Will there be another "9/11" ?

All businesses in the US abide by our laws? You do know that Haliburton is in the oil business right? You do know that it just got caught violating laws right?And I love how you make China out to be some big criminal area. You know movie distribution companies in the US were taking advantage of us playing by "our laws" in order to violate "their laws" and rip them off?Criminals breaking laws is pretty much a universal. So you were trying to get stocks in Iraq oil? Why? Or was this just a misrepresentation of the truth since you don't seem to know anything about Iraq oil business?After all, Rei pointed out (she keeps getting the jump on me with her time zone advantage) quite accurately that companies were investing, and you can invest in companies... except for certain restrictions that popped in later.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Indeed there is. I think, however, that is inaccurate to view the difference between terrorism and traditional warfare being the targetting of 'soft targets'. Traditional warfare involves plenty of destruction of 'soft targets', either casually or deliberately. Instead terrorism is distinguished by it's lack of targetting of hard targets.

quote:

---

Obviously you think it's the USA's fault, and not Saddam's. Sigh.

---

Not only the US, no: but certainly NOT Saddam's. We decided to punish the PEOPLE of Iraq and blamed it on Saddam. In doing so, we strengthened Saddams regime by putting them into a seige psychology. It was immoral, unjust, and counterproductive.

Did GWB learn anything from the 1993 terrorists attack on the World Trade Towers:Yes___ No_V_Did GWB taking (not winning) the 2000 election make us more vulnerable to a terrorists attack:Yes_V_ No___Did GWB learn anything from the 2001 terrorists attack on the World Trade Towers:Yes___ No_V_Will GWB taking (not winning) the 2004 election make us more vulnerable to a terrorists attack:Yes_V_ No___It's a proven track record. As Nixon said "Don't ever change dicks in the middle of a screw."

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

That is not at all what I meant, but if you take my words literally (as a fundamentalist might), I can see where you might get that idea.
I hate to explain a "joke", but briefly: the mention of T-shirt business in the same vein as oil and autos was to be slightly absurd, and the mention of China was to point out that the shirt business in USA is not really a big business, since it is dominated by China.
I don't think China is criminal. Good grief. Give me a break. I see that you knocked the "L" out of Halliburton (hint: that is humor). No. Sigh. I can see that for you I need to put smilee faces on humor, since you can't recognize it. This must mean that you also don't pick up the same level of humor with Rush Limbaugh.You can continue to deny the reality of the hardships in Iraq under Saddam's regime while the corrupt leaders and unethical leaders of other countries siphoned the oil monies for their personal benefits.Regardless of any terrorism-related issue, it sounds like you would prefer Saddam to remain in power rather a Iraq ruled by the people.I know some folks with KBR that worked in Iraq. They all clearly say that most of the Iraqis are grateful and love their freedom. However, some Muslims and the poor in particular have grown up seeing USA as evil, and others they think they can handle the situation and are ready for us to leave. It all comes down to the will of the educated and freedom lovers to fight to maintain their freedom.

Cheney ? No, Kerry and the Democrats are the fear-mongers. All this "worst economy since Hoover" talk, for example. The current unemployment rate is close to the rate when Clinton was elected to his second term. The conditions under the Great Depression were far, far worse, over 25% unemployment, and actual, the real deal starvation...not isolated cases of irresponsible parenting where the kids are not fed but the parents seem to have plenty of money for beer, cigarettes, and Lotto.It is the Democrats that rely, indeed hope for, the ignorance of the masses to perpetuate themselves.Anybody who bothers to read Kerry's complete voting record in the Senate, easily and publicly available, will see that he has consistently been among the most dovish of senators and is a poor choice for Commander In Chief of a nation that is faced with a very real terror threat.

Like a Democrat, you are counting two votes on one ballot!

I know.... I know... !You stated 2000 once and 2004 in the other, but I couldn't resist the punchline.

