Ever heard of Operation Northwoods?
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
I don't believe we have "conspiracy to commit" crimes. (Though the term is used in "conspiracy to commit murder"). The mere planning and/or discussion of something is not enough to be a crime.
Conspiracy is defined as two or more willing people agreeing in thoughts and action to commit a crime, with at least one overt act of toward accomplishing the crime.
Conspiracy is defined as two or more willing people agreeing in thoughts and action to commit a crime, with at least one overt act of toward accomplishing the crime.
Sometimes the ends do justify the means. As far as the misguided people who signed on to that doc, from their point of view they were acting to achieve a better state.
That to me is not wrong, even if it implies killing americans. Kudos to them, at least they had the principle right.
What is wrong clearly, was that in that case there was a better Machievelan solution. Namely, that the threat was overblown, alternate more achievable peaceful solutions were available, that led to the state we are in today. We succeeded in bringing down the Wall without resorting to drastic violence. And the world ended up in a great place from a historical standpoint. Machieveli would be proud. We achieved the ends without resorting to drastic means.
Will it always remain as such, so that we don't have to use underhanded conspiracy tactics? Assuredly not. History is replete with examples like Northwood that WERE actually implemented that led to better civilizations.
Rome for instance, the bastion of civilization, often took recourses such as this to promote their empire. If you read the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, you can see this clearly. Keep in mind, when Rome eventually did fall, we were thrown into the dark ages.
THe moral is, its always important that the American way of life is preserved at all costs.
That to me is not wrong, even if it implies killing americans. Kudos to them, at least they had the principle right.
What is wrong clearly, was that in that case there was a better Machievelan solution. Namely, that the threat was overblown, alternate more achievable peaceful solutions were available, that led to the state we are in today. We succeeded in bringing down the Wall without resorting to drastic violence. And the world ended up in a great place from a historical standpoint. Machieveli would be proud. We achieved the ends without resorting to drastic means.
Will it always remain as such, so that we don't have to use underhanded conspiracy tactics? Assuredly not. History is replete with examples like Northwood that WERE actually implemented that led to better civilizations.
Rome for instance, the bastion of civilization, often took recourses such as this to promote their empire. If you read the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, you can see this clearly. Keep in mind, when Rome eventually did fall, we were thrown into the dark ages.
THe moral is, its always important that the American way of life is preserved at all costs.
I also reject the notion that this is a leftwing/rightwing dichotomy.
Soviet Russia was very Machievelan. Lenin and others truly believed that they were going to achieve a better world, even if it meant many sacrifices. Hence all the purges.
Ditto for Hitler from a Rightwing perspective.
My argument with Russia and Germany in both cases were the premises, not the implementation.
Soviet Russia was very Machievelan. Lenin and others truly believed that they were going to achieve a better world, even if it meant many sacrifices. Hence all the purges.
Ditto for Hitler from a Rightwing perspective.
My argument with Russia and Germany in both cases were the premises, not the implementation.
Def the context is what decides the value of such a scenario. Alan Moore had one done for his short comic series "The Watchmen". And Moore certainly aint no right winger. I disagreed with the context tho as I simply dont ever believe nuclear war was actually seen as feasible by the soviet block. Pretty much the same reason I disagreed with Northwoods. The threat wasnt believable.
However paint a diff world where the cold war was one between the west and nazism lets say and I wouldnt have much probs with it. Such as the conspiracy theory that said Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen in order to justify americas entry into the war. Its hard to accept but were it found to be true Id have to agree with it. This was a world before wmds and where the japanese and nazi regimes were brutal beyond imagination...
However paint a diff world where the cold war was one between the west and nazism lets say and I wouldnt have much probs with it. Such as the conspiracy theory that said Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen in order to justify americas entry into the war. Its hard to accept but were it found to be true Id have to agree with it. This was a world before wmds and where the japanese and nazi regimes were brutal beyond imagination...
Fred said:
OK, please address if you feel the quotes in this post are distorting your statements by providing the commentary that I omitted that changes your meaning from the way I'm taking it. I hope you can, because I'm a bit horrified by what I understand you to be saying.
Your admiration for the "ends" loses sight of a lot of things, Fred, including changing the nature of "the American way of life" you propose is being maintained.
