The Cain Mutiny

[Turtle]

I would submit that those who think 9-11 was an act of war are those who lack a fundamental understanding of the problem. One needs to be able to discern the difference between a terrorist act of violence and an act of war. By definition, an act of war can only be committed by nation state against another, or parties within a nation state against each other.

 

[greg334]

My point exactly - he believes the 911 attacks and those like them are CRIMES, and should be treated that way. He probably believes the attack against the Cole was a crime and the same for the attack against the barracks in Beruit. Our weak responses to those incidents offered great encouragement to Bin Laden and Al Queada to go forward with their 911 plan.

BUT you are lumping them all together when there is a difference.

The Cole and Beruit were actions against military enities, the WTC attack was not.

The crime was killing of innocent people in the case of the WTC, the cole and Beruit were actions on foreign soil by individuals and we could has responded in a military fashion.

The fact that he thinks these terrorists attacks are just criminal acts of violence shows his lack of understanding the problem. These are acts of war and should continue to be treated as such.

But they are.

We have lumped a lot of things together at the same time tried to justify some of our actions by twisting things around.

We can't consider a terrorist act on our soil as something like an act of war unless it is an act of war and when we have an act of war, there has to be something behind it other than an undefined group of people who are not a sovereign nation. Using your example with Hawaii, if a group of Japanese nationals decided to blow up the holiday inn on Maui in 1941, would we have gone to war for that?

I don't think so because even though they were Japanese nationals, Japan wasn't the one who committed the act.

The same goes for the idea that a Muslim terrorist group decided to attack the IHOP here in Detroit because they don't like the syrup, is it a war against the group or is it a crime?

 

[davekc]

Paul does have some good ideas, but that is a long way to whether he is electable. RLENT has now said he is second in Iowa. Some show him still in third. Don't know other than what is reported. Still don't think he will win Iowa but anything is possible as that is his strongest showing out of any other states.
However, a long winded post to discredit me or someone else's observations isn't going to move him any closer to being the actual nominee.
And like many, my mind isn't made up on anyone at this point. Still a long way to go.

 

[greg334]

But Dave, what are the ideas of the others and have they been consistent with the message of their ideology?

 

[layoutshooter]

I would submit that those who think 9-11 was an act of war are those who lack a fundamental understanding of the problem. One needs to be able to discern the difference between a terrorist act of violence and an act of war. By definition, an act of war can only be committed by nation state against another, or parties within a nation state against each other.

I submit that they do understand. There are many ways that nations attack others. I think it is very naive to believe otherwise.

 

[davekc]

But Dave, what are the ideas of the others and have they been consistent with the message of their ideology?

That would take a while to answer. Maybe there is some and maybe none at all. As we seen with the election of Obama, that really won't be the deciding factor in who actually gets elected.

 

[greg334]

That's true but I have a bit of an issue with those who keep saying Paul is a nut case yada yada yada ... there is nothing to compare it to other than what we think is normal. The other candidates are debating each other but nothing new is coming out other than Cain and Paul.

 

[davekc]

I don't know that I personally would label him as a "nut case", but my opinion doesn't matter. It is that public perception and the media that will drive that thinking.

 

[Turtle]

I submit that they do understand. There are many ways that nations attack others. I think it is very naive to believe otherwise.

What you have postulated is half a premise, one that can only be completed by conjecture. Those who (in your opinion) understand, they have an understanding based on a conjecture. On the other hand, those who actually know why we were attacked on 9-11 (it's not a secret) know it wasn't an act of war.

I'm not naive to think that nations do not attack other nations by proxy. They do. I mean, after all, the United States has elevated that very thing to an art form. But 9-11 wasn't such a case.

 

[RLENT]

Originally posted by Wesayso: "These are acts of war and should continue to be treated as such."

By definition, an act of war can only be committed by nation state against another, or parties within a nation state against each other.

Houston,

It appears we have an (il)literacy problem ... with the good folks over at the Wesayso Corporation ....

 

[cheri1122]

One of Paul's strongest points IMO is his refusal to go along with popular misconceptions - he understands that acts of terrorism aren't war, which makes me think he also understands that much of what is labeled 'terrorism' [under federal law] isn't anything of the sort either. People don't seem to like his characterization of the terrorists' motives, but a leader cannot remedy what he doesn't acknowledge.
FWIW, I see Paul as the single most presidential appearing candidate in decades - and I see much more support for him than the MSM is willing to concede.

 

[Pilgrim]

I would submit that those who think 9-11 was an act of war are those who lack a fundamental understanding of the problem. One needs to be able to discern the difference between a terrorist act of violence and an act of war. By definition, an act of war can only be committed by nation state against another, or parties within a nation state against each other.

