The Mendenhall bin Laden tweets - a year later

[tanda10506]

Originally Posted by FanSince72

Pearl Harbor was a naval installation and was attacked by the Japanese navy, representing the nation of Japan -- clearly an act of war.

I think it could go either way, an act of war or a criminal act depending on how you look at it and what defines an act of war. As far as I know, an "official" act of war can only be committed by one country vs another country, not a group of people vs a country, as Fan is saying.

[zsheik22]

Originally Posted by tanda10506

They weren't trying to keep the Secret Service scandal that quiet, else they would have not been buying hookers in public. Our government has been caught lying and running false flags before (it's admitted and documented), I am not saying you should believe one way or another on 9/11, just don't accuse others of being high just because they don't believe what the government puts out. It's not even that I want anyone else to think what I think about 9/11, just don't blindly follow what the government who has been caught in MAJOR lies for years chooses to tell you, look into it.

It's documented because it was leaked. The same way it would have been leaked for 9/11. It simply would have required too many people to keep quiet. There is a slim to none chance.


I do believe our foreign policy absolutely caused it though. I dont think Bin Laden was sitting around talking about how much he hates freedom and decided to attack the US.

[zcoop]

Originally Posted by zsheik22

It's documented because it was leaked. The same way it would have been leaked for 9/11. It simply would have required too many people to keep quiet. There is a slim to none chance.


I do believe our foreign policy absolutely caused it though. I dont think Bin Laden was sitting around talking about how much he hates freedom and decided to attack the US.

Did you say "foreign policy"? Houston, I think we have a winner here . Now thats it! Could it be?

[zsheik22]

Originally Posted by zcoop

Did you say "foreign policy"? Houston, I think we have a winner here . Now thats it! Could it be?

[FanSince72]

Originally Posted by tanda10506

I think it could go either way, an act of war or a criminal act depending on how you look at it and what defines an act of war. As far as I know, an "official" act of war can only be committed by one country vs another country, not a group of people vs a country, as Fan is saying.

I suppose.

But in a war situation, there are generally two combatants each with clearly defined goals consisting of such things as treasure, resources, territory, political control or simply for empire.

Terrorism in and of itself is not a goal - it's a tactic.
Practitioners of terrorism may wish to win converts to their ideology (which is a goal) by engaging in acts of terror, but an act of terrorism can only serve to draw attention to a cause or to an ideology and is unlikely to serve as a means of conquest.

Secondly, though terrorism may be employed by a single group for a single purpose, such groups do not generally own territory or claim nation status and are generally spread throughout a number of nations. Since an act of war usually prompts a response from those who have been attacked, where, precisely, would they aim their weapons to retaliate?

There is no nation called "Terror". Terrorists exist in all nations but are not representative of those nations. McVeigh was a terrorist and a U. S. citizen; so does that make the United States a terrorist nation? Of course not.
If he had brought his AMFO bomb to a foreign land and killed people there, would you agree that that nation has a right to send its military here to destroy our cities and occupy our country just because of the acts of a single person?

I wouldn't.

What I WOULD want is for that person to be arrested and charged with a crime.

[Millers the sh!t]

Originally Posted by FanSince72

I suppose.

But in a war situation, there are generally two combatants each with clearly defined goals consisting of such things as treasure, resources, territory, political control or simply for empire.

Terrorism in and of itself is not a goal - it's a tactic.
Practitioners of terrorism may wish to win converts to their ideology (which is a goal) by engaging in acts of terror, but an act of terrorism can only serve to draw attention to a cause or to an ideology and is unlikely to serve as a means of conquest.

Secondly, though terrorism may be employed by a single group for a single purpose, such groups do not generally own territory or claim nation status and are generally spread throughout a number of nations. Since an act of war usually prompts a response from those who have been attacked, where, precisely, would they aim their weapons to retaliate?

There is no nation called "Terror". Terrorists exist in all nations but are not representative of those nations. McVeigh was a terrorist and a U. S. citizen; so does that make the United States a terrorist nation? Of course not.
If he had brought his AMFO bomb to a foreign land and killed people there, would you agree that that nation has a right to send its military here to destroy our cities and occupy our country just because of the acts of a single person?

I wouldn't.

What I WOULD want is for that person to be arrested and charged with a crime.

So America itself is a terrorist country for (without reason) invading and destroying a historical country, military, economy, and soon to be religious state of Iraq.

Also the citizens that want to protect their country and way of life (for 1,000's of years) are also labeled as enemy combatants and terrorist. If someone invaded our country (with or without a valid purpose) and we protected it, we would be called patriots.

Kind of hypocritical....

Also people like Ted Kazinski, and Timothy McVeigh
Understood the greed, faults, and hipocrosy withing the US governments and grew tired of watching society, the country and the average man get dragged through the coals. That's why they did what they did. Labeled terrorist today, but would have been historical heroes if they were part of the revolt against the British government during the revolution.

Our founding fathers encouraged the citizens to keep control of their governments with fear, and not the other way around. They also encouraged uprisings and revolutions every generation to keep the government honest, and to serve the people.

They'd be disgusted with the way their vision actually turned out.

[Steel Peon]

Originally Posted by Sixburgher

What "counter-terrorism" program would that have been? Bombing empty tents in Afghanistan or lobbing cruise missiles into aspirin factories in Sudan? And do you really think the planning and preparation for 9/11 started in January 2001 when Bush took office?

Originally Posted by zsheik22

For having a counter terrorism unit as you put it, it didnt do much to prevent the attacks during clintons terms. Even his secret bombings did nothing but antagonize.

If either of you can highlight ANYTHING whatsoever that the GW Bush administration did in response to the USS Cole bombing, then I will concede the argument and send you a cookie. If you give terrorists a years reprieve then they'll pull something bigger than the last........case in point 9/11. Counter-terrorism was on the back burner when it should have been the first thing addressed. Come to think of it, what did W do for his first year in orifice anyways?

[Millers the sh!t]

Originally Posted by Steel Peon

If either of you can highlight ANYTHING whatsoever that the GW Bush administration did in response to the USS Cole bombing, then I will concede the argument and send you a cookie. If you give terrorists a years reprieve then they'll pull something bigger than the last........case in point 9/11. Counter-terrorism was on the back burner when it should have been the first thing addressed. Come to think of it, what did W do for his first year in orifice anyways?

You want it, you got it.

[Bayz101]

Everyone knows we brought the towers down to have an excuse to go to war with Iraq and stock up on oil

Am I going to have to move this to a political discussion forum

[cubanstogie]

I saw a stat on espn the other day. 78 percent of pro football players have financial troubles within 2 years of retiring from the NFL. These guys are great athletes and freaks of nature as far as strength, speed and endurance. They are not the brightest bunnies in the forest. I used the to think the Steelers were exempt from all the off field crap the Ravens are notorious for, Wrong. My advice is watch the games because of entertainment value and because you are a Steelers fanatic. Not because you love and respect these guys as humans. Sure a few are stellar humans as well. I despise Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Clooney and every other Lib actor who spouts off about crap they have no business discussing. But I can now separate the person from the actor and actually enjoy their movies. I don't pay to see them but still watch. Pretty much the same in sports. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the death of someone who killed thousands of people. Best thing to happen during the obama administration. Mendy is clueless, but I still hope he recovers and contributes to SB win number 7.