Ethical Reflections on the 9/11 Controversy

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Rapier, Sep 24, 2010.

  1. Rapier

    Rapier Registered Member V.I.P. Lifetime

    Ethical Reflections on the 9/11 Controversy

    The most important essay you may ever read. Note that Dr. David Ray Griffin, was nominated in 2008 and 2009 for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on 9/11.

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...troversy/all/1 Ethical Reflections on the 9/11 Controversy

    Do Information Science and Media Professionals Have a Duty to Provide Evidence-Based Information to a Questioning Public?


    by Elizabeth Woodworth

    September 24, 2010

     

  2. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    Neither this, nor other claims cause me to doubt the "official version" of the attacks: There is an overwhelming quantity of clues suggesting that it was indeed a terrorist attack by islamist terrorists of the al-Qaida network directed by Osama bin Laden that flew three airplanes into the Twin Towards and the Pentagon.

    That the US government was anyhow involved in a conspiracy to bring this about stretches my imagination.

    What I do wonder, though, is how much of the hatred of the terrorists was indeed genuinely directed against the US and the West in general and based on islamist ideology, and how much of it was a kind of personal vendetta against Bush and other figures in the administration at that point: Bush and previous American administrations had done "business" with members of the bin Laden family and the islamist network, for example when supporting them, training them and delivering these islamists weapons in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Did a previous US government break their promises when dealing with these thugs, betraying them? Did they make them really angry for some other reason than just being American or their foreign policy in general, and did they seek revenge for that particularly? It's not uncommon that organized crime thugs would seek revenge against unreliable "business partners".

    And the worst effect of 9/11 does not rely on the question whether the official version is true: Western governments used the scare and fear after 9/11 to hastily get through very questionable laws that excessively expand executive government power, two wars and other military activities. It's unlikely the US government and others would have found enough public support for these big government excesses, if the 9/11 attacks had not taken place.

    And that's what really worries me. For decades, even centuries, freedom loving people who believe in a free, democratic, republican system of government have upheld the ideal of limited government and checking executive power. Then there is 9/11 and many of them voluntarily give up some of the most basic tenets of the Western way of life -- it's legal for uncontrolled, unchecked secret services to kidnap random people from the streets, to hold them indefinitely, to deny them fair trials or legal assistence. Even torture has become official policy again, the right to spy on the people has been expanded. The "military-industrial complex" Dwight Eisenhower once warned us of, if it exists, is exerting more power than ever before.

    And the old warning of a slippery slope seems to be confirmed: These measures were not just temporary. Bush did not skip them, and even Obama only made a few cosmetic changes, but even expanded some of them (even US citizens may now be assassinated if they are "a threat to national security" without due process). Once big government has its hand on a new toy, it will hardly ever voluntarily give it back to the people again.

    This really worries me much more than anything else about 9/11, and for this problem, it really doesn't matter if the official version is correct.
     
  3. Rapier

    Rapier Registered Member V.I.P. Lifetime

    You have a problem with the result of 9/11 yet you ignore, physical impossibilities and the improbable coincidences aside, the literature published by the neoconservative PNAC organization and the New Pearl Harbor letter in 1998 to President Clinton that mapped out the aftermath of 9/11 years before it took place.
     
  4. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    And this is supposed to mean ... what exactly?

    Of course they had a plan for such an eventuality. That's what think tanks do, even sinister think tanks. They make encompassing drafts and policy plans and concepts for all kind of eventualities that may ever become relevant.

    It would have been very negligent if, for example, any US government had no plans for the eventuality of Iran getting nukes, a toppling of the Iraqi government or all other kinds of eventualities. They need these plans ready in the casket, should they ever become relevant.
     
  5. Rapier

    Rapier Registered Member V.I.P. Lifetime




    Hopefully you're happy and things are going well. And 5 years later you understand that aluminum/fiberglass jets don't slice through steel super buildings with their nose emerging through the other side of the building intact.
     
  6. Hilander

    Hilander Free Spirit Staff Member V.I.P.

    The Pentagon was the bigger mystery to me. How could a jet that big fly just above the ground long enough to go through the Pentagon with no wreckage laying everywhere. Especially by someone that barely knows how to fly. To me it looks more like a missile went through it.
     
  7. Rapier

    Rapier Registered Member V.I.P. Lifetime

    True. Again I remind you. Whatever position the MSM, mainstream media, takes on any major issue, you can be 99% positive it's not in YOUR best interests.
     

Share This Page