For instance, you seem to find it irrelevant that we're talking about targetting and purposefully killing innocent persons... to facilitate the "end" of manipulation of popular opinion in an attempt to circumvent every process associated with democracy, voting, checks and balances, and all the mechanisms that the people involved seem to have found inconvenient.
I do suppose it is a wordly outlook that your concern is not any greater for them being American citizens.
What's the purpose of our form of government again?
Ah, sometimes it is ok to break laws, you say...oh, and to violate the constitution? That's ok as long as you have a plan, right? Hmm.
Might work fine if you're always right and aren't allowing self interest to influence your evaluations at all. But then that's true of about dictatorships too.
Isn't the consistent failure of humanity to achieve this related to what is supposed to define our government?
Well, I'm not going to get into a nebulous discussion about the omelet and egg principle, I'm just going to point out that the definition of "wrong" has no hope of having absolute control of what people do, it defines the actual nature of the entity and/or persons who are willing to define something as wrong, and on whether they are actually willing to stick to that definition once it is made...or not.
Again, a lot is snipped, but it all seems to support the worst interpretation of this statement. If you think this is distortion, please indicate to me how your posts are saying something different.
I do point out that your definition of "American way of life" seems to exclude a lot of things that mine would not.
Food for thought: ever think about an association between resorting to such tactics illustrating something about why Rome fell? Things like this are always the easiest course, and the most reliable if you have the resources to execute them successfully. If success=right...hmm. Well, that's a fundamental difference in outlook.
Heh, do I think America will fall because of something like this? Not as long as we're able to have an opportunity to discuss something like this concretely, I certainly do not!
However, which do you think works towards maintaining our ability to do just that: Outrage and political impact from how wrong it was that the Join Chiefs approved such a plan, or excusing it as "not wrong" for the US government to target US citizens for death purely to remove popular opinion as an impediment to government action?
Well, I'm certainly a bit horrified. Hey, do you have children I can put on a list for the government to target if they feel the need to stir up some popular support for war against some nuclear capable country? You know, for the good of the American way of life, just in case.
What elicits the most reaction from me is that according to you it would be OK if all the most extreme conspiracy theories were right about 9/11. Saying the conspiracy theories are unreasonable and unfounded I can relate to...saying it wouldn't matter if they were true is just ...
I really hope you stay far away from a position of power...please excuse the irrelevance of that, as that's as mild a commentary as I can manage to what I understand of your statements.
Agree to vehemently disagree, or do you feel my reaction is unfair or that some factor invalidates my evaluation?
LittlePenny
Regular
I interpreted it differently. If Rome had allowed their citizens a life style change and not forced the "Roman" way of life, perhaps people wouldn't have just let the Vandals into the city.Fred said:
Forgive the emotions clouding my judgement, but... what part of LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS do they not understand?
I read the PDF...is that what you are referring to? Well, assuming I'm included in the people you want to address with your statement:
I am curious as to your interpretation of these selections:
Perhaps these were all intended to be completely fake like the Maine was, as described...so let's move on to the civilian campaign where casualty lists couldn't be so closely controlled.
On "American soil":
Well, you can believe no one would die in the above or the subsequent efforts to maintain believability for popular support and avoid a backlash that would result from discovery of these items beign faked. I happen to think "to the extent of wounding" is a phrase inserted to provide a pretext to build a defense that could have worked in the climate of the time (I don't think it flies too well currently, but I can only speak for myself with real certainty).
I'd just happen to think I have good reason to disagree with your interpretation, is all. Do you disagree that I can validly find good reason in the above to think differently than you propose, or is there some other source you meant?
In any case, please note that my comments are addressing Fred's statements predicated on the principle that people would indeed be killed.
I am curious as to your interpretation of these selections:
Perhaps these were all intended to be completely fake like the Maine was, as described...so let's move on to the civilian campaign where casualty lists couldn't be so closely controlled.
On "American soil":
Well, you can believe no one would die in the above or the subsequent efforts to maintain believability for popular support and avoid a backlash that would result from discovery of these items beign faked. I happen to think "to the extent of wounding" is a phrase inserted to provide a pretext to build a defense that could have worked in the climate of the time (I don't think it flies too well currently, but I can only speak for myself with real certainty).