There are a few, ahem, difficulties with your reasoning here.First, your argument depends on the assumption that if a facility has been sucessfully attacked by terrorists, it becomes fair game for further attacks. I am unaware of any formulation or international convention on the laws of war that contains this rule.Second, you miss the distinction between the assumption of essentially random risk of accident, and the risk of harm due to deliberate acts by human beings. The latter is generally not regarded, either in military or criminal contexts, as exonerating the perpetrators of such acts, or rendering action against such perpetrators invalid. We do not generally regard arguments that a woman "asked for" rape on the basis of her dress or behavior as valid or exculpatory, and your arguemnts bear some distrurbing similarities to such an argument.Third, recall that the Pentagon was alos attacked on 9/11. The Pentagon is a military headquarters with uniformed and armed military personnel. An attack on such a facility is generally regarded as an act of war, and military response to such an attack
is the usual response.So in answer to your question of why Americans make such an issue of 9/11- They properly, on the basis of the objective evidence, regard it as an act of war.

quote:

---

It is the Democrats that rely, indeed hope for, the ignorance of the masses to perpetuate themselves.

---

Thats a big mouth for someone who can't back up their claims.

Doesn't the absurdity of the name "Saddam Oil Company" give you a clue? It's called sarcasm. There was no public way to share in Saddam's profits of his corruption. That was the point. You can believe that all the cover of "proper" oil business in Iraq, but the numbers don't add up (until you discover the under the table deals he made). I guess you believe the Mafia corporations are all prim and proper, too.I see that you and Holmes (and perhaps more) need a flag to recognize my sarcasm. I will try to remember that.

Not in the least.Rather, it is your argument that rests on an assumption that the only way one can be made aware of a risk or danger is if they sign an affidavit stating that risk.If the people who worked at the Trade Centers - in fact, all Americans in general - were not aware of the risk of attacks by foreign terrorists, then they were idiots. The risk was present and obvious, but was ignored by pretty much everyone.9/11 didn't change the world. It changed Americans. Irrelevant, because that's not my argument. By what nation? For what military objective?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-17-2004 09:59 AM

quote:

---

First, your argument depends on the assumption that if a facility has been sucessfully attacked by terrorists, it becomes fair game for further attacks. I am unaware of any formulation or international convention on the laws of war that contains this rule.

---

Ha ha... all the more funny because the claim was that Iraq was fair game becuase it had been attacked before.

quote:

---

We do not generally regard arguments that a woman "asked for" rape on the basis of her dress or behavior as valid or exculpatory, and your arguemnts bear some distrurbing similarities to such an argument.

---

Who's this "we", kimosabe? Conservatives routinely make that sort of argument.

quote:

---

So in answer to your question of why Americans make such an issue of 9/11- They properly, on the basis of the objective evidence, regard it as an act of war.

---

If the USA can bomb Serbian radio stations and bridges as articles of "military infrastructure", then why can the WTO not be seen as "military infratsucture"? Like roads or communications, trade is an enabler of military force.Its actually interesting that the 9/11 avengers di NOT crash their planes into residential tract housing or simply the mass of the city - they did attack important military or military relevant targets including the pentagon and an attempt on the white house.

You ARE talking about Kerry, right? (I found the sarcasm icon )Kerry is full of criticisms, but not ideas. He is an empty suit. He trying to placate both pro-war and anti-war Democrats by flip-flopping. I guess we have to wait for the debates to find out if he really has good ideas or if he continues to dodge his own stances and distract by criticism. But it's too late. The fact that he is acting this way has convinced many folks that he is not a leader.I agree with Paisano that Democrats depend on ignorance of the masses.
For example:
1. The ill-informed elderly whom believe the Democrat lies that Republicans want to do away with their benefits, when all the Republicans propose is preserving the current commitments and shifting the funding to private person-held accounts so the government can't spend Social Security accumulations.
2. Radio listening surveys that show that Republicans listen more to news and talk shows, while Democrats prefer music channels.
3. Democrats continue to claim that Bush stole the election, when repeated investigations demonstrate a fair election. The fact that Democrats keep repeating false mantras must mean their base is soaking it in without investigation.
4. Finally, Jay Leno's street interviews with dunces are 99% with Democrats.

I find that surprising since most Republicans I know don't realize that today's, Republican party used to be the Democrats or that John Hanson was the first President of the US. They seem unaware that one of the biggest issues that held up ratification of the Articles of Confederation was waiting on New York and Virginia to cede title to their western lands. They do not know how Presidents are elected or the history of the electorial college.But what does any of that have to do with the question of whether or not there will be another major terrorist incident?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion