Seriously. I can't find two people who distaste each other but still talk to each other. You CAN get divorced in this country. And think of the kids too.

Last time I checked, America DID directly influence (or at the very least try to influence) European countries, among which the Netherlands, with Bush's "You're either with us, or you're against us" statement - one which actually put enough pressure on several Dutch ministers to send troops to Afghanistahn.

That's still their bad for buying into it. There's no way that the Netherlands would get put on a **** list for not sending troops. Besides, that "you're with us or against us" statement was made in a speech right after 9/11, It's purpose was as a morale booster for the US more than anything else. And, it's not as if countries wouldn't have participated in Afghanistan if the statement weren't made in the speech.

Now that gothicX mentions it, I do indeed recall the mention of sanctions. I'm not referring to the 'with us or against us' statement, but actual political pressure on the Dutch government for the Afghanistan mission, because the Netherlands were one of the few countries that were doubting. Let me see if I can find it somewhere.

Yeah well, America is wrong, so your country shouldn't have caved in. That's not our fault, it's yours.

I already said I agree with that. (One page back)

I'm just confirming there was pressure involved.

On Afghanistan? That's a stretch.

Peer pressure isn't a valid defense. Not even one little bit.

Heh. Politics. If only we could some how use the emotion to power our cars...

w00t, I could win races!

Ok, it's in Dutch, but it's from a reliable source.

http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2006/1/9/090106_nl_afganistan.html

I suppose you could babelfish it, but I translated the most important parts.

[quote=Dutch News Article]

Pressure on the Netherlands to participate in the mission in South-Afghanistan is increasing. Apart from a call by NATO top man De Hoop-Scheffer, American Old-diplomat Paul Bremer III warned for sanctions in case the Netherlands would pull out.

(... Nato details ...)

If the Netherlands will not cooperate with the NATO-mission, it can expect American sanctions, says old-diplomat Paul Bremer III today in an interview with De Volkskrant. (One of the leading Dutch Newspapers)

"If the Dutch decide to not send any troops to Afghanistan, it will be detrimental for the Dutch interests in the United States", Bremer says in the interview. "The Dutch can't just say: okay, we're not going to Afghanistan, but everything stays the same. That's not going to happen."

According to the old-diplomat, the cancelling of the Afghanistan mission will in the long run lead to the American Congress taking decisions that will affect Dutch economic interests. "It's not hard to envision decisions being made that won't be in the interest of the Dutch."

Bremer understands that the Dutch politicians have their own considerations, but he points out the Americans do too. "In case of a negative decision, our politicians will ask themselves: What does this NATO stand for if allies are not willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with us? Especially Europe called for more international collaboration. Now that the opportunity arises, it is avoided."[/quote]

Note that this diplomat was part of a small delegation that was specifically visiting our country to discuss the matter. This threat (I think we may call it that) caused quite some uproar, because word had just gotten out about the secret CIA transports through Europe. Our government wanted to cancel the mission to Afghanistan to make the message clear to the Americans that human rights violations on European territory were not going to be tolerated. It caused such a huge debate that the Cabinet almost fell. A few weeks later the EU investigation into the secret CIA flights started and the Dutch cabinet all of a sudden decided to give the mission a go. We still don't really understand why.

1) On one of the flights, they did.
2) Before this point, hijackings had almost invariably been hostage situations rather than suicide attacks. The passengers on flights other than the one that crashed in Pennsylvania no doubt expected that these hijackings would be similar, expected to survive, and didn't see the point of decreasing their chances of survival by trying to retake a plane in midair.
3) Even one person with a knife can be a threat to a much larger group of people. I remember reading a story (I believe out of Japan) about a mass stabbing in a crowded area in which about a dozen people were killed.



I forgot this part. Good catch.

Note that it was a NATO call up/action.

Which is especially ridiculous because NATO appeals should -not- be made to ask for help in situations where one of the allies is attacking a country. The guy's acting as if America's being attacked, and we're refusing to help.

The freaking nerve to twist things around like that and threaten us with economical sanctions for not wanting to help them sort out the **** they caused themselves, while they are the ones who should be sanctioned for violating human rights.

The arrogance! Just try to see it from our point of view.

In the case of Afghanistan, rather than Iraq, that's not the case. The US was attacked and the was world wide support for action in Afghanistan. If what you brought were about Iraq, then I'd agree with you.

You mean: there was a terrorist attack. Period.

Invading Afghanistan was an aggressive act, no matter how everyone always tries to twist and turn it. And the fact that there was a lot of support doesn't change any of that.

