Terrorism

That's too broad a definition. This equates the killing of noncombatants with yelling "fire!" in a movie theatre, McCarthyism, or gunning the gas pedal while on city streets to scare your buddies. Epistemological definitions aside, terrorism is planes crashing into buildings, and gunmen shooting kids, for whatever purpose. It does not have to be religious (in fact, the first terrorists in the world were nihilistic college students in Russia at the end of the 19th century), but for the most part, during our era, it is. It is obvious that religion fuels the lackeys - the actual bombers executing the attack. However, I doubt that the puppet masters behind them believe in silly promises of virgins in heaven - they provide financial support and planning because they see the west as an alien culture attempting to consume theirs.

Just because it doesn't have to be limited to a racial/religious group doesn't mean that for the most part it isn't.
 
you speak as if on CNN.

there is a difference between terrorism and guerilla warfare.

these attacks are not limited to middle eastern muslims who are mislead in their faith by people seeking power or fortune. nor, as i said, are they all of violent nature. in the most public case, it seems that these people are waging guerilla warfare against what they believe a threat to their future, in the laws and ideals of the West.
 
Please show me where I said that "terrorism is guerilla warfare" or something of the sort.
 
Just because something incites fear does not make it terrorism, however. You have to be more specific.
 
Iridium said:
Just because something incites fear does not make it terrorism, however. You have to be more specific.
Click to expand...

for him thats terrorism. I dont know if there is an exact definition that takes into context all the intricacies of this subject.
 
Iridium said:
The problem is that it's fairly easy to forge eye-witness accounts. Check it out:

1. Obtain a website like www.conspiracytheoristsareidiots.com.
2. Think up a stupid conspiracy theory.
3. Include the account of a fictional "eye-witness" such as Joe Nobody, to use his gas station mechanic's knowledge of ballistic missile sound frequencies to prove their case to morons like you. Since nobody gives a shit about conspiracy theorist sites, as no-one with anything resembling common sense would ever even consider their worth, the government doesn't see them as threatening, merely annoying and useless. I'd like you to consider Watergate - after real evidence of a scandal got out, it led to the impeachment of the most powerful man in the country at the time. Trust me, if any of your stupid conspiracy theorist friends were onto anything substancial, something they could prove, federal agents would shut down the site and take them in for questioning, justifying it with references to "intelligence and security." This is a good strategy because an impeachment of the president or even those below him would result in far more damage to morale, and general well-being of the nation than whatever relatively minor offense the public figure had committed for which he would be impeached.

How you take yourself seriously is beyond me. Honestly, are you trolling? Because if you are, good job.

The logic of the consiracy theorist is quite simple, really: anything that can be made into a Tom Clancy-poseur novel automatically has a higher chance of being true than something presented on the mainstream media. They may get something right occasionally, but these theories must have what the majority lack: motive.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

All I do is connect the dots. I hear this, I hear that, I hear other things, put them together, and the picture unfolds. So to me, you are telling me, that there are only dots, and most of them aren't there. But I see patterns like

Running a simulation with running a plane into a building(NORAD was told to stand down btw) its easy enough to find.
Jumbo jets hitting WTC
Running a bomb simulation(This has been confirmed BBC)
Bombs actually going on
Dates of happining 9/11 2001
7/7 2005 both easy dates to remember
Lies about what hit the pentagon, no pictures of plane wreckage, people, suitcases. Although apparently a jumbo jet hit it.
Why did building 7 fall, when it wasn't hit by a jet
How can a jet make a building implode? Shouldn't they have fallen over
+ the fact that the south tower's top half did fall. So what weight was pushing down to make the rest of it collapse?
If you don't believe the actual reports to tell NORAD to stand down, then where were they. NO plane has ever been so close to the wtc(restricted airspace) and the pentagon(also restricted airspace).
Cameras are all around the pentagon. Where are all the pictures/footage of the plane hitting? If it was an airplane, why would it be such a big deal to show it?
How did they know it was Al Quida, or bin laden right after it happend?
IF the plane fuel is what caused the melting and collapse of the building, then why are there pictures ( I have seen) of people standing in the holes from the jets? Is it really so hot to melt steel?
Considering the physics explained on how the building fell, it doesn't seem to make much sense how it happend.
The 'plane' that hit the pentagon, hit the opposite side from which it was flying, so it pretty much turns 270 degrees, while flying only 2 feet off the ground. sounds impossible because it is, but it seems you believe the impossible.
Bin Laden, like Saddamn, was trained by the CIA. Bin Laden was train in terrorist tactics to battle Afganistan against the Communist USSR. Saddamn was a hitman for the CIA at age 18. From that you can even see how a link between Bush Sr, and Saddam could be connected. Bush Sr. was head of the CIA, and Saddam worked for him.
So you might say , oh that conspiracy crap, your so retarded in thinking stuff like that. But I don't see a conspiracy from my imagination, I see a bunch of bad things happening, with a lot of people involved, who definately have ties to each other, and possibly motives to acheive either great power, or money.
If you don't believe that people wouldn't do this to get money, you must think that no one is ever killed over money. Or how about power and control.