I'd just happen to think I have good reason to disagree with your interpretation, is all. Do you disagree that I can validly find good reason in the above to think differently than you propose, or is there some other source you meant?
In any case, please note that my comments are addressing Fred's statements predicated on the principle that people would indeed be killed.
I think, given the nature of all of the other suggestions as a whole, which includes falsifying casualty reports and staging military attacks, that they did not intend to purposefully kill anyone as a result of their suggestions. Could someone have died if a bomb went off in Miami, sure. But I think the idea is that it wouldn't have been intended, and that they would have detonated the bomb with the belief that no one was close enough to it to be killed. Of course, it can also be interpreted as them suggesting we kill people with bombs, or by drowning them, but nowhere does it explicitly state that, and given the context of this suggestion being incorporated with all of the other non-lethal options being suggested, I don't think that's an accurate interpretation.
And I use terms like "you people" in a general sense... I don't specifically make a list of individuals who I include in such a group
Anyway, looking at it from their perspective, making false attacks to encourage the nation to support a war against Cuba doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me. It was a choice between getting that support for a war any way possible, or facing the very real threat of having dozens of communist-controlled nuclear missiles sitting on an island within spitting distance of us. Remember, this was before ICBM's, when so far the only real nuclear threat to the U.S. mainland had been demonstrated by the K-19, and you can watch the movie to see how well that went. Cuba was the first real possibility for Russia to have the power to destroy a large portion of the U.S. at will. Obviously it was a very plausible fear, since it actually happened. And if we hadn't built the U-2 in '55, we might not have even known about it. Sure, looking back we can say that we avoided being blown to bits through other means, but this document didn't have the 20/20 hindsight we have the luxury of possessing.
I think if you were alive back then, and you were given the chioce between convincing the country to go to war with a small island, or having the island become littered with nuclear missile silos that could wipe out the U.S. (when this had not yet been a realistic danger), you'd probably choose to blow up an ammunitions depot or detonate a small bomb in a strategic location, too. I don't think the decision not to follow through on these suggestions was made from a lack of wanting to kill americans, since I don't think that's what was being suggested. I think the decision was made from both a lack of wanting to lie to americans to start a war, as well as a dislike and distrust of the military at the time.
And I use terms like "you people" in a general sense... I don't specifically make a list of individuals who I include in such a group
Anyway, looking at it from their perspective, making false attacks to encourage the nation to support a war against Cuba doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me. It was a choice between getting that support for a war any way possible, or facing the very real threat of having dozens of communist-controlled nuclear missiles sitting on an island within spitting distance of us. Remember, this was before ICBM's, when so far the only real nuclear threat to the U.S. mainland had been demonstrated by the K-19, and you can watch the movie to see how well that went. Cuba was the first real possibility for Russia to have the power to destroy a large portion of the U.S. at will. Obviously it was a very plausible fear, since it actually happened. And if we hadn't built the U-2 in '55, we might not have even known about it. Sure, looking back we can say that we avoided being blown to bits through other means, but this document didn't have the 20/20 hindsight we have the luxury of possessing.
I think if you were alive back then, and you were given the chioce between convincing the country to go to war with a small island, or having the island become littered with nuclear missile silos that could wipe out the U.S. (when this had not yet been a realistic danger), you'd probably choose to blow up an ammunitions depot or detonate a small bomb in a strategic location, too. I don't think the decision not to follow through on these suggestions was made from a lack of wanting to kill americans, since I don't think that's what was being suggested. I think the decision was made from both a lack of wanting to lie to americans to start a war, as well as a dislike and distrust of the military at the time.
Crusher said:
Yeah, from what I have read of the document there is no mention of killing anyone. I am not surprised such a document would be interpreted by leftist as a murdering scenario. But I think this has a lot to do with certain media portrail of the document as some sort of lethal attack on the US. Surely the idea that the US government would attack and kill US citizens is conspiracy oriented.
