9/11 Anniversary..will there ever be justice?

Whether you think Osama did it or Bush & Co did it, do you think the guilty party will ever be brought to justice?

They already have been. They are dead along with the 3,000 people they murdered.

I don't think that the OP was referring to the flunkys that actually carried out the attacks.

More importantly, will the attitudes that led to those decisions ever change? I think the answer to that is no. God, Allah, Lucifer, Mother Nature, or even the Holy Navel, whatever your chosen religion has opted to embrace, more sins and murders have been committed by religious zealots throughout human history (yes, even by Christians) than all other murders combined.

Not to mention the attitude of western foreign policy, which alienates people in their own homes in these faraway lands, giving the fanatics and warlords a perfect opportunity to wrap their message up in religion and amass followers. But then, our good, clean, holy Christian leaders need these vile loathesome heathens, otherwise we'd have nobody to hate and might start turning attention on the state of our own affairs.

(Not that I have any liking for religion, or at least the way it is used and abused to herd people)

History always repeats itself. At least so far. Eckhart Tolle believes a transformation of consciousness is possible. I'd like to believe he's right.

But in the past 100 years, big government has taken the lead in murdering people, over 100 million in the 20th century alone.

Wow I heard Eckhart Tolle quote that exact statistic.

I suspect Osama, who has health problems, will eventually die in his cave. But a sort of justice could result anyway - if the world comes to realize that it can't afford to tolerate any cause that embraces terrorism. If using terrorism becomes seen as a sure ticket to turning the whole world against your cause and dealing it unacceptable defeat, then terrorism will end (other than occasional but isolated nut cases).

But as long as people still want to make exceptions for "our" terrorists as opposed to "their" terrorists, it will continue, because there will always be some people for whom they are "our" terrorists.

There have to be no exceptions. If the world finally learns that lesson, then these terrible deaths will not have been entirely in vain.

And I propose that Big Government, in itself, is a religion. It's all run on faith that Big Government can actually pull things together for the common good that wouldn't happen without it, usually a faith that is artificially constructed by Big Government itself, as there's absolutely no basis in fact that can be found to support any of it.

This is a lesson that I'm not convinced the world will ever learn. There will always be an "us" and a "them" no matter what we do. What really gets bad is when "them" is even other people in your own country who aren't part of your particular micro-culture inside that country, which I see happening quite a bit today in the United States.

I am not sure what terrorism is. So here are some questions.



1. If Osama bin Laden obtained a cruise missile and fired it at an American city, would that be an act of terrorism?

2. A European or African city - is that terrorism?

3. On Baghdad - is that still terrorism?

3. 400 cruise missiles - accompanied by air strikes - and followed by a military invasion - still terrorism?

3. If he explained that he did it because he thought there were weapons of mass destruction there - its still terrorism?

4. If he was lying and really did it just because he wanted to change the regime there - still terrorism?


PPP (looking forward to some enlightening replies)

I have to disagree. Big government supports and does what big business wants. Every political system on the planet is corrupt to some extent, some more than others. Our own foreign policy is in place to further the goals of various corporations, not in or for the best interest of the American people. Religion, or whatever they want to blame a war or military action on, is only the excuse used by our “leaders” to justify certain policies. One example is back in 89/90 Iraq formally complained at least 7 times about Kuwait slant drilling and was eventually told by papa bush it wasn’t the US’s business and basically to work it out themselves (not that Sadam wasn‘t a murdering tyrant but governments don‘t care about people or we‘d have invaded half the countries in the world by now). We all know what ended up happening as a result.... the US ambassador to Kuwait resigned over it too. It’s a sewed up system as a sociology professor of mine once put it. Lets face it... the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and die in needless wars... and your not going to get elected to any office unless your ready and willing to play ball with the big boys on the block. Doubt that then ask yourself how many individuals you know who got “bailed out” of their financial woos.

Terrorism is an act, not a religion or political entity.

there will be no justice until america bombs every known country off the map into history.

Even Guam?

guam is the usa.

Yeah, but they are not to be trusted.

it has nothing to do with justice or goodness, every single country in inherently bad when it takes actions outside of it's own borders.

"oh but its for good" --> hell is paved with good intentions.

Every single developped country is built on the blood of others, to only cite the case at hand, USA is responsible for a continent wide genocide of the native americans.

when the door comes back in your face it's never pleasant. But if we put things in perspective, 2 towrs that fall are nothing when some countries experience regularly simmular attacks.

If it was about justice they would have never went to war..this isn't about revenge..that was a crowd rally pumper to get things started..It would have been handled in a different way..One way could have been embargo's and political pressure and literally trying to cut that country off from the world..The whole world saw what happened.. We could have gained that kind of support and would have been respected for it much more by the world than the direction we took..There are so many alternatives to war..It should be a last resort not a first..
There was something to be gained by going to war..

We haven't steamrolled into Iran and we know they have the capabilities..yet we steamrolled into Iraq??
There were none in Iraq but it got us in there..The center of the middle east..The center of the resource world..

To me terrorist is just the replacement scare word for savage..That word had gained a lot in it's time..Now we have a much scarier word that the whole world can relate to..

Now every plane crash or train derailing or anything and the first thing you hear is ..Could it be a terrorist attack..

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind in the end..

And with all the special op's people in the world..do people really think they could not actualy find the people they thought were behind that attack..

They found Sadaam in a hole do we really think they couldn't find a man in a cave if they wanted to?
For all the innocent people that have died in these wars we still don't feel that justice has been served?
How many does it take?

1) Depends on whether it was a civilian or military target. If he targeted a military base, it would be an act of war but not of terrorism.

2) Same answer as (1).

3) As to the cruise missils, same answer as (1). Note in all the first three cases that military targets are occassionally in populated areas. The question is whether the hypothetical attack(s) are deliberately targetting civilians, or if the civilian deaths are collateral damage.

As to the invasion, likely not terrorism, but definately war. That does not mean it would be right, just that it would likely not be terrorism.

3 #2) That would be an act of dishonesty to his own people, but again, whether it would be terrorism or not would depend on what is targeted.

4) Again, depends on the target. Forcing a regime change is not neccessarily immoral, though.

This is not to say that I agree with the war that you allude to, just that it was war, not terrorism... and there is a difference. Gorevnments should be criticized for the right reasons. There is no need to make up reasons, they mess up enough on their own.

when you are used to bully and when you experience bullying for the first time it does feel excruciately painful

It is important not to confuse Iraq with Afghanistan. Iraq was a brutal regime, and there was an arguement to take it down, but it certainly wasn't self defence.

Afghanistan on the other hand had openly declared war on the west. It was not just Osama or Al-Qaeda, the Taliban made no secret of supporting said organization and spouting their own 'the west must die' rhetoric. As such, 911 can be seen as an act of war as well as an act of terrorism. As such it was self defence to overthrow them.

They may not have had the kind of troop strengths needed for conventional war, but that does not mean they were not a threat.

bravo

justice != revenge