service branch after 9/11.I know that-that's why I said..."USED TO USE." I was just setting the record straight, that joining the military hasn't always been voluntary, because his comment wasn't crystal clear. This is why I don't like hypotheticals...too many variables.

patteeu
08-23-2011, 01:06 PM
I know that-that's why I said..."USED TO USE." I was just setting the record straight, that joining the military hasn't always been voluntary, because his comment wasn't crystal clear. This is why I don't like hypotheticals...too many variables.

No one said anything like "the military has always been voluntary". You might as well have added a piece of irrelevant trivia about how cannons sometimes blew up if you didn't load them right or how UAVs don't have pilots.

Jaric
08-23-2011, 01:24 PM
I know the term but don't know it's origin.It is (I believe) a sicilian term refering to blood fueds where one family would kill someone from another family and then that family would have to avenge that killing and then the other family would have to avenge that killing and so on until a whole bunch of people end up dead with nothing solved.

It was my way of trying to show that violence/wars does not always solve problems, sometimes it makes them worse. Sometimes it is the answer. It takes wisdom to know when.

Your discussion with Amnorix (changing the hypothetical) has nothing to do with me or our exchange. As far as the numbers game is concerned, I'm not the only one who quoted a number so when you said "you're arguing", you should have said "we're arguing".

I agree that what's right for the country matters more than the numbers. If you're for anything close to the Ron Paul "we're creating the problem so we should leave them alone and hope for the best" approach though, we'll have to agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]
That's not how'd I'd phrase it, but I think you're right that we may just be better off agreeing to disagree.

DJJasonp
08-23-2011, 01:36 PM
Although I appreciate the hypothetical aspect of this thread - I find it amusing that people still think the CIA's boogeymen (Bin Laden, Hussein, Iran) had anything to do with 9/11....as well as the actions taken by our government post 9/11.

BigChiefFan
08-23-2011, 02:22 PM
No one said anything like "the military has always been voluntary". You might as well have added a piece of irrelevant trivia about how cannons sometimes blew up if you didn't load them right or how UAVs don't have pilots.You might actually read the posts before going on the offensive. Here's a quote from Jenson 71..."Well, they volunteered to start." Lighten the fuck up, Francis.

patteeu
08-23-2011, 02:25 PM
You might actually read the posts before going on the offensive. Here's a quote from Jenson 71..."Well, they volunteered to start." Lighten the **** up, Francis.

That quote clearly doesn't mean what you must think it means.

BigChiefFan
08-23-2011, 02:26 PM
That quote clearly doesn't mean what you must think it means.That's why I was clarifying it in the first place, Einstein.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-23-2011, 02:30 PM
This is more along the lines of Hyperthetical.

patteeu
08-23-2011, 02:54 PM
That's why I was clarifying it in the first place, Einstein.

OK. Now that you, hopefully, know what's going on here, do you have a relevant comment?

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 02:56 PM
Patteeu what should we do to Saudi Arabia since they were involved?

Jaric
08-23-2011, 02:57 PM
Patteeu what should we do to Saudi Arabia since they were involved?

Freedom bombs!

:#

patteeu
08-23-2011, 03:02 PM
Patteeu what should we do to Saudi Arabia since they were involved?

Who is "they"? Unlike Iran, the Taliban and al Qaeda, the Saudis have actually been an ally of sorts and, on net, I presume, they've been helpful to us... at least until Obama arrived and put our relationship in jeopardy.

If your new hypothetical has the Saudi King and his family behind 9/11, my answer would probably involve a regime change of some kind.

patteeu
08-23-2011, 03:04 PM
Freedom bombs!

:#

At some point, the Saudi dictatorship probably has to go, but the strong preference would be for it to evolve into some kind of power sharing relationship with the Saudi people peacefully rather than a bloody revolution.

Jaric
08-23-2011, 03:17 PM
At some point, the Saudi dictatorship probably has to go, but the strong preference would be for it to evolve into some kind of power sharing relationship with the Saudi people peacefully rather than a bloody revolution.

Arggghhh1!!! Not our business!!! Agreed to disagree!!! Arghghgh!!!

:#

EDIT: to be serious, and I'll probably regret this, why do they "have to go?"

Bowser
08-23-2011, 03:35 PM
Good God. Patteeu IS Dick Cheney!

patteeu
08-23-2011, 04:08 PM
Arggghhh1!!! Not our business!!! Agreed to disagree!!! Arghghgh!!!

:#

EDIT: to be serious, and I'll probably regret this, why do they "have to go?"

Because a dictatorship in a relatively advanced country without the support o it's people probably can't survive over the long haul. I'm not necessarily saying we have to be their agent of change.

patteeu
08-23-2011, 04:11 PM
Good God. Patteeu IS Dick Cheney!

I'm flattered to have my anonymous messageboard username mentioned in the same cyberbreath. You're too kind.

orange
08-23-2011, 04:13 PM
Because a dictatorship in a relatively advanced country without the support o it's people probably can't survive over the long haul.

This smiley :spock: was created exactly for that statement. Needs a beard, though.

Chocolate Hog
08-23-2011, 04:15 PM
Who is "they"? Unlike Iran, the Taliban and al Qaeda, the Saudis have actually been an ally of sorts and, on net, I presume, they've been helpful to us... at least until Obama arrived and put our relationship in jeopardy.

If your new hypothetical has the Saudi King and his family behind 9/11, my answer would probably involve a regime change of some kind.

As I recall one of the times Clinton had a chance to take out Bin Laden he didn't because Bin Laden was on a retreat with a Saudi Prince.

Jaric
08-23-2011, 04:19 PM
Because a dictatorship in a relatively advanced country without the support o it's people probably can't survive over the long haul. I'm not necessarily saying we have to be their agent of change.

Ok good. I get what you're saying now.