Addressed to Valerii:
Don't worry, my post was a manifestation of the apposing argument, not my own personal belief, so feel free to critisize it without appologising but...
The point is that you counter-argument is mainly based on the emotive behind the attack, which in essense is baseless. I cannot say (and therefore nor can you) whether or not the conscience of people taking part in this attack were affected. Even then, that was not the context of my reply.
Think of it as a way of hiding in plain sight, the diagram below will illustrate my point clearly.
American Sponsor => Al Qaida Network => Lack of Intervention => Current Stance
In that effect, America allowed itself to be attacked; but the argument from the video tries to go further in saying that America adminstered the attacks themselves.
If I blend the two arguments, my personal belief would be that the whole thing is being used (orchestrated) in the hands of the US Government.
I said earlier:
One of the twelve factors in a Just War, is that the end damage has to be in proportion to the cause of the war, and in retrospect, the possibilities of damage if the war had not happened. In this case, it is a matter of loss of human life. The impact of 3000 deaths through a terror attack gave the government the pathos required to innitiate a war, in an otherwise very liberal society. The Post 9/11 shift towards the right was the immediate reflexive action taken by Western society as a whole.
The loss of live justifies the imminent devastation the war will cause.
I've already mentioned the possible aim of causing enough damage and tragic loss of human life to inspire a hatred of terrorism and a full justification of war in Afghanistan under the guise of war against Terror. I will make clearer however that for this condition to be met, the qualities of the attack had to be of sorts magnificent, in that it would have a lasting impact. The plane I believe was a classic symbolism of a hijacked society, something different from the cliche bombing, whilst the bombs themselves would have simply ensured the full destructive damage required was accomplished.
The US Govt. actually had to be detached from the event for it to take effect. If the Govt. for example, had taken an active role (i.e. implied anyting diplomatic, like another country - say Iraq - firing a missile) they would have taken the issue onto a level that could not have justified within the bounds of a Just War. Do you get where I am going with this?
In short, I acknowledge both views and ask of everyone to keep an open mind, thats all
(+ I am playing the Devil's Advocate here)
---
Well since I am a right winged conservative....Ummmm......Yeah - nice one sherlock. -_-
Alright Mr. [Blatant] Bias.
Well last time I checked, attacks were in the US. So I don't really expect anyone else to write them.
That was in reply to:
Biohazard said:
No one in the United States believes this bullsh!t, you come here and say this sh!t, and I can guarantee you'll get the sh!t beat out of you.
Apparently they do... see? Doesn't take a Sherlock to find the connection
---
This isn't JUST about money guys. Listen, if America wants to insure its dominance in the Middle East, it can't have rogue states running around doing hell knows what with the resources they have. They need to secure their interests (be it oil, diplomacy or milatary logistics) and there's no point pointing the finger at US for this - any other country would do the same.
Dicsuss,
Turin
ps - very hasty reply, sorry if I missed anything.