9/11--Crime or Act of War?

Many things that happened on 9/11/01 are plain to see.
Almost three thousand people died.(And many were injured.)
Four aircraft were destroyed.
Two skyscrapers came down, and many other buildings were damaged.

What is not plain to see is whether this was a crime or an act of war.

What do you people here think?

should it not be an act by a foreign entity?
it appears that it is not.

by the Administration of bu$h&co.

Not only does this administration need to be voted out, they need to be tried for their crimes against humanity in the World Court. If they are only voted out, they will not go quietly into the night. Remember Florida 2000? A warm-up. The surprise outcome of some 2002 elections? The recent quote of Diebold's CEO in support of 'reelecting' bu$h?

These people need to be brought to justice or the bodies will keep piling up.

It was the day that the Bush Administration told us exactly how expendable we were.

May their karma be just as rewarding!

As Kelly said............"Dark Forces are amongst us!!!"

There have been a lot of names produced, and even the people that (allegedly) committed the act went down with planes. Many of the people’s investigations of 9/11 have turned up many more questions. I say the Jury is still out on what it is exactly.

http://www.investigate911.com/

if Bu$hCo had acted proprerly and treated 9-11 has a crime rather than an act of war. However, that would not have given them the excuse they needed to implement their plans for domination of the world's resources.

I do believe that if this happened under Clinton or Gore it would have been handled has a crime and Osama would be awaiting trial in NYC, just like the 3 guys that they convicted for the first WTC bombing.

The tax cuts for the rich, the starving of social and education programs. The changes in the bankruptcy laws favoring the big companies vs the little guy. Not going after the big bankrupted companies like ENRON, or their upper management. Privatizing government functions, i.e., our own solders in Iraq having trouble getting anything from toilet paper to replacement parts to ammo. Not investigating 9/11, in fact openly doing anything to hinder investigations into what happened. LIHOP/MIHOP The secrecy & lies that this administration operates under would not be tolerated in normal times and should not be now.

This administration and their supporting friends are at war with the people of the United States and the world. Just what has the bu$h administration done to help the average american since 2000? Deregulation? Don't think so. Job protections, sure, uh, huh. Try out sourcing to India.

Where is the outrage? People just cannot believe the real enemy is our own government. They were not elected. The administrative branch of the United States government IS at war with the American people to stay in power at all costs. They will not go away till they led away in handcuffs.

It was a grotesque crime and whoever did it were savage criminals. But the opportunity to label this a "Terrorist" attack, allowed them to make new rules that coincided with their plans for Pax Americana. Instead of working with other countries to track down and captured the alledged perps, we declare unilateral war on an unknown enemy who lives in any country that this administration tells us.....how convenient.

But what's truly telling is this administration's ongoing obstruction to allow all the facts and truth about what really happened on 9/11 come out to the American people. Because of this stonewalling, I can only conclude that they knew and let it happen.

They should be impeached and tried for high treason against this country.

and vice versa

However, just as Oklahoma City bombing, which was horrific, was a crime, so was the WTC as far as we know at this point. We do not know if it was paid for and sponsored by a foreign government. If it was, it was most likely Saudi Arabia. Most likely, this was done by a handful of criminals (terrorists) with no connection to any country.

The only difference was that these guys were foreign. No country behind them, just an ideology - just like McVeigh.

and should have been treated as a crime. Instead, the Bush Cabal used it as justification to start wars to secure oil and business for Halliburton and the defence industry.

We were right to go into Afghanistan on the hunt for the criminals we believed to be responsible. Instead of relying on the Northern Alliance to do the job, we should have invaded with full force and shut off the borders and engaged on a real hunt for Osama bin Laden. We had international support for this type of operation as well.

Instead, we did a half-assed job in Afghanistan (we got the pipeline, though) and invaded Iraq.

"Where is the outrage? People just cannot believe the real enemy is our own government. They were not elected. The administrative branch of the United States government IS at war with the American people to stay in power at all costs. They will not go away till they led away in handcuffs."

Our government said it was Afghanistan. Using the evidence they presented at the time, it should have been Saudi Arabia. When it turned out the pipeline was no longer needed, Afghanistan went under the radar and Iraq became the fall guy.

We invaded Iraq, secured the oil fields, built 4+ military bases and vacated Saudi Arabia. The united States now cannot leave Iraq without vacating those bases also. What a catch 22, huh? Between a rock & a hard place, with the gap closing. Viet Nam was a piece of cake....

People don't remember that Clinton viewed th 93 bombing of the trade center as a criminal act and brought all the responsible parties to justice. However, by the evening of Sept 11, several Republicans (Trent Lott I remember specifically) were calling this an act of war. The outrage in the country was so great that only a few of us questioned the rhetoric at the time.

By the time Bush changed underwear and gathered up enough courage to face the American people on TV, he had it turned into a "War on terror' and the aPNAC plan for Pax Americana was off and running.

and I think it should have been handled just like the first WTC bombing attempt, and Oklahoma City. The perpetrators were caught, tried, and convicted without a PATRIOT Act, or war. Considering the sympathy and universal shock over the act, even from less than friendly areas, we would have likely gotten a tremendous amount of assistance in finding Osama and the rest.

Obviously, TPTB think differently, however, they still haven't caught the perps doing it their way.

When the terrorists attacked the Pentagon and the HQ of the U.S. military 9-11 essentially became an act of war. However, using military force and war to go after Al Qaeda members isn't necessary if a member is in the U.S. or within a nation whose domestic law enforcement is willing to apprehend the terrorists. A nation doesn't need to be attacked by a foreign government in order to use military force. This ignores the fact that terrorists can also organize a military strike on a nation.

to strap bombs to their body and carries out a suicide attack at the Pentagon or the WH, then it's an act of war? What if that person is an American citizen?

It is not the target that differentiates between a crime and an act of war. It is whether or not an individual or group acts on their own, or if the attack is supported and/or carried out by the military of a foreign country.

Since Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, then any coordinated attack BY that organization, whether by one member or 19, is considered an act of war by the organization. Of course there's inconsistencies, but we all know that bin Laden kills innocents. When bin Laden organizes a plot to kill thousands of American innocents, I call it an act of war by him against the United States as a whole.

Why do you elevate the crime? No country has taken credit for the actions. Now there may be individuals in governments that plotted to make this happen, but our reaction should have been to use all the forces and resources of the FBI and Interpol to ferret out the criminals and bring them to justice....not use this as a pretext to declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly when we now know that pipelines and oilfields were the primary reason for our military actions.

Japan Naval aviators bombed Pearl Harbor....that's an act of war. A bunch of wacko criminals plotted and apparently got very luck 9/11 and they are criminals, period.

if a single individual attacked the Pentagon, would that be an act of war?

Ever since the rise of the nation state as the most important political unit, warfare has meant conflict between nation states. Just as you can't wage war against drugs or terrorism, neither can you wage war against terrorists, unless the terrorists comprise a nation state against which you are at war.

Describing the 11th September 2001 as an act of war was the means by which the Bush/Cheney administration was able to push forward its program described in the Project For The New American Century. If 11/9/2001 was treated as a crime, which is what it was in truth, then what followed would have been nowhere near as easy.

On edit, corrected my English.

War is defined basically two ways: Means of chaning a "country"'s policy OR conquering that "country" to steal its resources/wealth. The September 11th terrorist attacks were not just meant to kill a lot of Americans, it was attempting to scare the West and get them to remove influences from Arab streets. He was attempting to change American policy, so therefore it was an act of war against us.

that the UK has been at war with the IRA all these years, whilst Spain has been at war with ETA.

Violence as a means of changing a country's policy describes all the examples of terrorism I can think of.

Warfare essentially means simply violent conflict. Originally it would have meant conflict between tribes. But nowadays it's too easy to use the word to justify repression: "don't you know we're at war??" For this reason I believe a stricter definition should be used: conflict between states.

On edit: minor changes.

Britain did consider itself at war with the IRA when it existed. Also being at war doesn't mean a government can do whatever it wants, it still must operate by the rules of war. Attacks on the military must be treated as acts of war due to the fact law enforcement doesn't have the strength to provide national defense.

Britain did consider itself at war with the IRA is a non-sequitur - if it did, I believe it was wrong to think so. And such ways of thinking must always seem attractive to politicians: how much easier to deal with pesky questions of civil liberties! Sorry, we've got to treat Catholics in Northern Ireland like shit - we're at war, don't you know!

As for the rules of war, I can't bring myself to place much faith in those. Who enforces those then? Surely all participants in a war hope to be the eventual victors, and we all know that the victors make the justice. After all, your government considers itself at war, and yet incarcerates prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, which you certainly won't have forgotten.

Britain shouldn't have considered itself at war with every catholic in Northern Ireland but with armed IRA militants. Secondly, Al Qaeda members aren't exactly under the Geneva Convention since they didn't just attack legitimate targets but civilians as well. The Geneva Conventiion would require us to release Al Qaeda members at the end of the conflict and this shouldn't happen with people who target civilians too.

but the state of "war" justified opression of all catholics, regardless of whether they were with the provos or not.

