Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

Originally Posted by memeticverb

missing the point. the FBI agents who were corrupt occupied very high offices, and are still being protected by the highest offices by executive order only.

if Sibel Edmonds is correct, agents within the FBI, protected by the highest authorities, aided the 9/11 hijackers.

Riggs Bank, ran by none other than Bush's uncle, was also found guilty of money laundering to two of the 9/11 hijackers. further investigation of the corruption of this terrorist-supporting bank has of course been blocked by president bush by executive order

see shadows in a cave

the point is that most terrorism is staged. False flag events are being used and have been used for a long time. This is a fact.

That the terrorists who attacked the U.S. couldnt have done it without support withing the U.S. govt is a fact.

That neither you nor any intelligence agency could prove that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, or that Iraq was either, is also fact.

so lets see, your argument seems to be:

1. There are SOME terrorists willing to commit random suicide attacks, and even though they have never been established in Iraq, we should stay and spend billions of U.S. dollars on a war in Iraq.

genious. what astounding reasoning. did i miss something?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

the point is that most terrorism is staged. False flag events are being used and have been used for a long time. This is a fact.

That the terrorists who attacked the U.S. couldnt have done it without support withing the U.S. govt is a fact.

That neither you nor any intelligence agency could prove that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, or that Iraq was either, is also fact.

You know by now that I think your position on that is insane. Explain to me a plausible story of a government inside 9/11 job and then explain how that would prove that "most" of the terrorist attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe of recent years have been "false flag" operations, and we will have something new to talk about.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

1. There are SOME terrorists willing to commit random suicide attacks, and even though they have never been established in Iraq, we should stay and spend billions of U.S. dollars on a war in Iraq.

genious. what astounding reasoning. did i miss something?

Did you miss something? Yes. The falsehood of your point. The Hussein regime suppported terrorist organizations, was a terrorist organization itself, and used WMD's in a terrorist attack. They also violated our ceasefire for 12 years and were reported by six governments to have stockpiles of WMD's. Plus, terrorists from all over the world are being sucked into our vacuum in Iraq and getting killed. You must have missed that.

Do I need to repeat any of that again?

From Universal Mind
The Hussein regime suppported terrorist organizations, was a terrorist organization itself, and used WMD's in a terrorist attack. They also violated our ceasefire for 12 years and were reported by six governments to have stockpiles of WMD's. Plus, terrorists from all over the world are being sucked into our vacuum in Iraq and getting killed.

Applying the label of 'terrorist organization' to the Hussein regime for its transgressions demands applying it to regimes who are guilty of similar transgressions, which has not been done. Not applying the label equally creates understandable doubt that terrorism is what is being fought.

Several governments did support the assertions of the US, others did not. We can't, however, ignore our intelligence failures because other nations committed the same errors, especially when there were significant economic and political interests involved to distort intelligence. Those who are responsible for those failures should be held accountable.

The vast majority of terrorism in Iraq is Iraqis fighting Iraqis. Call them what you will, but they are certainly not a global terror network like Al Qaeda. From the perspective of that terrorist organization, the vacuum in Iraq does accomplish what you have stated, drawing a foreign enemy into death like a moth to a flame. Killing Iraqi terrorists is our aim in Iraq, but sapping the strength of the US is the aim of Al Qaeda. Only in the optimistic projection of a distant democracy is Al Qaeda thwarted, but its goals are currently being met with disturbing regularity, while the only effort necessary is to loudly denounce the US from afar.

If we refuse to see past the vanquished Hussein regime, we may find ourselves blinded to our present quandary. Saddam was evil, certainly, but so is Al Qaeda, as is the Saudi regime, the North Korean regime, and the Iranian regime. Pakistan may soon join them, with nuclear weapons in tow. If we do not adapt to our current quandary, those other evils will continue to strengthen and threaten not only our country but the nation we are trying to build.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

. Plus, terrorists from all over the world are being sucked into our vacuum in Iraq and getting killed. You must have missed that.

