Terror in the Skies, Again?

[PyRo99]

Terror in the Skies, Again?

And yet the Air Marshalls contacted her and stated that they also think that it was a probe/dry run.

Now you have contradictory things. Cary, unless those people were on the plane they cannot prove the story wrong, or they contacted someone else on the plane.

However, I think it is suffice to say that they would not give out the boarding list. The guitar cases could've only been to see if they could smuggle it on board.

 

[Judge Bean]

Terror in the Skies, Again?

Originally posted by PyRo99@Jul 23 2004, 03:47 AM
The government are civillians just like one of us.

​

The government at present is highly militarized, and a good portion of it consists of military. It is supposed to be a civilian authority, but Bush is now constantly calling himself and being called The Commander in Chief, and constantly states that we are at war and that he is a "War President." It's pretty tall talk for having conquered two very poor nations on the other side of the world, in apparent response to a mass murder of Americans.

Invasion in response to a enormous crime is not "War" of the type Bush and his people mean. They want to invoke the sense and power of WWII.

What I meant was that the "domestic" enemies are, historically, usually nonmilitary and nongovernmental. They may be foreignors among us, or traitors, spies, saboteurs, and anarchists. That is what the original oath referred to, I believe.

 

[PyRo99]

Terror in the Skies, Again?

But he is the Commander in Cheif. Congress passes the Bill for War, and the power goes to him. We are also at war, when haven't we been at war? Since October something 2001, we intiated the War On Terror. Now in March Something 2003, we declared war on Iraq.

And now I believe that the War on Iraq, or Operation Iraqi Freedom can also fall under the War On Terror. Operation Iraqi Freedom is just another battle for us to overcome. Just like the Operation in Afghanistan was.

Its all falling under the actual War On Terror. It is just like all other wars, there are battles from within, however they do not get their own war. Because we are now fighting Terrorists in Iraq such as Al-Zawqari, and they are beheading our civillians and marines, I'd definetly say it's no longer War on Iraq.

Now there is speculation that we are going to have another battle. I am guessing that most know that many have been speaking of going after Iran next. Just wait until the Ultimatum flies in their face, such as we did with Iraq.

However, I do not believe that President Bush will start a war on Iran this far into the year. We've got nothing on them to my knowledge. Moreover, Israel lies in the Middle east surronded by all of these governments that hate them and their citizens. Now whose one of our greatest allies?

So All in All, Just Wait until other countries start realizing that we are just taking over countries for resources and to "rid evil" from within, or so our "excuse" is. I do believe that they are ridding evil, but I think they have a much larger end game goal.

^my two cents

 

[CaryP]

Terror in the Skies, Again?

Originally posted by PyRo99@Jul 23 2004, 09:54 AM
And yet the Air Marshalls contacted her and stated that they also think that it was a probe/dry run.

Now you have contradictory things. Cary, unless those people were on the plane they cannot prove the story wrong, or they contacted someone else on the plane.

However, I think it is suffice to say that they would not give out the boarding list. The guitar cases could've only been to see if they could smuggle it on board.

​

Pyro,

Neither I nor the snopes.com piece said the Syrians were NOT on the plane. The snopes.com piece even said that the events sighted by the article "did occur (more or less)" but "her (the author of the article) interpretation of them (that they involved a group of terrorists making a dry run for building a bomb in-flight) was erroneous." "The men she observed on her flight were exactly what authorities told her they were: a group of Syrian musicians who had been hired to play at the Sycuan Casino & Resort near San Diego. Like any other group of passengers, the men in musical ensemble talked to each other, moved around, ate food, and used the restrooms while the flight was in progress. " That's all nothing more, nothing less. According to the snopes.com piece these guys really turned out to be Syrian musicians and the author of the article misinterpreted events witnessed by others on the plane. With all the terror warnings we've been getting from various components of the government, people are probably just a bit "edgey" and prone to looking for the "bad guys," especially if they are Arab looking. Just my opinion.

I'm not saying there aren't "bad guys" out there who mean us harm. Whether they're ultimately controlled by the CIA and the PTB, or they're just radical jihadists doesn't really matter. We're being prepared for a hit(s) in either case. So it's best to remain vigilent and prepared. An attack is an attack, no matter who's in control of those executing one.

Peace and chains (another departing expression from my 25 yr. old daughter)

Cary

P.S. (edit)

But he is the Commander in Cheif. Congress passes the Bill for War, and the power goes to him. We are also at war, when haven't we been at war? Since October something 2001, we intiated the War On Terror. Now in March Something 2003, we declared war on Iraq.

You rascal you. You beat me in response time. :lol: The President is the Commander in Chief in war or peace time. Congress did not pass an actual Act of War. They merely passed funding for Bush's military escapades. An officeal Act of War has more dire consequences in terms of power given to the Commander in Chief aka the President. Paul could probably enlighten us all on this matter. Paul?

 

[Judge Bean]

Terror in the Skies, Again?

A massive crime was committed; the correct characterization of what happened, in fact and law, was over 3,000 counts of first degree (aggravated; premeditated, etc.) murder. No nation attacked; the criminals perished in the attack.