Anyway, it's time for me to go to bed. Thanks for the argument!

We have people from other countries on DU. It offers a different perspective I enjoy.

Pretty stupid of the terrorists...or pretty smart? BTW, have we had a full and open investigation into all facets of the 9/11 event? Not that I'm aware of....odd that our President and Vice President have gone out of their way to obstruct an open investigation into 9/11. I think until we have a full airing of the facts, we are reacting to a story that this administration wants us to believe.

If one person attacked the Pentagon he'd be dead so what's the point of debate. But yes if an American terrorist group led an organized attack on the U.S. military I'd consider it an act of war. Wasn't this what happened in the Civil War? The only problem is that military can't conduct a war on domestic soil so our only response to terrorists operating within our borders is a law enforcement response.

it is riven between two more competing factions. There is no possibility of using law enforcement to resolve the conflict, because the division of the nation at such times challenges the ligitimacy of such agencies. Also, the scale of the situation defies a civil-law solution: how could you possibly arrest, try and, if necessary, convict so many people?

The problem I have with declaring such acts as acts of war is that under wartime different standards of justice apply. I do not trust military justice. I also refer you to the comment I made the other poster about a state of war being a justification for internal repression.

The U.S. Civil War was the Federal government's response to an act of insurrection. As I stated before a declaration of war by the U.S. no longer allows for a war to be carried out on American soil, so the domestic repression factor even looms over us in the case of conflict between nations.

terrorism is a crime.

murder is a crime

destruction of property is a crime

just like the bombing of the Federal Building. We
didn't bomb the hell out of Oklahoma to find the
terrorists...

Was an attack on civilians and not the military. If McVeigh attacked the Pentagon I'd consider that an act of war too.

His grandfather financed Hitler and pocketed money from concentration camp labor.

His father made a deal with Iranian terrorists, sworn enemies of the USA, to steal the election from Carter.

Friends of the family have names like "Hinkley" and "Bin Laden"

You don't even need to read between the lines when the lines themselves are written in flashing neon red right in front of your face. :grr:

It`s easier to vote Repuke, than to think- just ignore the obvious, listen to assholes like Rush Limpballs on hate radio, and spout "Billary, Billary", every two seconds . Then it`s easy to believe everything these anus cavities tell you. Meantime, you pay two bucks a gallon for gas to get to work, if you even have work,try not to get ill, because you have no insurance, and spout off about how you support the troops, by leaving them in a quagmire to be killed. But remember, our leader says the war is over. And, don`t forget Bill Clinton`s penis - that`s the true source of all evil. Never mind the fact that he left office 3 years ago.

19 people commiting an atrocity.

Then we went off and beat them 100 fold.

I was outraged when it was called an act of war.

Outraged when the squatter called for a War on Terror which means a war without end.

And it wasn't because he didn't know what he was doing. He did.

He made Osama his equal by equating him with a nation state.

He increased al queda's power by treating them as worthy, equal adversaries instead of cockroaches.

It was a crime. It was murder. It should have been dealt with by international policemen, not armies.

It set us up to look for countries to invade. But al queda ain't a nation. It's just a gang.

The media implied that this was a criminal act. If an organized group(Al Qaeda) attacks the U.S. military headquarters it's an act of war. If the IRA bombed the British Ministry of Defense I can guarantee they'd send the military into Northern Ireland. It's silly to think the FBI has the jurisdiction or ability to invade Afghanistan and arrest Al Qaeda members. What international police force is there to carry this out anyway?

<I can guarantee they'd send the military into Northern Ireland.>

They're still there. It has to be an open question whether it's helped.

Where is the British military in Northern Ireland? The Brits signed a peace accord with the IRA and even released IRA prisoners.

Demilitarisation is not complete.

In Northern Ireland but the Brits are alot more level-headed than American neocons.

that D.U. `ERS WERE INTELLIGENT, INSIGHTFULL PEOPLE- here`s a hint:the White House and all the intelligence agencies claim they had no idea that the attacks were coming- but 2 hours after the event, they knew all about it, even had names and pictures of the hi-jackers plastered all over t.v.- gimme a break- the whole thing was perpetrated by our own damn Government- CRIME CRIME CRIME-

It takes alot of intelligence to say the U.S. government carried out the 9-11 attacks. I do agree the FBI likely knew there were a specific group of suspected terrorists operating in the U.S. and failed to apprehend them. However, had they arrested these men before the attacks people like you would've said their civil liberties were being violated. Political correctness is part of the reason the FBI were timid to act. We need to have surveillence on anyone with even minor connections to terrorist groups.