Not so according to U.S. Code (bold color emphasis mine)

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331
§ 2331. Definitions

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared,
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

United States Code: Title 18,2331. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

It doesn't require a legal expert to understand that an act of terrorism and/or an act of violence (such as the 911 attack) can also be an act of war.

On the other hand, those who actually know why we were attacked on 9-11 (it's not a secret) know it wasn't an act of war.

So a group of militant religious fanatics decides to hijack jet airliners full of civilian passengers and fly them into large densely occupied buildings (two civilian, one military) on U.S. soil resulting in 2800 deaths and another 1000 injured, and incalculable damage to our economy; but we can redefine it as NOT being an act of war because these Muslim extremists had a good excuse or were offended by some aspect of U.S. foreign policy??? I'll bet Hitler had a good excuse for invading Poland too, and the Barbary Pirates were justified in attacking our ships because they needed the money.

 

[cheri1122]

So when a group of militant religious fanatics bomb an abortion clinic, that's an act of war too?

 

[Turtle]

Not so according to U.S. Code (bold color emphasis mine)

OK, fine, the US Code has its own definition. But none of those, including the one you highlighted (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;) applies to the organizers or the perpetrators of 9-11 (unless you want to really, really stretch the imagination and definitions).

It doesn't require a legal expert to understand that an act of terrorism and/or an act of violence (such as the 911 attack) can also be an act of war.

Yep, like the V2 rockets of WWII over London, they were pretty terrorizing. Not unlike the unmanned drones of today that buzz overhead in places. Napalm, cluster bombs, carpet bombing, all apply as both acts of terror and acts of war. But just the same, the 9-11 attackers were not a military force. They attacked in response to our meddling in their religion, and did so in their lands.

So a group of militant religious fanatics decides to hijack jet airliners full of civilian passengers and fly them into large densely occupied buildings (two civilian, one military) on U.S. soil resulting in 2800 deaths and another 1000 injured, and incalculable damage to our economy; but we can redefine it as NOT being an act of war because these Muslim extremists had a good excuse or were offended by some aspect of U.S. foreign policy???

Well, first of all, we don't "redefine" it, we simply define it. And we define it as NOT being an act of war because;
(A) there was no declared war on 9-11; and
(B) there was no armed conflict on 9-11, whether or not war has been declared, and
(C) there was no armed conflict between military forces of any origin on 9-11;

I'll bet Hitler had a good excuse for invading Poland too, and the Barbary Pirates were justified in attacking our ships because they needed the money.

Do you even know what a "straw man" logical fallacy is? But OK, let's go with that. Yes, Hitler had a good excuse for invading Poland - because he wanted to. That's the only excuse he needed. It's the same excuse we've used for invading lots of countries, including Afghanistan, and Iraq - because we wanted to. And the Barbary Pirates, I don't know if they were actually justified in the abstract for the reason you stated, but they justified it themselves not because they needed the money, but because they wanted the money. We've done that on a few occasions, too.

Wars, armed conflicts, armed hostilities, gang wars and playground fights are chiefly fought for one or more of three reasons: 1)you've got something I want (land, oil, water, money, some other resource or thing); 2) I don't like you because you are different from me (skin color, religion, culture, politics, etc.); and 3) You did something that made me mad (wide open for a really long list, but basically, revenge and/or to show someone who's boss).

We meddled in affairs that were none of our business, but we made it our business anyway. We were asked to stop, and we refused. Eventually we were told to stop or else they would strike back in retaliation, and we still refused. They attacked in retaliation, and we screamed victim and attacked right back in retaliation, and sold our attack as retaliation for an unprovoked attack, pretending that years of our provoking the situation either never happened at all, or surely wasn't really all that big a deal as to warrant an attack.

We meddled, they retaliated. That certainly doesn't excuse the attack or even mitigate it in any way. But we're not exactly the blameless victim here, either. If anything, we're the big bully on the block who poked and prodded and pestered and bullied until they gave us a good enough reason to attack, because they mad us mad, not the other way around, and because now we don't like 'em, even though we never did, and they're different from us, they're bad and we're good, plus they got something we want.

 

[layoutshooter]

What you have postulated is half a premise, one that can only be completed by conjecture. Those who (in your opinion) understand, they have an understanding based on a conjecture. On the other hand, those who actually know why we were attacked on 9-11 (it's not a secret) know it wasn't an act of war.

I'm not naive to think that nations do not attack other nations by proxy. They do. I mean, after all, the United States has elevated that very thing to an art form. But 9-11 wasn't such a case.