Funny thing is Natoma it never occurred and now you are speculating that the present US government has possibly done some horrible act of terrorism (re 9/11) to rationalize the war effort based on what you read in this document that does not call for the murder of anyone. Hrm, I think you ought to reconsider your position on this. The PDF in question doesn't indicate any murdering of US people like the ABC news article does. It is speculation to say that possibly there are pages missing and hence all the real dirt is omitted.... That is really not called for as all the incidents spoke about in the ABC article seem to be in the PDF.
While it was an underhanded consideration I am sure that you could find even more disturbing sorts of documents from governments around the world. Also the context of the time period should be considered. The US was worried about Cuba becoming a member of the Warsaw Pact and the cold war with all the covert spying and meddling you could possibly imagine. It is hard to say if what was said in the document was even considered. In the end none of it came to be.
I am not so sure this is worthy of the alarm bells being sounded off here. I think that there are some in the media that would make more of it then it really is for what ever reason. ABC news did not cover that article in a very objective manner Natoma just look at the quotes you took from that article. It certainly does look as though the ABC news article is attempting to portray the joint chiefs of staff in a unfavorable light. Maybe they don't approve of War action unless there is a democrat in Washington, certainly the ABC article gives speculative accreditation that the "conservatives" would indorse the action without any real sort of evidance to back up such a suggestion. Maybe the creators of the article were hoping some conspiracy oriented minds would get excited by their article and spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the current US government in hopes of installing a democrat in Washinton.(Upset about loosing the presidency to GW? Possibly.) We all know the US media has no lack of left/democrat within their ranks, right?
In the end though I believe Crusher is entirely correct it does not appear as thought there were any intensions of causing some sort of mass murder on US citizens to rationalize an attack on Cuba. Also Natoma I believe you can rest easy knowing full well the current situation in the mid east is not the result of some sort of conspiracy on behalf of the current US government. IMO I think the current US administration is doing a good job at protecting it citizens from terrorism and governments who would promote terror against the US, freedom and democracy. In light of the PDF you ought not to portray the incident in the way that ABC news has IMO. That would be kind of embarrassing wouldn't it?
BTW I think Joe makes a good point about Oliver Stone.
PS: Thanks for the PDF Crusher.
Well, it is my opinion that there is a distinct difference between "blowing up an enemy factory and happening to kill innocent people to which the enemy placed it near on purpose." and "blowing up bombs in American cities, sinking refugee boats, and attacking people with intent to harm and happening to kill innocent people." With mentions of Oliver Stone flying around, I'm aware that some find this distinction a "fiction" or some such, and I happen to have nothing positive contribute to the discussion with regards to my opinion of that.
Briefly, since I perceive that I'm being associated with believing something because I "see it in movies": my understanding of an outlook as dismissing the actions described in the document as benign for not saying "kill" explicitly would cause me to label such an outlook as "naive". Doesn't make me right, but it will serve to atleast inform you of my opinion, and some example texts I think pertinent are already provided.
However, my intent in replying wasn't to get involved with a contest of ridicule like that, but to specifically address what I did in my initial post. I'll try to curtail discussion outside of that since I think my opinion on the rest of the discussion won't be adding anything new or useful.
Briefly, since I perceive that I'm being associated with believing something because I "see it in movies": my understanding of an outlook as dismissing the actions described in the document as benign for not saying "kill" explicitly would cause me to label such an outlook as "naive". Doesn't make me right, but it will serve to atleast inform you of my opinion, and some example texts I think pertinent are already provided.
However, my intent in replying wasn't to get involved with a contest of ridicule like that, but to specifically address what I did in my initial post. I'll try to curtail discussion outside of that since I think my opinion on the rest of the discussion won't be adding anything new or useful.
Damalion I didn't find your post overly speculative at all. They seemed within reason actually. What I have a beef with are these quotes taken from the ABC news site.
I would suggest that the information is provided in that article in such a way that it embellishes the intensions of the actions suggested, to the point where one becomes alarmed. I can see the possibilities of some sort of accident but it certainly does not say "we could cause civilian casualties" or anything of the sort. I am of the mind that the ABC news article takes it a step further in its sensationalistic flavor. At any rate I wouldn't conclude after reading the PDF that the current government in Washington is deserving of speculative notions that they had something possibly to do with 9/11 in order to rationalize the war effort going on in Iraq.