How it is that NORAD never raised a finger to intercept any of these aircraft, even though they allready knew that four commercial airliners had strayed off course. And why is that these "Arab terrorists" hit the Twin Towers, instead of the nuclear power plant that is nearby on the Hudson river- if they wanted to do massive damage, and really disrupt the country, that would have been more usefull to them than two highrise buildings. It all smacks of Operation Northwoods, a declassified Government plan from the 60`s, when the nut cases in intelligence planned to use fake terrorist attacks against civilian targets to stir up warmongering and outrage against the the Cubans. Kennedy shot it down, luckily. But Shrub is no J.F.K. By the way, several of the so called hi-jackers who 'died' on the planes, subsequently turned up alive and well, protesting their innocence.

Also I think the FBI believes Flight 93 was heading for that nuclear plant. People on this very board have said 93 was shot down for this very reason.

In Geography class, but I do believe a field in Pennsylvania is a fer piece from New York State and the Hudson River---I don`t doubt flight 93 was shot down, but for other reasons.


"We`re through the looking glass here, people. We have to start seeing things the way the C.I.A. sees them. White is black, black is white." Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison, J.F.K.

you don't think that's a smoking gun for LIHOP?

Something else....93 was delayed 20-25 minutes on the ground I think 77 was taking it's time because the event called for both planes to hit DC at the same time. Seems like they had plenty of time to wait.

If you were a hijacker ,would you hijacker a plane, fly it through a few states and then turn and head for your target? Why wouldn't you hijack and make the shortest possible course to your target? Unless you knew you wouldn't be shot down?

Funny how we couldn't even get an unarmed plane up to make visual contact with any of the 4 planes....

This is the sole reason why so many conservatives can say liberals will never get elected. You my friend are an extremist whose views will rarely ever be considered. Your mentatlity of blaming an American president with the deaths of 3000+ innocent Americans rather than Usama bin Laden speaks volumes of your blind hatred. I suppose that the Bush administration perpertrated the blackouts, bombing in Najaf, Columbia explosion, and willingly put the economy in the shitter (ok that last one is debatable).

Why Bush and Cheney have obstructed and slow danced the investigation into 9/11. WOuldn't you have expected a high profile speech on the day of 9/11 from a President committing the entire resources (manpower and financial) to exposing everything about what happened that day? Instead that give the commission a crummy $3MM dollars and then keep all relevant information from being released.

Sounds like someone has a lot to hide. Best case is criminal incompetance, worst case is treason....in any case, these bastards are held unaccountable...

We can spend $80MM, 8 years, and indict a popular President for a blowjob...but we can get this pResident under oath to ask him what he knew about pre-warnings on 9/11...when 3000 pople died?

You are right, though....you are a lameone.

Thanks for the compliment at the end there too :)

My point is shown at your response to my comments (although you do make a good point at the end with Clinton). Without any facts at all, you lay the blame directly at the President. You can talk about what you believe happened and the conlclusions you draw, however warped they may be, but if a democratic candidate came out with your position, I guarentee you Bush would win the election with 75% of the vote.

Absolutely nothing.

I remember Sept. 11th vividly, and I've been connected to military personnel all my life. I sat here stunned speechless while I listened to everyone telling me a passenger plane had crashed into the WTO and NORAD had not scrambled fighters. Then another hit the damned Pentagon and STILL there were no fighters in the air according to all reports. No, sir, that's not extremism, that's common effing sense. Two more planes crashed before fighters were in the sky. YOU explainit if it's so blasted "extreme". YOU tell ME where our national defense forces were while FOUR passenger jets flew into either VERY High profile targets or the ground on a direct path to yet a 4th high profile target.

Explain it to me because I really want to hear how anyone can possibly exonerate this oderous creature that occupies my country's Head of State position.

*on edit-bad idea to type when pissed. I switched the hits around.

The case of golfer Payne Stewart's crash has been referred to in many DU threads. One semi-famous golfer and a few other people in a small plane get a few miles off course (due to an unfortunate decompression accident) and they have jets scrambling within 15 minutes.

Yet 4 passenger jets are severely off course, and even after 2 of these planes have slammed deliberately into buildings, they can't get Navy, Air Force or even the mythical UN black helicopters into the skies above Washington DC.

