What do you think happened on 9/11?

I disagree. It is a matter of  leadership and principles. There's ONE Senator today with offspring in the Armed Forces. Yet these folks, along with the wealthiest 1% of the population, receive the largest portion of the "pie" that comes from the world domination of this "Empire". So, the wealthiest, most priviledged receive the most by contributing the least. It should be a matter of honor for the leaders of this country to serve in uniform; if it was up to me, I'd make previous military service a REQUIREMENT for political appointment. The fact that this country can fight extensive overseas conflicts with a skeleton volunteer military while the rest of the public hibernate in their post- consumeristic euphoria shows the vitality of this democracy and economy; but it doesn't make it right on principle nor does it lay the foundations for a LONG TERM global military preeminence. The fact that the President, the C-in-C of ALL armed forces, went AWOL when his term came up to serve in combat is an outrage in itself. We have to prepare fortotal war and this includes the public AND the leaders. [I'm self- editing this to "If we have to prepare for war, then it has to be total war and this calls for preparation of both country and leaders"]   


Edited by konstantinius - 03-Jan-2007 at 07:15

Originally posted by King John Why is previous military service a requirement for political appointment? It isn't. I'm saying it should be. serving in the military does nothing to increase your ability to govern a country. It teaches how to obey before you command. To add to this the children of politians are not the ones running for office why should they have to go into the armed forces? Good question. I don't have an answer. I guess they shouldn't have to. There are many ways to serve the country one way is politics another is the armed forces a third is be an advocate for change regarding a certain issue. Agree.  Why do we have to lay the foundations for a LONG TERM global military preeminence? We don't. Seems like things are heading that way. IF things go that way, the tactics of the present powers-to-be will prove disastrous.  We  have to make a choice as a nation and find  the  political courage at home to implement those choices in our foreign policy.  If not, I say bring back Ike. Serving in the military is neither a matter of leadership and/or principle. This country is not controlled by the military as a military government it is controlled by the civilian population. Serving in a volunteer military is partly out of principle for some.  Regardless of the brutality of war, militaries are traditional institutions that tend to emphasize cohesiveness through  adhesion to certain principles such as Honor, Duty, Leadership,  Sacrifice, blah, blah, blah, they pound them into the memory quarter of your brain at boot camp. Through the experience of actual combat all of those are transcended into Comradership and Survival but at least theoretically one can argue that militaries are founded on and run by principles. And good leaders are certain to advance in a military structure.  Perhaps this is because they get enough dumb asses as it is or it could be the underlying realization that good leaders ultimately save lives and get the job done. Serving in a military is not a matter of leadership but excelling in it is.

Edited by konstantinius - 03-Jan-2007 at 07:09

Originally posted by Timotheus If you're taking her as a hero, then I know you're absolutely hopeless! (Actually, I knew that already.)

When she questioned Rumsfeld, she made him sweat. I liked that.
DId she hit a policeman? I do not give a damn. She had the guts to question  those that permitted 9/11 happen, she asked questions  nobody else dared utter. I hope you will agree that hitting  a policeman with a cellphone is less important than the death of 3000 people.

She asked Rumsfeld why NORAD was down on 9/11. He did not answer. Why doesn't anybody in congress and the house of representatives ask these hard questions? Obviously, because they all know they will end up like she did, smeared , humiliated, and attacked by the puppets of the white house in the mainstream media.


Edited by bg_turk - 03-Jan-2007 at 22:46

Originally posted by King John Her reasons for asking these "hard questions" was not to get the truth but to rather embarass the administration.

Why would the administration be embarrassed by such questions?

No body in congress asks tough questions on any issue not because they are afraid of being smeared but rather because they know that they could be on the other side of the questioning and the power-structure. In short they don't want to alienated people that they are going to have to work with, currently and in the future. Since it is such a small world politically (in the USA).

So you are basically saying that all American politicians are corrupt , and they do not ask tough questions on other peoples corrution, because they fear others might do the same to them. They watch each others backs.


Edited by bg_turk - 04-Jan-2007 at 09:30

NORAD was in on this? So does that mean Canada helped us since NORAD is a partnership between the US and Canada?

Originally posted by Hellios   The Nazis destroyed the Reichstag killing many people in order to create public support for their invasion of Russia

Not really. The Reichstag was burnt by Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch anarchist. And it was 8 years before the invasion into Russia. They did abuse the Reichstag fire to end everything democratic and free though.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Originally posted by Hellios   The Nazis destroyed the Reichstag killing many people in order to create public support for their invasion of Russia  Not really. The Reichstag was burnt by Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch anarchist. And it was 8 years before the invasion into Russia. They did abuse the Reichstag fire to end everything democratic and free though.

You really believe that the Nazis had nothing to do with the Reichstag fire and that van der Lubbe (somewhat of a dim-wit of a person) acted on his own initiative?

Originally posted by Leonidas the use of commercial planes as weapons isn't a new idea, i came across that type of scenario a couple or so years before 9/11 in the local Aviation magazine. Since the targeting of the twin towers was already apperant after al qaeda previous failed attempt to bring it down, the idea that this was already considered even as a wild card 'what if' by pentagon war gamers is also believable. The pentagon play with almost every conceivable scenario in war games and computer modeling, from wars with friendly countries to these type of attacks. BUT, If they believed every scenario they conceive to be true, they cease to be a effective or even workable force. Saying that it is unimaginable isn't lying, seeing this actually happening is different. Its unimaginable for me that i may grow a cancer despite the chance that i may actually get it. The fact they couldn't conceive the chance of this action explains the intelligence failure, so while the fact the pentagon can conceive the scenario doesn't mean they (or even more so others) accepted it to happen.

The 9/11 report repeated at least three time that  "The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States -- and using them as guided missiles -- was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11."

Yet, NORAD did recognize the threat, and that is why it had drills.

Clearly the report lied.

Topic: What do you think happened on 9/11?

Well, I believe the 9/11 was a revenge.

 

As a Latin American I have witness the way superpowers, and the U.S. in particular, intervined in foreign countries impossing theirs will by force, without a chance to retaliate. So, tension and hate grew up for a lot of time in the minds of many people that have been affected by those actions. And they decided to act.

 

One thing remarkable from the attacks was that is was done with very low technologies. The only things needed was to have 25 people willing to die for the cause, who would use knifes to take control of the planes. The kamikase idea comes from the second world war, and the Islamic terrorism is a copy of the urban guerillas of the Cold War. Even more, the idea of using planes to destroy buildings came from a novel of Tom Clancy. If I am not wrong, from Debt of Honor.

 

So, all that was needed it was a cruel and blind leader to put all things together and come complete the revenge against the superpower in control.

 

Now, from the moral point of view the 9/11 it was mass murdered. But from the military point of view it was a dissaster for the attackers. After the 9/11 at least 500.000 muslims have died in Afganistan and Iraq, mainly civilians, and the U.S. took control of almost all the Middle East.

 

From the global point of view, the 9/11 made the world to enter into the terror age, when no one is safe anymore. In the past, terrorism it was common in the third word and encouraged by the superpowers in there. Today terrorism is threatening the capitals of the world with ever increasing dangers.

 

From the mental point of view, 9/11 destroyed the idea the U.S. was invulnerable. Even in the second world war the U.S. didn't suffer any direct attack at all at their main cities. The argamedon of the Cold War didn't happen either. Today it knows there is a real danger, and nobody is safe anymore.

 

The history has not ended.

 

Pinguin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by pinguin - 07-Jan-2007 at 07:35