9/11 - Al Qaeda or the U.S.?

[Aqua Dragon]

I was about 5-6 years old when we all saw 9/11 happening on the news. I couldn't understand much, but I do remember I did understand enough that I ended up crying about it. Twas a sad moment indeed (I'm Living In Texas btw)

Esb does somewhat have apoint. All of us are too stubborn to admit one side is right and the other wrong.

 

[stubs101]

That's because we have different beliefs. Although maybe I am stubborn. I've been called that many times before.

But the topic is who did 9/11? The gov. or al Qaeda?

 

[Demi666]

Please make sure you read and understood the debating rules.

9.11.2001 was one of the most shocking events in the 21st century. It shocked the world and lead to a war.

However, many people say that the suicide attacks which Al Qaeda is held responsible for, were made by the U.S. The question is, who do you think is the responsible? If it is the U.S. why would it do it? If it was Al Qaeda, how could the U.S. allow such thing to happen?

well it all depends, it could very much have been the US fault and they just wanted a black sheep and their choice was Al Qaeda

 

[Seb!]

^

Could be right.. But I find it weird

The hijackers were Saudi

Al Queda organized it

We Invaded Iraq?

 

[esb]

There were tensions in Iraq and the Middle east long before 9/11.

I think Varine explained the invasion in Iraq.

 

[Varine]

^

Could be right.. But I find it weird

The hijackers were Saudi

Al Queda organized it

We Invaded Iraq?

The Al' Qaeda is a terrorist organization based on radical Islam. It's not a government funded group, it's privately funded mostly by the leader, Osama Bin Laden, who comes from an incrediably wealthy family. Bin Laden is also from Saudi Arabia, however the government banished him from the country.

There was also an Egyptian, and a Lebanese, and two people believed to have been from the United Arab Emirates. Al' Qaeda isn't specific about it's members, as it's not a religious group, not ethnic. I believe there have been a few Westerners that have been arrested for being enlisted in Al' Qaeda (I know one of them was American from California).

And once again, Al' Qaeda has no U.

We invaded Iraq in 2003 after intelligence reports confirmed they had illegal WMD's, which is in violation of the several resolutions Iraq had agreed to after the Gulf War in the early 1990's. We found chemical stockpiles, and I'm pretty sure enriched Uranium (I can't think of too many things you can do with Uranium). We also found underground prisons and torture chambers during the initial invasion. Hussein should have been taken out in the Gulf War, or right after when he attacked our ship. But regardless of that, we invaded Iraq in 2003, two years after the invasion of Afghanistan (which was because the Taliban were offering a save haven for Al' Qaeda operatives), because Iraq failed to meet it's legal obligations... again.

 

[Seb!]

We invaded because they had WMD's. They didn't have WMD's. 50,000 people don't need to die because of potential. And still, Al QuEda doesn't fit into this.

And who is America to police legal obligations? The UN said not to. Ever heard of Vietnam?

But fine.. Even though I still disagree with the reasons for invasion, I think the major problem was execution.

 

[esb]

The US had a reason to invade. In the Persian Gulf War, Iraq accepted to not have any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq didn't allow any weapon inspectors, thus raising suspicions in the US. Al' Qaeda attack the US, the US thinks it's had enough, and decides to fight back.
It might be a bit hypocritical, considering the fact that the US has had military in the Middle East for more than 10 years.

 

[Seb!]

Al' Qaeda attack the US, the US thinks it's had enough, and decides to fight back.

So why didn't they? Why invade Iraq, where Al Qaeda wasn't involved with the government.

 

[esb]

Al' Qaeda is in the middle East. Iraq is right next to it. It's like 2 birds in one shot. They get rid of their attackers, and Iraq that has the possibility of having WMD AND not obeying the 'treaty' or w/e it's called of allowing weapon inspectors.

 

[Seb!]

There are so many more terrorists than their were before US invaded. Radical Extremists run the Middle East. And Iraq never had WMD's.

You missed both birds, and they had babies.

 

[esb]

Varine has posted about twice what they found, and could be considered WMD.

Things don't always come out as expected. The plan was probably "Go in, take over, spread democracy, end."

 

[Varine]

There are so many more terrorists than their were before US invaded. Radical Extremists run the Middle East. And Iraq never had WMD's.

You missed both birds, and they had babies.

YOU might not consider nerve agents weapons of mass destruction, but the rest of the world does. Maybe you should read up what Hussein did to the Kurds in his Al-Anfal Campaign, and then read up a little about what he did to suspected political opponents.

And the UN enacted most, if not all, of the Security Resolutions placed upon Iraq. So no, the UN did not say not to 'police legal obligations'.

Are you done now?

 

[Seb!]

But by invading, you still aren't solving the problems that you are telling me that they have.

1. WMD's - I still don't believe they had them, North Korea does though btw. Many more WMD's now then there were before we invaded, globally.

2. Elimination of Threats - Number of terrorists rose.

3. Police Regulations - It still isn't the US's job even if they did have WMD's or even if the US thought it could set up a new government. UN approval, IMHO, is still necessary.

 

[stubs101]

We invaded because they had WMD's. They didn't have WMD's. 50,000 people don't need to die because of potential. And still, Al QuEda doesn't fit into this.

And who is America to police legal obligations? The UN said not to. Ever heard of Vietnam?