I still can't believe that you believe that. Like they don't have an unlimited supply to draw on. Terrorists from all over the world, flocking to Iraq, where all the American-killing action is...yea, right.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CSHQn63pal0&feature=related

here is why terrorism exists... it's all a hoax!

problem reaction solution

order out of chaos

Originally Posted by ranma187

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CSHQn63pal0&feature=related

here is why terrorism exists... it's all a hoax!

Russo was a great intellect who will be sorely missed.

For more proof of the current American govt's direct ties to terrorists check out the Complete Saudi Primer




"AFTER 9/11 - WHITE HOUSE ASSAILED FOR GIVING PASS TO SAUDIS: In the year following the 9/11 attacks, Fox News reported lawmakers investigating the Sept. 11 attacks believe the Administration "has not aggressively pursued the possibility that the Saudi government provided money to students who helped two of the hijackers." Congressional committees also "accused the Saudi government of not fully cooperating with American investigators" but faced a strong defense from the White House. Bush Communications Director Dan Bartlett "disputed congressional critics" saying "As anyone who knows this issue will tell you, it's very difficult to track financing of terrorist networks because most of it is done in cash."


AFTER 9/11 - CLASSIFYING INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE: In 2003, more and more evidence began to appear tying the Saudi royal family to the attacks. For instance, Newsweek reported that thousands of dollars in charitable gifts from Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, "ended up in the hands of two of the September 11 hijackers." Yet, as congressional committees prepared to release a bipartisan report on the 9/11 attacks, the Bush Administration swiftly moved to classify a section of the report which dealt with the Saudi ties to the attack. According to CBS News, that section "examined interactions between Saudi businessmen and the royal family that may have intentionally or unwittingly aided al Qaeda or the suicide hijackers." Not surprisingly, months after 9/11 Vice President Cheney went on Fox News to announce the Administration's full opposition to an independent 9/11 commission.


AFTER 9/11 - STILL PRAISING THE SAUDIS WHILE THEY REFUSE TO COOPERATE: President Bush has simultaneously repeated a mantra that "if you aid a terrorist, if you hide terrorists, you're just as guilty as the terrorists" while also going "out of his way to compliment the Saudis." While the President says the Saudis are an "important friend" to the United States, the royal family "refuses to permit United States investigators to interrogate one of bin Laden's key financial aides-Sidi Tayyib" a man who "probably knows as much as anyone else about bin Laden's intricate financial empire." Meanwhile, officials at the Treasury and Justice departments have privately expressed deep frustration over the failure of the Saudi government to impose stricter controls over their Islamic charities and turn over crucial evidence about the murky flow of money to Al Qaeda.
The decision last week by federal regulators to fine Riggs Bank $25 million for a "willful, systemic" violation of anti-money-laundering laws is raising new questions about whether the Bush administration's ties to powerful moneyed interests is unduly influencing U.S. foreign and national security policy. Riggs Bank is headed by longtime Bush family friend Joe Allbritton, employs President Bush's uncle Jonathan as a top executive, and other executives have been financial donors to the Bush campaign. The bank is at the center of a controversy, according to the Wall Street Journal, for failing to monitor "tens of millions of dollars in cash withdrawals from accounts related to the Saudi Arabian and Equatorial Guinean embassy," including "suspicious incidents involving dozens of sequentially numbered cashier's checks and international drafts written by Saudi officials, including Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan." Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) "said members of the bank's board of directors should be held to account for failing to exercise their watchdog role over Riggs's operations" and said refusal to follow money laundering laws "allows terrorists to funnel their blood money through the system."


CONNECTION – JONATHAN BUSH AND RIGGS: Jonathan Bush, President Bush's uncle, was appointed CEO of Riggs Bank's investment arm in May of 2000, just months after his nephew secured the nomination for the presidency. At the time of the appointment, Jonathan Bush had already become a major financial backer of his nephew, rising to "Bush Pioneer" status by raising more than $100,000 for his nephew in 2000. The move solidified the relationship between Jonathan Bush and Riggs, which was originally initiated in 1997 when, according to American Banker newsletter, Riggs paid Bush $5.5 million for his smaller investment firm. That transaction, according to the NYT, "deepened [Riggs's] links to the Bushes." While Riggs denies any connection between Bush and the accounts being investigated in the money laundering probe, Riggs President Timothy Lex told the Washington Times in 1997 that "there's a blurring of distinctions between banks, mutual-fund families, broker dealers and everything else across the board."