How the hell can anyone be gullible enough to buy this story?

I can't excuse it now. The shock was incredible when I watched the second and third planes hit. I know I dissolved into hysterical tears, and even through all that, I screamed at the television "Where in God's NAME are the FIGHTERS?!"

That's when I knew there was something very, very wrong with this country and it wasn't going to be easy to fix.

the 'liberal' clinton admin never turned down a new anti-terrorism warrant request but the shurb admin did.

we had the tools and agents were on the trail but they were shut down from on high for some reason...

better get your facts straight

peace

an act of war would have had to have come from someone who took responsibility for it. 911 had responsibility pinned on Osama and Saddam, but there was no adequite explanation of motive from the perspective of what they hoped to acheive.

Any way punched up "define" and "crime" and got this

http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+uscnst+7+0++(define%20And%20crime)
-CITE-
ANALYTICAL INDEX TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 01/02/01
(snip)(snip)
6 - -He shall be tried by an impartial jury of the State and district where the crime was committed. (Amendments)
(snip)(snip)
1 6 1 Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The President, Vice President, and all civil officers shall be removed on impeachment for and conviction of treason
(snip)(snip)
2 4 -C Capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on indictment of a grand jury, except in certain specified cases. No person shall be held to answer for a. (Amendments)
(snip)(snip)
1 8 9 To define and punish piracies and felonies on the high seas and to punish offenses against the law of nations
(snip)(snip)
2 4 -Crimes , except in cases of impeachment, shall be tried by jury. All
(snip)

for which Bush and his cronies should rot in jail for.

and murder, for which Bush and his cronies should be executed.

seems like everything is hidden from the public. There must be a reason.

That's why we cannot know. If we knew, they'd be tried for the most horrendous crimes ever perpetrated on the citizens of this country.

protecting people or their livelihood in the US. They are busily at work gutting any safety program and shipping everybody’s job overseas

This is from a piece I wrote titled The Stealth Coup that documents the PNAC's infiltration of the White House and their takeover of America:

MAY 2001 - U.S. State Department met with Iran, German and Italian officials to discuss Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was strategically located between the Mideast, Central and South Asia as well as Turkmenistan, China and Japan. Turkmenistan was a natural gas bonanza but the only export route to exploit this valuable natural resource was through Russia. The road to riches needed alternative pipeline routes but the incessant civil wars in Afghanistan made construction impossible. And so it was decided that the ruling Taliban would be toppled and a "broad-based government" would control the country so the golden pipeline could one day emerge through the rubble.

Afghanistan was also strategically important to the U.S. for another reason - it was the world's foremost opium and heroin supplier. U.S. control over this veritable gold mine could help finance their special military operations without accountability to the prying eyes of the public, reminiscent of the Iran-Contra Affair.

Even as plans were being made to remove the Taliban rulers from power, Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan, ostensibly for the "War on Drugs."

JULY 2001 - The private plot formulated in May for toppling the Taliban was divulged during the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy. The G8 is a meeting of the world's largest industrialized democracies who meet annually to discuss major economic and political issues. Immediately after the conference, American, Russian, German and Pakistani officials secretly met in Berlin to finalize the strategy for military strikes against the Taliban, scheduled to begin before mid-October 2001. The Operation was dubbed "Pipelineistan".

US 'planned attack on Taleban'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before NY attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,556254,00.html


SEPTEMBER 2001 - Rapidly creating a massive Armed Forces was the PNAC's founding ideal and with uncanny prescience and timing, the "catastrophic and catalyzing" modern-day Pearl Harbor they had envisioned to launch their dream was finally realized. The WTC and Pentagon were attacked and the finger of blame was pointed at Osama bin Laden, a former CIA operative with ties to Afghanistan. Suddenly, the U.S. "gift" of $43 million to the Taliban in May was cast in a new light.

Coincidentally, Pakistan had participated in the plan to attack Afghanistan and the chief of Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence agency was later linked to a 911 hijacker after wiring him $100,00 just days before the WTC fell.

India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=1454238160

9/11 Funds Traced to Pakistan Accounts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2975831,00.html


OCTOBER 2001 - With flags waving, crowds cheering, and anthems playing, the "War on Terror" and "The Hunt for Osama" began when Afghanistan was attacked right on schedule of July's secret meeting when "Pipelineistan" was spawned.


Today, Afghanistan resumes its role as the world's top opium producer and The Taliban appear to be regrouped and well-funded.


The events of 911 were planned and paid for well in advance of their occurance, making it a pre-meditated crime!