But fine.. Even though I still disagree with the reasons for invasion, I think the major problem was execution.

You still spelled Al' Qaeda wrong...

It's still off topic! It's the whole conspiracy thing remember! If you want to discuss the invasion of Iraq, go ahead, start a new thread!

But while we're off topic I would say that the war on terrorism is going well. The troops being pulled out, many victims, but many were "bad guys" so... And seriously, considering all that Varine has said, all being true and very argumentative I suggest you listen to him. He has more sense than many of you.

 

[Seb!]

Ugh. Fine.

 

[stubs101]

"T'ank Woo"

 

[Varine]

But by invading, you still aren't solving the problems that you are telling me that they have.

1. WMD's - I still don't believe they had them, North Korea does though btw. Many more WMD's now then there were before we invaded, globally.

2. Elimination of Threats - Number of terrorists rose.

3. Police Regulations - It still isn't the US's job even if they did have WMD's or even if the US thought it could set up a new government. UN approval, IMHO, is still necessary.

1. I really don't give a shit what you believe because it doesn't change the fact that they had them and a shitload of other stuff that you probably have never even heard of. And North Korea has shut down their nuclear operations, and we have a lot of soldiers there.
Actually, I doubt you know really anything about why we're actually at war in Iraq. I know there are things that I've been left out of, a lot of stuff I don't know. Recently President Bush called all of the candidates together and told them to be careful what they're going to promise in their campaign speeches, because they have no idea what they're really talking about. Every morning the President gets a little packet that summarizes all of the intelligence we've gathered since his last report, and until they see what's in that packet they don't know what they can promise. They'll try to play hero and be like OH YEAH WE'LL GET OUT AS SOON AS I GET IN, and then they get in and realize that the moment we leave some terrorist cell is going to launch a nuke at us or something, his plans are going to change. While we're over there, you're safe. When we leave, we don't know what the hell's going to happen because we can't respond to it very fast.

2. Have they? Well, as I've not heard about the US being attacked recently (being the central fighting force against terrorism), I don't see how that's much of a problem for us.

3. UN did approve it, so that one's knocked out. Thus NATO forces being sent there for a while. Besides, the UN doesn't have to approve it because there's not obligation we agreed to that doesn't allow us to declare war. The UN is not a governing factor over the choices of the US or any of the other members in it. If we want to do whatever we want, they can't do anything about it unless it goes against what we agreed to uphold (which does not include never going to war, or as you call it 'policing other nations') unless they want to vote to kick us out.
And yes, if Iraq refuses to fulfill their legal obligations according to international resolutions and treaties that they agreed to, it's our job to make them do it.

All you do is repeat the same thing over and over, and every time someone tells you what's actually going on with it, and every time you ignore them. Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11, so stop bringing it up.

 

[stubs101]

(Off Topic)
I remember reading a political book, Where have all the leaders gone, by Lee Iococoa (Not sure if I spelled it wrong) and he stated that because Saudi had oil, we were just letting them have the slip. When like 11/15 or something of the people who invaded on 9/11 were Saudi, we passed them up on investigations, but searched into the other 4, and it kinda pisses me off. Varine, you hear about this?

(On topic)
hahaha I remember this being a conspiracy thread lol...
Anyway, last and final position is that U.S. had nothing to do with it other than weird numbers+weird numbers and didn't take enough security measures...

 

[Varine]

(Off Topic)
I remember reading a political book, Where have all the leaders gone, by Lee Iococoa (Not sure if I spelled it wrong) and he stated that because Saudi had oil, we were just letting them have the slip. When like 11/15 or something of the people who invaded on 9/11 were Saudi, we passed them up on investigations, but searched into the other 4, and it kinda pisses me off. Varine, you hear about this?

(On topic)
hahaha I remember this being a conspiracy thread lol...
Anyway, last and final position is that U.S. had nothing to do with it other than weird numbers+weird numbers and didn't take enough security measures...

Yes, I've heard about the Saudi thing. But, as far as I know, our relationship with the House of Saud is pretty good, although I wouldn't argue that the major contributing factor to that is oil. We were allied (kind of) during the Cold War against communism, although I think Rice said that Washington wants them to be more democratic. We do have issues with them because of our better alliance with Israel, as Jews and Muslims don't seem to like each other too much, and 9/11 did put a lot of strain on it. We didn't really 'pass them up,' but we probably didn't take to them with as hostile of an attitude we did with the others.
It would be kind of like the hijackers coming from Brazil or Japan or something (I don't know about our relations with them, but as far as I know it's not good but it's not too bad). I would say Canada for reasons of being easy, but US-Canadian relations are about the best you'll find anywhere so it doesn't work as well.
Anyway, say the hijackers came from Brazil. Because of our relations with them being okay, and we're pretty sure they don't take great advocation to terrorism, we probably won't give them too much blame for it. It's the choice of the individual, and that's all there is to it. Saudi Arabia can't help that the person came from their country (although if they pressured or threatened them in to it, that would be different), just like we can't help it if our citizens want to go join Al' Qaeda or some terrorist group, which has happened.
People seem to just assume since they're in the Middle East and 'Arab' and majority Islam, that means we hate them and they're probably terrorists, just like Mormons are probably polygamists (which they aren't).