Contrast the event with the attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941. A similar surprise attack, but by a foreign sovereign nation, by its military, with the overwhelming number of casualties servicemen. Clearly an act of war, in which one country proceeds against the military of another. On the following day, the president asked for a formal declaration of war from Congress. Soon after, war was declared on the allies of Japan as well. Congress voted appropriations for defense and instigated the draft.

By law, hostilities would not terminate with Japan until a presdential decree to that effect in 1951.

Calling a monstrous criminal attack an act of war does not make it one, but the president immediately began to invoke the presidential war powers, and Congress, by its acquiescence (technically, Congress did this by voting for funding for the war), has permitted the president to proceed just as though war had been declared.

What the United States is now doing is waging war against any nation the president deems is a threat, and so he must link each invaded nation to terrorism to justify the public expenditure. So long as he does, he may continue to invoke the war powers and send troops into combat anywhere in the world.

I mean anywhere. Under the present conditions, he might tomorrow order the military into North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria... China? Why not. Anybody got an "oppressive regime?"

There is no war in the traditional and technical sense; that is why he keeps saying, over and over and over again, that we are at war. There is no enemy nation unless we invade it and make it one. No nation on earth considers itself at this moment at war with the United States. We are apparently at war with everyone and anyone, including ourselves.

I will repeat this.

We are not at war just because President Bush says we are, or just because Congress votes the money for him to pretend to be at war.

Since we keep saying we are at war, and have it financed, we are technically and legally at war with everyone and anyone including ourselves.

No nation on earth considers itself at this moment at war with the United States.

 

[JediStryker]

Terror in the Skies, Again?

Iraq did. Saddam used to say all the time that Iraq was an enemy of the US and that we were at war.

 

[PyRo99]

Terror in the Skies, Again?

As Jedi stated, Saddam had always said that Iraq was an enemy of the United States and that we are at war.

Paul, by invading North Korea, we will not only anger Russia but China as well. You know that China would immediately follow up with the invaison of Taiwan, and then their declaration of war onto the United States. Russia on the other hand, would play it down that they are working against us, and rally other countries in the dark to invade the United States.

With the countries in the Middle East, most don't give a rats behind about them because they're always attacking one another and the hostilities over there are not worth the time nor effort.

Oppressive regime, you are using the Iraq battle as that wording. Right now, if we are going to attack any country, it will be Sudan.

How are you going to attack a group of muslim extremists? They hide within countries that allow them to be there. By attacking the country you are destroying one more of their hiding places. Sooner or later they will run out of places, and they will come to us and fight on our homefront, instead of hiding behind countries.

Do you know for a fact that Iraq is not still hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction and or was harboring terrorists? Either one would justify this war, and this war has already been justified in my book.

We have invoked fear upon every country that harbors terrorists, and they know we will be coming for them. A country can play innocent for only so long.

 

[TimeWizardCosmo]

Terror in the Skies, Again?

Justified or not, I believe that there's more than one reason the US is over there.

Let me give you an example...

Say you have been volunteering as a children's hockey coach. You've been doing it for about 3 years now, and everyone thinks you're a really great guy for doing it. SO great, in fact, that they decide to give you a scholarship to go to college.

Now let's say that you KNEW BEFOREHAND you would get that scholarship if you helped those kids. So while everyone thought you were doing something totally great, you yourself knew you were only doing it for that end reward.

Am I making sense?

Just because someone seems like they're doing something great, doesn't mean that's all there is to it.

There are definite pros to what the US is doing, but you also have to wonder about their hidden motivations.

 

[Phoenix]

Terror in the Skies, Again?

I think the fact that there was a lingering sense that we should have removed the threat that Sadam represented the first time has much to do with the war in Iraq.

We knew Iraq was not the end all and be all of terrorism or dictatorship.

I do have one question.

Were sanctions lifted on Iraq?

 

[Judge Bean]

Terror in the Skies, Again?

Originally posted by JediStryker@Jul 24 2004, 12:45 AM
Iraq did. Saddam used to say all the time that Iraq was an enemy of the US and that we were at war.

​

You can see the problems that arise when and if the United States can be deemed officially at war with whatever nation declares as much. We did not invade and conquer Iraq because of anything Saddam said along those lines, anyway. For one thing, he is a liar, and it was not true that we were at war with him. Hatred of the United States, likewise, is not a basis for declaring that a state of war exists between us and the hating nation.

The "enemy" is so difficult to find because he is a criminal-- it is a criminal syndicate. What, you think that just because the object isn't profit that it isn't organized crime? Al Queda meets the definition of a racketeering outfit under the federal RICO statutes.

In the traditional legal understanding of the term, no state of war exists at present between the United States and any foreign nation. When the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, just as when it bombed Libyans and Yugoslavians and invaded Panama and Grenada, no state of war existed between it and any nation-- until, of course, the wars began, with unilateral American belligerence.

American conduct in these matters is indefensible. On the very afternoon of 9/11, Rumsfeld declared to his cohorts that we ought to attack Saddam. For weapons of mass destruction or for harboring terrorists? Then why did we wait to be attacked? Why did we wait months to hit Afghanistan, and years to hit Iraq? All indefensible. The rest of the world laughs at our disingenuous rationale, and it is a day of great shame for America.