The real problem here is the attitude of the US government. All the time they're ditching international treaties, protocols, violating international laws, and steering their own course no matter what anyone says. From environmental issues to economical issues to war issues, you name it. The US, under Bush, does what's best for themselves.

At the same time the US is always the first to threaten countries with sanctions when there is something wrong, especially when it comes to human rights and other 'democratic values'.

But the entire war on terror has made it more than obvious that the Bush administration will do anything to get its way. They'll lock up innocents without any form of fair trial. They'll practise torture. They'll even bend the laws to make it look legal. Talk about double standards.

And then when we refuse to play along with all that, they have the freaking nerve to threaten us with economical sanctions. Just because they can. And like I said, they'll do anything to get their way.

And all the while the US can go on doing whatever it damn well pleases. The hipocrisy is endless.

Because no one feels like reading 3 pages of stupid, I'm going to summarize this thread in the most juvenile person.


Side A: "OMG TEH COMSPIRATECY.."

Side B: "Uhm, no."

Side A: "You're just close minded because you don't believe in conspiracies!

Side B: "No, you're close minded because you're stupid."


...

Segway into AMERICA THE BADASSES

Side A: "Merica bullies everyone! Like the poor Dutch"


Side ?: "Mmmmm Chocolate!"
(Has nothing to do with this thread, I just like chocolate. Mmmmm)

Side ?: "Chocolate is brown, just like the people THAT NEED TO DIE YEEHAW NUKES AND WHAT NOT"
(Pointless patriotism/racism, this thread is missing it)

Side B: "Your tiny assed countries national policy is none of my concern"

Side A: "But But But But!"

Side B: "Is that all..?"

....

....
....
....

Side A: "OMG TEH CONSPIRACY! BUSH IS A CONSPIRACY! CHENEY IS LIKE THE DEVIL OR SOME ****!"



And thats basically all this thread contains. Really.

That's not true, and you know it.

It was damn funny though, I'll give you that.

It so is.

Sure you used more words than I did. But thats what it means to summarize something.

And a justified one.



The US can do no right in the eyes of the world. It's either damend for taking action or damned for not taking any action. I'd rather be damned for taking action.



Aside for Iraq, that argument doesn't hold a whole lot of water. All of the current hotspots, Iran and North Korea, mainly, the US may be taking the elad, but the international community is on board.



Do you actually know what interogation methods are used, or did you read "torture" in a headline and assume the worst? And no, I'm not justyfying torture. Lots of people are in trouble for crossing the line.



Again, it was a NATO action, agreed upon by NATO, not just the US. Part of being in an international group like that is doing what the group says, even if you, being in the minority, don't want to. Yes, it sounds bad, given the situation in Iraq, but the action in Iraq is neither UN or NATO.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. The US (foreign) policies under Bush are very isolationist/Americanist. The way they pull out of one important international treaty after the other.



See this article.



Exactly my point, thanks.



I'm not talking about the war crimes in Iraq. I'm talking about the US secretly and illegally transporting POWs to countries where torture is practised, as well as the abusive and humiliating interrogation methods used in Guantanamo Bay.



U.S. Fails to Comply With Ban on Torture

Do you know? Do you care?



No. America cleverly used the NATO as the way to gather support. Stop hiding behind the NATO. That diplomat is clearly talking about American sanctions.

I dont know what documentary you guys saw, but i saw one called in plane site.

and anyone who has seen that cant deny its a hoax.
i am not ignorant.
personally i dont even care about 9/11.
in australia i feel like i am being made to have compassion for this single event.
while there are countless events which could all be transformed into catastrophy by the media from any time in the past. i am desensitised to suffering in the news.

Because the news has an agenda, emoting to it is very dangerous.
these are corporations giving you information, there isnt a single news report that isnt propaganda.

it could easily be argued that there is no escaping bias.
personally id like to at least try to get to the primary source before i start pouring my heart into a news story.
we shouldnt be told what to think, what to be happy about and what to be sad about.
in this current state of the world the stories that go to air decide for us what is important.

i am not saying there is any other way.
but i am aware of it at least.

anyway. sorry for the tangent
watch 'in plane site' and then tell me what you think about all the conspiracy bull****.
its all hype on either side unless you have actually seen the program.
i partially agree with all of your oppinions as i just read over those last 3 pages of discussion.
but everyone except ORJ_JoS seems to scream ignorance with everything they say.
i am not trying to be degrading. you are all smart people.