I would suggest that the information is provided in that article in such a way that it embellishes the intensions of the actions suggested, to the point where one becomes alarmed. I can see the possibilities of some sort of accident but it certainly does not say "we could cause civilian casualties" or anything of the sort. I am of the mind that the ABC news article takes it a step further in its sensationalistic flavor. At any rate I wouldn't conclude after reading the PDF that the current government in Washington is deserving of speculative notions that they had something possibly to do with 9/11 in order to rationalize the war effort going on in Iraq.
Well, I don't recall that a plane was going to be hijacked (I remember being harassed by mock Migs) and I think the wording was chosen to directly and strongly reinforce association with what the public clearly associates with specific "terrorist threats" in the public's memory, and could see how the article could have capitalized on that quite easily (exactly that is what is common in the media in my view, in different "directions" depending on where you look).
However, I didn't read the article at abcnews, I read the PDF... and most of the key phrases in your quotes are exactly accurate. Without viewing things in context of the complete work, the strength of distortion you seem to indicate in the quotes is not evident to me, though I have no reason to doubt that they could be as evident as you indicate for the article overall proposed as a substitute for allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. It is just that I have no intent to address the article outside of pointing out that the phrases you chose to quote aren't the gross inaccuracies you imply, atleast in and of themselves.
Note that I agree with the sentiment of your last sentence, as I stated in my first post in the thread, and that I'm replying to acknowledge your clarification of your viewpoint as it seems to indicate my understanding of how I was being addressed was not accurate.
However, I didn't read the article at abcnews, I read the PDF... and most of the key phrases in your quotes are exactly accurate. Without viewing things in context of the complete work, the strength of distortion you seem to indicate in the quotes is not evident to me, though I have no reason to doubt that they could be as evident as you indicate for the article overall proposed as a substitute for allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. It is just that I have no intent to address the article outside of pointing out that the phrases you chose to quote aren't the gross inaccuracies you imply, atleast in and of themselves.
Note that I agree with the sentiment of your last sentence, as I stated in my first post in the thread, and that I'm replying to acknowledge your clarification of your viewpoint as it seems to indicate my understanding of how I was being addressed was not accurate.
demalion said:
Well.. obviously we digress on the quotes. I contend that in particular the quote from the ABC news article :
This is most inflammatory. There are no plans to kill innocents people. Further the statement to "commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities" without any sort of indication of just what they are talking about regarding the context of the "terrorism" they are plaining. Clearly on November 7, 2001 not two months after the planned and executed terrorist acts on 9/11 the American public had a different idea of terrorism then what is being suggested in that PDF. Never mind that after you read the PDF you get the sense that the activities seem rather benign.
This is however a bit more difficult to indite. The possible assassination of Cuban émigrés is not definite. Sinking a boat does not mean dead people necessarily. I don't recall any suggestion of actually hi-jacking planes, which would be a clear reference to 9/11. Blowing up a US ship doesn't nessesarily entail killing US citizens and the "orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities" is clearly an embellishment of what was said in the document IMO.
This gets a little too interpretive for my liking at this point. I don't think speculating over just what the writers of the classified document were actually implying in many of the cases. Some are less ambiguous but I think that the writer of the article from ABC news took his speculation a little overboard. Reading his article it looked as thought the US government was doing nothing short of declaring war on its own citizens via terrorism and the like. But I didn't get that sense after reading the PDF.
BTW I didn't see just where they do say that they will kill innocent Americans, even in your quotes. Although I must admit I have only skimmed and it is getting late.
Demalion to clarify. Did you see the movie the Siege, or SwordFish. Its simplifying things a lot here, but lets say for instance that in such a world That Travolta lives in, that indeed his anti terrorist organization works. It works 100% perfectly. In the end of the day, it prevents all terrorism from occuring on US soil. Take that as an assumption.
That is, it preserves the way of life of Americans. Yet, you say, he killed Americans in the movie to achieve that.
In this case, a small group of renegades, unbeknowest to the American populace, and in violation of the laws of the land (including the american way of life) used nefarious means to preserve globally the exact thing they were individually breaking.
So yea, I agree with that principle. He killed, robbed and sacrificed a few, in order to protect the liberties and the lives of many.
