posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:23 PM
Your ideas have been very lame on the subject of how to defeat Islamic Terrorism. So far, here is what you've presented. I am going to go through
each one, and with logic defeat it.
Arguement: 9/11 was an inside job to create a new enemy so the US could be a superpower, fuel the military-industrial complex, and make money
for BushCO and his oil war.
Response 1: Motive
First look at the motivation of the suspects and their oppurtunities, and this argument falls apart. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, and Condi
could make more money by opening up ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico for drilling. Here they wouldn't risk the death penalty and this is much easier to
do than stage a terrorist attack.
Numerous other scandals exist that will make someone richer. Michael Milkin ripped off billions and billions of dollars with white collar crime
through the S & L scandals, with a few Senators in his pocket, notably John McCain. Senators and Congressmen made millions of dollars using their
stamp privallege. Welfare and healthcare schemes cost the government billions. There are far more lucrative measures than staging 9/11.
Also, BushCO will never have a problem with money in the first place. Every one of them are succesfull in business. Due to their election, they will
have seven figure salaries for the rest of their lives. Speaches and book deals alone will make them millionaires.
Response 2: Means
Bush's election was a tossup. No one knew untill well into December if he was going to be president. That leaves him 11 months to stage the largest
terrorist attack ever. He will have to create a team of thousand loyal employees that will slaughter women and children without blinking an eye, and
without being tempted to go to the NYT or Washington Post and become the most famous figure in US history.
Also no one has come foward with direct evidence or testimony saying, "I piloted the plane by remote control" or "I shot witnesses" or "I placed
explosives in the building." With something this large and complex, you will have someone coming foward. Especially in the media capital of the
A lot of people will say "Okay, he didn't know about 9/11, but he hijacked it to get Iraqi oil." The points above apply to this. They are better
oppurtunities for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and ANWAR. Yet they didn't pursue this. Why?
All the other comments I hear are "Well Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran supports terrorism, so why not them?" Well this is insinuating that Iraq was a
just war, so it's dead in the water. It is also not taking in account the projected reforms a successful democratic Iraq will have in the Arab world,
and the impossibility of attacking all the regimes we have a slight problem with. With all the above regimes, including Iran, we are still at the
negotion table and there is hope for reform. Iraq, there wasn't.
Coming up next: Getting rid of Sadaam created more terrorism than it started.