I do not agree. Everything I learned, all of my experience tells me different. Those attacks were paid for by someone. It was not done by selling sandwiches or passing the plate. I also do not believe for one second that the "reports" and "papers" we hear about and the so called "news articles" are even close to the entire reality. Again, nothing in my experience leads me to believe that.

But, you are more than welcome to believe what ever you want. As am I. Neither of us can prove their case with 100% certainty.

 

[Pilgrim]

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331
§ 2331. Definitions

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared,
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

United States Code: Title 18,2331. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

OK, fine, the US Code has its own definition. But none of those, including the one you highlighted (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;) applies to the organizers or the perpetrators of 9-11 (unless you want to really, really stretch the imagination and definitions).

Yes, the U.S. Code has its own definition and it's the one that counts. No, it's no stretch at all to apply these definitions to the perps and the organizers. These Al Quaeda operatives armed themselves with flying bombs (large airliners fully loaded with jet fuel) to attack one of our major civilian financial centers, the administrative center of our military and failed in their attempt at a major political target - the White House or Capitol Bldg. To follow the logic you describe, any terrorist sponsoring country like Iran could covertly recruit or assemble a gang of mercenaries, arm them with a nuclear bomb, launch a cyber attack against our electrical grid, or release a biological weapon in a crowded venue with complete impunity. Then assuming any of them were alive and captured, they would be read their Miranda rights, provided lawyers and given the American justice system to preach their vitriol for the next 5-20 years if not longer while the Iranians assemble another gang to repeat the process. No doubt the mullahs and the rest of our enemies would be laughing their collective azzes off at the weakness and naivete of President Obama / Paul's foreign policy.

But just the same, the 9-11 attackers were not a military force. They attacked in response to our meddling in their religion, and did so in their lands.

So they're justified in killing 3000 people and inflicting billiions of dollars in damage because they think we were "meddling in their religion"? First of all, what "meddling"? Secondly, since when did "meddling" become a casus belli? Thirdly it doesn't matter what their perceived affront is; if a bunch of Islamic fundamemtalist radicals who want everyone to live in the 12th century are offended by some aspect of U.S. foreign policy, it doesn't justify an act of mass carnage.

Well, first of all, we don't "redefine" it, we simply define it. And we define it as NOT being an act of war because;
(A) there was no declared war on 9-11; and
(B) there was no armed conflict on 9-11, whether or not war has been declared, and
(C) there was no armed conflict between military forces of any origin on 9-11;

(A) There doesn't have to be a declared war prior to an act of war
(B) There doesn't have to be an armed conflict in process - their attack could be said to have started the armed conflict. Technically, their prior attacks on the WTC, USS Cole and the Beiruit barracks had established the armed conflict years earlier.
(C) The 911 perps were an armed force carrying out an attack against our homeland. That's an act of war and a de facto declaration of war.

Do you even know what a "straw man" logical fallacy is? But OK, let's go with that. Yes, Hitler had a good excuse for invading Poland - because he wanted to. That's the only excuse he needed. It's the same excuse we've used for invading lots of countries, including Afghanistan, and Iraq - because we wanted to.

We didn't want to invade Afghanistan - they were harboring the militants that attacked us. The first time we went into Iraq was in defense of an ally that had been invaded by Saddam. The second time was due to there being every indication of his developing and possessing WMA and being in violation of about 16 different UN sanctions. Hussein had every opportunity (and 14 months) to avoid this invasion simply by allowing the inspectors back in to check things out. Congress voted overwhelmingly to approve that military action, BTW.

We meddled in affairs that were none of our business, but we made it our business anyway. We were asked to stop, and we refused. Eventually we were told to stop or else they would strike back in retaliation, and we still refused.

Once again, what meddling in whose affairs? I don't recall the U.S. meddling in any Al Quaeda affairs or those of Bin Laden (who had been kicked out of Saudi Arabia by the way).
At any rate, the U.S. should be conducting its foreign policy based on its own best interest, not our popularity quotient in the rest of the world. There's a situation developing in Iran right now to which our pathetic President choses to only pay lip service, and candidate Paul claims is "none of our business". That very statement disqualifies Paul as a legitimate candidate since it displays his complete lack of understanding foreign affairs in the Middle East. If Iran is allowed to develop a nuclear bomb we will learn very quickly that it's very much our business, just as the French and British learned how Hitler's rearmament in the late 1930s was their business as well.