CONNECTION - ALLBRITTON-BUSH LINK: Allbritton, who said during the federal probe that he was stepping down from Riggs's board, also was close to the Bush family. As the NYT reported, he (along with Riggs client Saudi Prince Bandar) was a financial backer of the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, with National Journal noting he contributed between $100,000 - $250,000 to the project. And there also appears to be a personal bond with the current President Bush: As the 2/15/01 WP noted, "When President Bush climbed out of his limousine on Inauguration Day at the corner of 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, he spotted Allbritton, waved and said, 'Hey Joe, how are you doing?'" That might have something to do with the fact that, according to the 11/7/2000 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Allbritton-owned TV station KATV in Little Rock broke 39 years of precedent and publicly endorsed Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The station, which is the biggest in the state, proceeded to air its endorsement 10 times throughout Arkansas, and refused to give equal time to Democrats "who asked for the time to present an alternative to the station's endorsement."


ACTION – LOOSENING BANKING REGS THAT COULD AFFECT RIGGS: According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon's "Age of Sacred Terror," upon taking office the Bush administration tried to halt efforts to tighten international banking laws – some of which may have affected Riggs. As he notes, the new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush administration opposed Clinton administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center."


ACTION - HIDING INFORMATION THAT COULD BE DAMAGING TO RIGGS: Newsweek reported that checks to "two Saudi students in the United States who provided assistance to two of the September 11 hijackers" may have come "from an account at Washington's Riggs Bank in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan." This, and other details, were reportedly part of the bipartisan House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the Saudi money flow after 9/11. Yet, instead of allowing the committee's final report to be published in full, "Bush administration officials, led by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, have adamantly refused to declassify the evidence" surrounding the transactions."

You know reading through this thread (and im aiming this at universal mind here) its no surprise that alot of the world hates America.

Meh continue with your double standards if you like and having read the utter ignorance of your posts im sure you will, but put your self in their shoes those people you hate so much are just you but acting for the other side.

Question.... if roles were reversed and it was your country invaded for a natural resource would you not pick up a gun and fight off the invaders?

See the problem with people like you, you will argue and fight against oppression without ever realizing that all your doing is forcing your opinion on them and in doing so you inflict that same oppression you hate so much

You talk about their culture having issues (which like all cultures it does) as if yours does not, need I remind you of the New Orleans disaster and the way people were treated by your government or the fact the it was the original bush who funded osama bin ladden in the first place.

All im saying here mate is open your eyes there are rights and wrongs on both sides. The way to solve this issue is understanding not war.

The perspective argument is a good one, and easily dismissed by faulty logic.

The counterargument is as follows: The perspective of those we are fighting is irrelevant in the short term. They hate us now, but someday they will love us for providing them with our form of government. Those who fight our occupation either can't see how much better their lives are now or they are simply madmen with a thirst for innocent blood.

Assumptions: Conditions have improved overall, the war effort can be sustained indefinitely, Democracy will inevitably lead to prosperity, and those who oppose the war either supported Saddam's regime or they are mentally handicapped.

Notice that several of the assumptions made cannot proven true or false. They are taken on faith and nothing more. History, like a religious text, is selectively interpreted to conform to an idea. That is what makes this debate so difficult.

Originally Posted by mark

You know reading through this thread (and im aiming this at universal mind here) its no surprise that alot of the world hates America.

Meh continue with your double standards if you like and having read the utter ignorance of your posts im sure you will, but put your self in their shoes those people you hate so much are just you but acting for the other side.

The people I hate so much are oppressors and terrorists who want to kill YOU. Support of stopping further terrorist attacks on our soil (which has been done successfully) is not acting for the other side. Supporting taking down terrorist governments is not acting for the other side. Supporting reducing insurgent frequency, which has happened, is not acting for the other side. The truth is that you are looking for an excuse to act self-righteous and you don't really give a damn about the other side or their intended targets. Your outlet for acting like a jerk toward those who actually do want to make this a better world is what matters to you the most. I see straight through you.