Other example I can think off. Lets say Hitler was right. Lets say that there was a real definition of a superior race, and that it was 100% undisputable scientifically. His vision of things had it that such a pure race, and a utopia for mankind could only exist with the deaths of lesser races. Do I fault them for then carrying out the premise? Absolutely not, they were convinced of it, it was sacrosanct. They were leading humanity to a 'greater' good.
The problem was in both cases, the premise is not clearly undisputable. We know now that there is no such thing as a superior genetic race (or even how to define race at all). We also know that there are many means to fight terrorism that might work better than what the movie Swordfish proposes.
But as a philosophical point, and even in reality there might be a situation in which case Northwood and the like MIGHT be justified.
Thats all I am saying. For the most part conspiracy theories tend to be wrong, because they can only exist in extreme pathological cases.
That is, it preserves the way of life of Americans. Yet, you say, he killed Americans in the movie to achieve that.
In this case, a small group of renegades, unbeknowest to the American populace, and in violation of the laws of the land (including the american way of life) used nefarious means to preserve globally the exact thing they were individually breaking.
So yea, I agree with that principle. He killed, robbed and sacrificed a few, in order to protect the liberties and the lives of many.
Other example I can think off. Lets say Hitler was right. Lets say that there was a real definition of a superior race, and that it was 100% undisputable scientifically. His vision of things had it that such a pure race, and a utopia for mankind could only exist with the deaths of lesser races. Do I fault them for then carrying out the premise? Absolutely not, they were convinced of it, it was sacrosanct. They were leading humanity to a 'greater' good.
The problem was in both cases, the premise is not clearly undisputable. We know now that there is no such thing as a superior genetic race (or even how to define race at all). We also know that there are many means to fight terrorism that might work better than what the movie Swordfish proposes.
But as a philosophical point, and even in reality there might be a situation in which case Northwood and the like MIGHT be justified.
Thats all I am saying. For the most part conspiracy theories tend to be wrong, because they can only exist in extreme pathological cases.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
Gee...who was it that said "repeat it enough times, and it becomes accepted as fact" in this very thread?
Now do you see why "Oliver Stone" is relevant to this thread, Natoma? Perhaps you can make an alarmist movie about "Operation Northwoods!" Actual facts that you can get your hands on be damned! You've heard enough second and third hand reports so it must be true! Start sounding the alarm bells! Something is obviously missing in the first hand reports that you do have, it's not that these 2nd and third hand reports are interpreting incorrectly (purpously or not) because it makes for a more newsworthy story, or just suits their own agenda better...good grief.
Crusher:
You brought up a point that I'm not sure is irrelevant to this discussion, but seems to have been glossed over. Why is it ok to detonate bombs in american cities? First off, even if no one was killed and the "intent" was not to kill anyone, what in the world gives "them" the right to detonate bombs in our cities?
Irrespective of intent to maim/kill, the detonation of bombs with the intent to create terror should not imo be an option. Those are the actions of terrorists are they not? Not always to kill as many people as possible, but to inflict psychological damage upon the target.
You seem to believe it was ok, due to the circumstances of the times, to stage these "wag the dog" scenarios in order to get the country firmly behind the "war effort" while I believe that deception on this scale is unwarranted and unnecessary.
Unless I interpreted your stance incorrectly, would you agree with that assessment?
p.s.: Sabastian, the date on the article was 5/1/2001. So there isn't a post 9/11 interpretation of terrorism there.
Also, I stated that if it came out that 9/11 was indeed orchestrated, I would not be surprised. Given the fact that before I read this, I completely disregarded the possibility of our government doing something like that, now I'm not so sure. That doesn't mean that I'm now beholden to go screaming from the rooftops that the US is responsible for 9/11.
Hey, more than half of the american public believe that the hijackers were Iraqi, not Saud. That disinformation had to come from somewhere, especially since in the first year or so it had been established that they were Saudis. Now where it came from is not something I'm willing to speculate on, but the point is that the public does indeed believe things today that are completely false, and about fairly recent events.
So who knows what else is going on here.
[EDIT]You say that the document didn't explicitly say "Kill people." Well, to go completely "conspiracy theory" on you, what if the planes flying that low on 9/11 were only meant to buzz NYC and crash into the harbor, but they missed and hit the two tallest buildings in the city? I'm laughing as I'm writing that, but the point remains that gauging "intent" when talking about detonating bombs in populated cities is a futile exercise.
Mistakes happen, and this shouldn't have been an option. Maiming people at the least. Deaths from a bombing most certainly.[/EDIT]
You brought up a point that I'm not sure is irrelevant to this discussion, but seems to have been glossed over. Why is it ok to detonate bombs in american cities? First off, even if no one was killed and the "intent" was not to kill anyone, what in the world gives "them" the right to detonate bombs in our cities?
Irrespective of intent to maim/kill, the detonation of bombs with the intent to create terror should not imo be an option. Those are the actions of terrorists are they not? Not always to kill as many people as possible, but to inflict psychological damage upon the target.
You seem to believe it was ok, due to the circumstances of the times, to stage these "wag the dog" scenarios in order to get the country firmly behind the "war effort" while I believe that deception on this scale is unwarranted and unnecessary.
Unless I interpreted your stance incorrectly, would you agree with that assessment?
p.s.: Sabastian, the date on the article was 5/1/2001. So there isn't a post 9/11 interpretation of terrorism there.
Also, I stated that if it came out that 9/11 was indeed orchestrated, I would not be surprised. Given the fact that before I read this, I completely disregarded the possibility of our government doing something like that, now I'm not so sure. That doesn't mean that I'm now beholden to go screaming from the rooftops that the US is responsible for 9/11.
Hey, more than half of the american public believe that the hijackers were Iraqi, not Saud. That disinformation had to come from somewhere, especially since in the first year or so it had been established that they were Saudis. Now where it came from is not something I'm willing to speculate on, but the point is that the public does indeed believe things today that are completely false, and about fairly recent events.
So who knows what else is going on here.
[EDIT]You say that the document didn't explicitly say "Kill people." Well, to go completely "conspiracy theory" on you, what if the planes flying that low on 9/11 were only meant to buzz NYC and crash into the harbor, but they missed and hit the two tallest buildings in the city? I'm laughing as I'm writing that, but the point remains that gauging "intent" when talking about detonating bombs in populated cities is a futile exercise.
Mistakes happen, and this shouldn't have been an option. Maiming people at the least. Deaths from a bombing most certainly.[/EDIT]
JF_Aidan_Pryde
Regular
Joe DeFuria said:
I reckon. Maybe then, and only then would the public pressure be so high that the government is forced to release material which they deemed 'unsafe' for Americans to see.
Fred, of course if you simplify things, Hitler's actions and the hypothetical situation in Swordfish can be justified....
The problem is that a simplified viewpoint is defined by the desires and understanding of the person/people making the justification. There is no surprise in this, nor does it alter the nature of my comments.
The central problem here, Fred, is that you seem to believe in human infallibility. Your comments about "100% undisputable scientifically" and a superior race, for example, recognizes no limit to the applicability of science to determining such a definition, the understanding of people reaching such a conclusion, the data on which they base it, nor to the actions people can be justified to take based on such a conclusion once reached.
Your usage of "sacrosanct" to describe the conclusion to see to the "deaths of lesser races", and relating that term to why you would not fault them for carrying out the premise, is particularly disturbing to me.
Hmm...I'm more horrified as we go along, and I don't foresee that changing down this line of reasoning.
The problem is that a simplified viewpoint is defined by the desires and understanding of the person/people making the justification. There is no surprise in this, nor does it alter the nature of my comments.
The central problem here, Fred, is that you seem to believe in human infallibility. Your comments about "100% undisputable scientifically" and a superior race, for example, recognizes no limit to the applicability of science to determining such a definition, the understanding of people reaching such a conclusion, the data on which they base it, nor to the actions people can be justified to take based on such a conclusion once reached.
Your usage of "sacrosanct" to describe the conclusion to see to the "deaths of lesser races", and relating that term to why you would not fault them for carrying out the premise, is particularly disturbing to me.
Hmm...I'm more horrified as we go along, and I don't foresee that changing down this line of reasoning.