Isn't saying everyone here save one is "screaming ignorance" pretty degrading? I mean, I'm not sure, my limited mental capacity probably is preventing me from truly understanding the wisdom of what you say. A thousand apologies.

In the light of all the info I'm providing, I find it curious as well as a bit of a shame how very few people are taking an active (and serious) interest in this debate.

What debate?

In all truth, there is no debate here. Nor can there be. In order for there to be a debate, both sides must be able to provide evidence for their viewpoint that has a chance of convincing others of the correctness of their opinion. You've all presented your own viewpoints, but most people have failed to make any of it about the original topic, namely, whether or not there was a conspiracy behind 9/11. Also, it's quite obvious that no one is interested in having their opinions changed. Everyone that has posted here has an obviously 'polarized' view, both of the original topic and the one that this thread's about now.

For there to be a debate, the participants must go into it with an open mind. Everyone, not just a few 'voices of reason' or whatever. And in this political discussion, even those who are being quite reasonable are absolutely convinced of the rightness of their position.

In summary, to ask for a serious debate on this subject is at the very least futile, and borders on impossibility.

All the stuff I've seen you present has been on par with "lol bu$h sux :amerikkka:" It is becoming an exercise in tedium to keep having to refute this stuff. We are not fascists.

The US has been very isolationsit for more of it's history than not.




When asking nicely doesn't work, how about we just let folks go. You have to step up the pressure. If the information extracted from a detainee prevents an attack, then it was worth it. You have the luxory of being on the outsie looking in, from the comfort of a country that hasn't be threatened like the US.





There is no actual information there. Just like the UN.



Again, educate yourself on what methods are being used.





I'm not hiding behind anything. All action in Afghanistan is NATO approved. The majority of NATO saw fit to engange in military action. It was prefectly justifed by the international community. Any of the "sanctions" you are talking about, which seem only to amount to Tarriffs were put in place to stimulate the US economy post 9/11.

That is so untrue. All I'm doing is trying to show you guys how some of the Bush administration's policies are very questionable to say the least. I'm translating news articles, providing sources which I think you have little or no press coverage on.

Just to show you guys some bits from the European perspective, and why I think there is more than enough reason to doubt the US government's sincerity.

So, what you say really does not do justice to my debate. I'm trying to be sincere, here.



No need to get all defensive. I didn't say you were fascists.

Please stop twisting the things I say to something I said not. You're just making me look bad by making a simplification like "All the stuff I've seen you present has been on par with "lol bu$h sux :amerikkka:""

Instead of providing solid counter-arguments or going into the contents of what I actually said, you just go personal and ridicule me, in a way that is essentially not very different from what Rob did. Avenger is about the only one being decent in this discussion.

But it's already more than clear to me that most of you don't give a hoot about human rights violations by the American Government.

It's not so much that. It's more a matter of what constitutes a violation of human rights.

It's precisely that line of thinking which I oppose, because it is chewing on the foundations of our society's morality.

Putting a bunch of terrorists on an island and roughing them up a little is small pittence to what other nations are doing to their people. But I don't see such a great outcry against those nations. But it seems the whole of the world is ready to jump on the American Government back for seemingly treating a few people poorly.

It wasn't meant as a personal attack but from my vantage point it really does seem like you're portraying us Americans (at least the American government) who are all "KILL THOSE TOWEL HEADS!" Just recently, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the the Gitmo detainees deserve juris prudence like any other American. A decision which I'm completly appauled by.

I think you think too highly of humanity.

Stop right there. The whole point is WE DON'T KNOW THEY'RE TERRORISTS. Just give them a trial and the public would much happier. What's wrong is some military dude is the one who gets to decide who's a terrorist and who's not. That's not right.

Sad. Pathetic.

So getting the rights of an American citizen is a right, not a priviledge? Everyone in the world is entitled? Sorry, but no.

..Then our rights mean nothing.

A good idea isn't merely a good idea for some people; it's a good idea for all people. And if we don't strive to treat people with the dignity we think we ourselves should have, then we are hypocrites.

The United States Constitution does not apply to the rest of the world. The rights and privledges stipulated in the United States Constitution apply to those who are citizens of the United States.

I refuse to accept that proven terrorists have the same rights and privleges as me.

Proven terrorists do not and should not have the same rights as you and me, just like felons don't have the same rights as you and me. There is one major shortfailing of your assertion, however, and that is that the people who are being held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay are not proven terrorists.

Then why do you have those privileges, JG? Gotcha, you terrist bassturd! Ö

arent they from different countries too?

so america slaps them in the face with their own laws.

Only if they deserve it. Dumbing things down is a bad idea.