What "double standards" are you talking about? Try not to be so vague.

Originally Posted by mark

Question.... if roles were reversed and it was your country invaded for a natural resource would you not pick up a gun and fight off the invaders?

You are making an unfounded assumption about the reasons for our wars, and you are ignoring the actual realities we are dealing with which are there even if your assumed accusation is correct. Are you sure you have read this thread? Look harder at why I support taking on terrorists. It is so common for people who act like you to jump to conclusions and overlook what people have said.

Originally Posted by mark

See the problem with people like you, you will argue and fight against oppression without ever realizing that all your doing is forcing your opinion on them and in doing so you inflict that same oppression you hate so much

Yes, my opinion is that oppression is out of the question, and I am willing to force that view on the entire world. If a man beats his kids, I will work to get him in jail if I know about it, even though I would be "forcing my opinion" on him. If I lived in the late 1800's, I would have spoken out very strongly against slavery and expressed major support for the Union without any problem with the fact that I was "forcing my opinion". Are you indifferent to oppression and think it's a person's right to oppress? I am nowhere near agreeing with that view.

Originally Posted by mark

You talk about their culture having issues (which like all cultures it does) as if yours does not, need I remind you of the New Orleans disaster and the way people were treated by your government or the fact the it was the original bush who funded osama bin ladden in the first place.

As if mine does not? Uh, no. You are seeing things again. I was a Katrina victim, and I blame nothing on Bush. My local government handled things very well and called for federal assistance ahead of time. The fact that the Louisiana government was pathetic in preparing for Katrina and did not request federal assistance until after the hurricane happened and that every one of the few routes into New Orleans had been demolished by the hurricane does not mean that foreign cultures of poverty and despair that breed terrorism should not be improved. Try to stay off the bizarre tangents.

Originally Posted by mark

All im saying here mate is open your eyes there are rights and wrongs on both sides. The way to solve this issue is understanding not war.

Good luck trying to get Islamofascist dictators and suicide bombers to be understanding, mate. Have you read Bin Laden's letter to America? You sound like you have not. Read the answer to Q2 and tell me how much Al Qaeda and like minded terrorists are willing to be understanding...

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Applying the label of 'terrorist organization' to the Hussein regime for its transgressions demands applying it to regimes who are guilty of similar transgressions, which has not been done. Not applying the label equally creates understandable doubt that terrorism is what is being fought.

It should be applied to all of them.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Several governments did support the assertions of the US, others did not. We can't, however, ignore our intelligence failures because other nations committed the same errors, especially when there were significant economic and political interests involved to distort intelligence. Those who are responsible for those failures should be held accountable.

It was not about simply joining a band wagon. The U.S., five other governments, and the U.N. did their own intelligence gathering and all came to the same conclusion.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The vast majority of terrorism in Iraq is Iraqis fighting Iraqis. Call them what you will, but they are certainly not a global terror network like Al Qaeda. From the perspective of that terrorist organization, the vacuum in Iraq does accomplish what you have stated, drawing a foreign enemy into death like a moth to a flame. Killing Iraqi terrorists is our aim in Iraq, but sapping the strength of the US is the aim of Al Qaeda. Only in the optimistic projection of a distant democracy is Al Qaeda thwarted, but its goals are currently being met with disturbing regularity, while the only effort necessary is to loudly denounce the US from afar.

Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are being sucked into the vacuum. A lot of the other fighting is what happens when an oppressed nation suddenly starts adapting to democracy. Our country is still running relatively just fine even though we are engaged in war.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

If we refuse to see past the vanquished Hussein regime, we may find ourselves blinded to our present quandary. Saddam was evil, certainly, but so is Al Qaeda, as is the Saudi regime, the North Korean regime, and the Iranian regime. Pakistan may soon join them, with nuclear weapons in tow. If we do not adapt to our current quandary, those other evils will continue to strengthen and threaten not only our country but the nation we are trying to build.

The Iraq list of factors was longer than the lists for those other countries. I think some of the ones you named might be getting vistited by us in upcoming years.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I still can't believe that you believe that. Like they don't have an unlimited supply to draw on. Terrorists from all over the world, flocking to Iraq, where all the American-killing action is...yea, right.