plus follow this retarded logic.
Bin landen is behind 9/11.
War on Terror. -> Afganistan
Still looking for Bin Laden.
Sadam has WMD(so do other nations who hate America)
Ivade Iraq, using the sense that he aids terrorist and has acess to WMDs
Use the zealous war on terror and redirect it to Iraq.
Take out Iraq.
Put in an american loving president.
Iraq = new (unofficial) state of USA.
Expoit your destruction of a country to get $$$$ to rebuild.

So why, if China attacks Taiwan, is it any different? Its just the Chinese are more straighforward, because they have a comunist dictatorship.
there is probably more I am not thinking about right now.
I wish I could believe in miracles like you.
But I can't see these inconsistancies and not wonder, whats going on here, and when I look, I find some very interesting things.



Just today, I heard that they are talking about terrorists bringing in a nuke to a harbour and dentonating it. SO they are going to run simulations or 'training exercises' for tihs kind of situation. So if a nuke goes off from a harbour, you heard it here first.
 
On June 29th, United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) posted news of a nuclear terrorism drill on its website:: "Here’s the scenario…A seafaring vessel transporting a 10-kiloton nuclear warhead makes its way into a port off the coast of Charleston, S.C. Terrorists aboard the ship attempt to smuggle the warhead off the ship to detonate it." It went on to say that "Sudden Response 05 will take place this August on Fort Monroe and will be carried out as an internal command post exercise. The exercise is intended to train the JTF-CS staff to plan and execute Consequence Management operations in support of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV’s response to a nuclear detonation."
 
Incubus, you asked for my sources:

Well, I spend a lot of time watching c-span. I watch Book TV, the Washington Journal, and especially anything with a panel discussion. This is not as rewarding as reading, but it’s relatively in-depth and provides a comparatively broad spectrum of theories. I also find the links and transcripts on the c-span website occasionally useful.

For the print media, I have a subscription to Foreign Affairs, my favorite publication, which comes every other month and I read extensively. I also occasionally pick up a copy of the Economist and/or Foreign Policy when I’m at the bookstore. I also read the Washington Post once in a while when I’ve got time to kill at the library.

The internet resources which I most often use are:

Eurasianet - http://www.eurasianet.org/
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - http://www.carnegieendowment.org/
The Heritage Foundation - http://www.heritage.org/
The Jordan Times - http://www.jordantimes.com
AllAfrica.com - http://allafrica.com/
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks - http://www.irinnews.org/
The Economist http://www.economist.com/

For books, I stick to history. The three which have probably influenced me the most are The Unwanted Symbol : American Foreign Policy, the Cold War, and Korea, 1945-1950 by Charles M. Dobbs, Africa Since 1940. The Past of the Present by Frederick Cooper, and First They Killed My Father : A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers by Loung Ung.

I also listen to NPR quite a bit.

My opinions, theories, arguments and conclusions are strictly my own. I always read, watch, and listen critically. I recognize that I read more “liberal” publications than “conservative” ones. I am not, however, entrenched within some ideological stance: all points of view are flawed.

----------------------------------

Terrorism (my definition): a methodology which uses the threat of violence on civilian populations to achieve political goals.

I think that the power of terrorism lies in the silence which follows the attacks. The fear that it will happen again at any moment without warning seems to have more impact than the initial act.

I’m sure this is an incomplete definition; I welcome suggestions and further discussion on this aspect of the topic. It’s a very powerful word and I really think that we should be very specific about what it means.

------------------------

Incubus, it's not as simple as connecting the dots. To follow your metaphor, the connection between point A and point B is not necessarily a straight line. Actually, I don’t think that the interaction of people is ever as simple as a straight line. I understand your position, trust me I’ve heard all that shit before, but I think that you’ve oversimplified and become closed-minded within a trench of theory. I don’t mean to insult you; I don’t mean to be an asshole, but I think that you are suffering from the most common malady of our time: you’ve been convinced that you’re right. I tend to come off that way and please forgive me if I’m reading you wrong, but there’s potentially a very interesting conversation going on between Iridium and Silent Song which you are undermining.

We’ve gotten very fired up in the last four years and we’ve learned far more than we thought we could, but we’ve been divided by our sources of information, our cultural segregation, and the war in Iraq. In general, we’ve been reading too much of what we agree with and finding that reaffirming. We should come out of our trenches and have us a football match as though it were Christmas (WWI history).

It’s true that some people know more of the angles than others; it’s true that many of us couldn’t find Chad, Cambodia, or El Salvador on a map. I can find all of those, but I can’t find a city in South Dakota. I don’t know what they know and they don’t know what I know. That’s why discussions should be nurtured rather than undermined in the name of some self-righteous propaganda campaign. Again, I don’t mean to be a dick, but you’re waging a propaganda campaign which is arrogant and foolish.
 
Well I don't think I'm right. I think that the missing evidence, the evidence we don't see, plus the fact that there has being acknowledged lies from the governments in the past to be very compelling and very thought provoking.

Please don't take me as a spounge that soaks up what I like and pour it over everyone else. I just find it hard to dismiss things like that just simply because someone thinks its conspiracy crap. It could be right, and know one really knows what IS going on.

Although I may take what an independant investigative journalist, who goes out there, and finds the links between people, their past, etc. before more mainstream news, is simply because I know that things that would be bad for the county would not be reported. One really good and recent example is the photos, of the Iraq prison, where the inmates where tortured raped, humiliated. The only reason they got out is becuase of those investigative reporters, who think that the people have a right to know what is going on. If it wasn't for the Freedom of Information act, there would be many things that would have stayed buried by the government.

Yes I do oversimiplize somethings, because I don't have the time nor effort to type 50 pages of stuff that people won't read.

What I am trying to do here, really, is provoke thought, and interest in exploring alternatives to what is commonally accepted, because before you can find out anything, you have to explore all regions, and I try to do that, but I can't know everything that is going on.

To understand why Im getting so provoked by this, although I really don't care what any of you think about me, is the fact that I'm being told, outright, what I present, in any part, is false. Maybe its because I have heard more about certain topics to have a different view on this.

Its hard to prove that anything we hear is true or not, there is much to gain from both lies and the truth. Or better yet half truths with slanted emphasis. You just have to figure it out yourself.

@Iridium: Instead of trying to know why I was posting certain things, or even taking in the possiblity that cover ups of this nature COULD exist, you have instead proceeded to be an asshole to me, and very much a bully. You make some good points, don't get me wrong, but your process of personal attacks, demeaning and ripping apart my posts, only to provide your own opinion as better, and more informed then mine, (especially without any evidence or support), you seem only interested in making yourself feel superior in some way, otherwise, you wouldn't insult like a child over simple inquireries over the reasons terrorists might do things.

for instance

Not to mention the fact that your supposed terrorists' motives are way off the mark.
Click to expand...
What "government?" Are you referring to our government? In that case you're a deluded moron who can't grasp the simple concept of values that people believe and try to uphold who doesn't believe in Occam's Razor.
Click to expand...
When you make an assertion, you must support it with evidence, moron.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you have ever showed any evidence supporting your musings in this thread.
The planes did not explode immediately upon impact. However, after they did, enough damage was done to the infrastructure to bring down the towers. The fuel tanks before combustion would have been intact. I don't think I'm accomplishing anything: those willfully blind cannot be made see.
Click to expand...
Once again, I see all opinion and absolutely nothing in the least to support that what you propose is possible. with some compelling evidence, I will always reconsider.
The problem with this sort of thread is that many debaters lack common sense, and there are enough sources on the internet to support any point of view. Both sides, at one point or another, will probably agree that "the media is biased," and that it is foolish to believe everything you hear/read. So what can we actually trust? The conspiracy theorist will call anyone trusting legitimate government sources as being fooled by the system or something like that; the more rational thinker will call the conspiracy theorist an idiot for mentally manstruating all over the thread. In short, it's little more than an exercise of attacking the opponent's sources and bias. However, a scientific approach would utilize Occam's Razor more than often to trim off the excess entities that the conspiracy theorist proposes.
Click to expand...
To sum up this whole post. You have the right opinion, because you believe it to be logical and follow the simplest explanation is usually the right one. I have to be wrong, because I simiply think that there are many questions that still go unanswered. Oh plus the fact that I have many different sources(which are easy to find) compared to your none (and your opinion).

So in the future, could you please act like an adult and be civil when in a disscussion. (don't worry, I'm nice and don't take anything you say personally):)

@metu: I don't think you actually did understand what I was going for in this thread, but I certianally appreciate your source information, I will definately check out those links, because I'm always open to new perspectives, and that is why I come to this board.
 
Sprinkling insults into posts is like putting spices into your food - it's not necessary, but makes it tastier. Now, notice that I have made very few positive assertions and that my critiques have generally been rebuttals to your posts. However, I recently gave up, since that approach seemed fruitless. That last post you quoted wasn't so much an affirmation of my correctness than a critique of our discussion - one that, I'm sure you'll agree, has not had much progress. Now, if you want to think that there were bombs within the Twin Towers set to go off at the same time as the planes were supposed to explode? Be my guest. However, what reason is there for adding this superfluous entity? What was the motivation behind whoever placed the bombs there? What evidence do you have that the bombs were indeed placed there?

The reason I am not providing evidence is that I agree with the status quo, whereas you are the one challenging it. Think about it: what percentage of people require sources cited for the fact that two planes crashed into the towers on 9/11/01?
 
Wel there is a few reasons why I think there were set demolishions, the first would be that the towers fell staight down, instead of toppling over and the large ammout of melted steel and pulverized concrete at the bottom. Plus the designer of the twin towers said himself that they were made to take an airplane crash, and earthquakes. Last, the building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, but still fell? That makes no sense.

I just find a lot of the status quo explainations lacking in real world physics.
 
Buildings that large are so heavy that if a portion of the steel girders/concrete gets displaced, the remaining ones are not strong enough to hold together the building, so it collapses inward. Most of the steel in the building was not melted, since the plane crash/explosion affected only several levels. Did the designer ever actually test his theory that the buildings would be able to take an airplane crash? A Boeing 747, was it? Did he ever actually crash a plane into the building? I thought not.

I know nothing of building 7, so I cannot comment. However, I feel that what I just described is more consistent with real world physics than your explanation since, once again, it introduces unnecessary entities. I'll entertain these, however.

Who set the charges? What are the chances of the plane crashing into the same spot where the charges were supposedly set (without damaging them during the crash)? Why were the charges set?
 
i was required to read an engineer's perspective of the aftermath and deconstruction for one of my classes. "American Ground" it's called if you're interested.

building 7 fell because debris damaged it and caught it on fire. the towers would appear to have fallen as a result of the damage, not the impacts. if the impacts of the planes had been the cause, certainly they would have toppled as SI said. instead, they became lodged fire-arrows. the affected floors were heavily damaged and partially melted, and with a meager fire-proofing coating on the infrastructure, the heated beams suffered a loss of integrity. thus began a domino (or jenga) effect, with the upper floors collapsing onto those below, with each collapse gaining weight, force, and momentum. thus the buildings pounded into their foundations under their own weight. an explosion anywhere in the buildings besides at the point of impact would have been not only noticeable, but had a different sort of collapse. unless this book is a flat out lie, it accounts for expeditions and surveys of the wreckage both above and below ground.

if there was some conspiracy, it had nothing to do with the actual destruction of the buildings. there's still unanswered questions regarding the flight tracking system, among other things. but once the planes did their damage, i'm fairly certain this is what happened and nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
American and Israeli Hubris
Replies
4
Views
404
The Philosopher
Demilich
D
Neith
Help with Dissertation...
Replies
21
Views
856
The Philosopher
Neith
N
S
The U.S. of A.
Replies
18
Views
912
The Philosopher
judas69
J
NAD
So are Americans still scared of terrorism?
Replies
24
Views
1K
RC
Reign in Acai
Reign in Acai
Papa Josh
Bush's speech full of shit
Replies
23
Views
500
RC
lizard
L
Top Bottom
Back