They are not coming from all over the Islamofascist world? Uh, yeah they are.

There are not an infinite number of people in the world. The stream of idiots willing to go to Iraq and get themselves killed so they can bang virgins cannot keep coming forever.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They are not coming from all over the Islamofascist world? Uh, yeah they are.

There are not an infinite number of people in the world. The stream of idiots willing to go to Iraq and get themselves killed so they can bang virgins cannot keep coming forever.

So, we've got to keep this vaccuum sucking them up indefinitely? Or at some point will they be all cleaned up and we can quit?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There are not an infinite number of people in the world. The stream of idiots willing to go to Iraq and get themselves killed so they can bang virgins cannot keep coming forever.

Unfortunately, that's just not true.

...at all. I'd figure you to know better than that, by now, UM.

The "stream of idiots" that you are talking about spans more than a single generation. It is an ideology that we are fighting, not a generation. As long as the teachings of radical Islam can be passed from father/mother to son/daughter, then, yes, that finite stream that you are talking about is, definitely, indefinite.

That has been my main argument against this "military policy toward Islamic extremists", since the beginning. Our military (and obviously many Americans) looks at this as if we are fighting an established military - as if there is an accounted-for number of troops and, once we get them all out of the way, it will be all over.

That's not the reality of this situation.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

So, we've got to keep this vaccuum sucking them up indefinitely? Or at some point will they be all cleaned up and we can quit?

They will be down to much lower level, and we will cease to fight because all of the other goals of the war will have been met. Remember, the war is not about any one thing.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Unfortunately, that's just not true.

...at all. I'd figure you to know better than that, by now, UM.

The "stream of idiots" that you are talking about spans more than a single generation. It is an ideology that we are fighting, not a generation. As long as the teachings of radical Islam can be passed from father/mother to son/daughter, then, yes, that finite stream that you are talking about is, definitely, indefinite.

That has been my main argument against this "military policy toward Islamic extremists", since the beginning. Our military (and obviously many Americans) looks at this as if we are fighting an established military - as if there is an accounted-for number of troops and, once we get them all out of the way, it will be all over.

That's not the reality of this situation.

When the mainstream of the remaining generation is in elementary school, we will have accomplished our ultimate goal in our part of the fight. The idea is that Iraq and Afghanistan will be strong democracies by then, and their socioeconomic situations and influences on the surrounding areas will have taken care of a great deal of the problems that breed terrorism. Hopefully, the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan in the future will move in and clean up the surrounding countries that are still garbage so we don't have to. That is how we fight the ideology and the stream of idiots that subscribe to it. So it just is true... at all. I figured you would know that by now.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So it just is true... at all. I figured you would know that by now.

Ugh. I dunno why I would have expected any more than the "No, You shut up!" response from you.

Anyway. Right. Like racism in America has been "completely stamped out, because the generations have evolved?" You act as though ideologies don't transcend geographical boundaries; as if there aren't radical Islamist cells in many different parts of the world; as if the fight would end after a victory in Iraq. I was going off of your final statement, which I still don't see to be true. I think you give their passion too little credit, in that it couldn't possibly endure passed even a mainstream paradigm shift (assuming such a thing would even happen). The only point that I was arguing was your point that that stream of individuals willing to lay down everything for that cause was finite. I believe that is no more plausible than saying that Christianity could be wiped out by some foreign entity coming in and trying abolish Christianity by military force.

Do you honestly think that Islamic extremism will just stop? That, eventually, these people will either die out (since, to use your words "
There are not an infinite number of people in the world. The stream of idiots willing to go to Iraq and get themselves killed so they can bang virgins cannot keep coming forever"), or they will just decide that they're religion doesn't mean enough to them to keep fighting, and give up? That, even when the mainstream of the next generation is in kindergarten, they will not continue to recruit on a level sufficient enough to keep their revolution alive? That the entire radical Islamist movement is making their way, even now, to Iraq to fight, erasing themselves from the rest of the world? Sorry, despite your rhetoric, I see no evidence that this is true.