 

[cheri1122]

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331
§ 2331. Definitions

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared,
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

United States Code: Title 18,2331. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute


Yes, the U.S. Code has its own definition and it's the one that counts. No, it's no stretch at all to apply these definitions to the perps and the organizers. These Al Quaeda operatives

Since you highlighted it, we'll assume you believe the AlQuaeda forces qualified as 'military'. Not even close.

armed themselves with flying bombs (large airliners fully loaded with jet fuel) to attack one of our major civilian financial centers, the administrative center of our military and failed in their attempt at a major political target - the White House or Capitol Bldg. To follow the logic you describe, any terrorist sponsoring country like Iran could covertly recruit or assemble a gang of mercenaries, arm them with a nuclear bomb, launch a cyber attack against our electrical grid, or release a biological weapon in a crowded venue with complete impunity.

Impunity? You're kidding, right?

Then assuming any of them were alive and captured, they would be read their Miranda rights, provided lawyers and given the American justice system to preach their vitriol for the next 5-20 years if not longer while the Iranians assemble another gang to repeat the process. No doubt the mullahs and the rest of our enemies would be laughing their collective azzes off at the weakness and naivete of President Obama / Paul's foreign policy.

As Osama bin Laden laughed, while he was still alive? There is nothing weak or naive about adhering to the law we created, while there is nothing to be gained but dishonor by rejecting the law when it's 'inconvenient'.



So they're justified in killing 3000 people and inflicting billiions of dollars in damage because they think we were "meddling in their religion"? First of all, what "meddling"? Secondly, since when did "meddling" become a casus belli? Thirdly it doesn't matter what their perceived affront is; if a bunch of Islamic fundamemtalist radicals who want everyone to live in the 12th century are offended by some aspect of U.S. foreign policy, it doesn't justify an act of mass carnage.

Justified? Why would you even suggest that?

(A) There doesn't have to be a declared war prior to an act of war
(B) There doesn't have to be an armed conflict in process - their attack could be said to have started the armed conflict. Technically, their prior attacks on the WTC, USS Cole and the Beiruit barracks had established the armed conflict years earlier.
(C) The 911 perps were an armed force carrying out an attack against our homeland. That's an act of war and a de facto declaration of war.

They were not, however, acting on behalf of any government, [until and unless proof is found otherwise] and that is the difference between war [which it wasn't] and terrorism [which it was.]

We didn't want to invade Afghanistan - they were harboring the militants that attacked us.

Says who?

The first time we went into Iraq was in defense of an ally that had been invaded by Saddam. The second time was due to there being every indication of his developing and possessing WMA and being in violation of about 16 different UN sanctions.
Sufficient reason for the UN to act, but insufficient reason for the US to invade.

Hussein had every opportunity (and 14 months) to avoid this invasion simply by allowing the inspectors back in to check things out. Congress voted overwhelmingly to approve that military action, BTW.

Congress was given bad information.

Once again, what meddling in whose affairs? I don't recall the U.S. meddling in any Al Quaeda affairs or those of Bin Laden (who had been kicked out of Saudi Arabia by the way).

Whoa - NOW it's about AlQueada as distinct from the government?

At any rate, the U.S. should be conducting its foreign policy based on its own best interest, not our popularity quotient in the rest of the world.

The good opinion [what you dismiss as 'our poularity quotient, as if it's all so junior high level] of other countries is considered by many to BE in the US' best interests.

There's a situation developing in Iran right now to which our pathetic President choses to only pay lip service, and candidate Paul claims is "none of our business". That very statement disqualifies Paul as a legitimate candidate since it displays his complete lack of understanding foreign affairs in the Middle East. If Iran is allowed to develop a nuclear bomb we will learn very quickly that it's very much our business,

But so far, they haven't and it's not.

just as the French and British learned how Hitler's rearmament in the late 1930s was their business as well

When it is our business, our response will be the right one, too.

 

[RLENT]

I do not agree. Everything I learned, all of my experience tells me different.

Well there ya go .... forgot any observation of actual, known facts .... I'm just goin' with my "gut" ..... a "hunch" ......

Those attacks were paid for by someone. It was not done by selling sandwiches or passing the plate.

..... because ..... wesayso ?

How much do you figure it actually cost to fund and mount them ?

I also do not believe for one second that the "reports" and "papers" we hear about and the so called "news articles" are even close to the entire reality.

Well, given our own government's penchant to lie and mislead the citizens of the US, that would really come as no great surprise now would it ..... ?

Again, nothing in my experience leads me to believe that.

Theoretically, you might have been a position to know ...

But, you are more than welcome to believe what ever you want. As am I. Neither of us can prove their case with 100% certainty.

Well, I don't see that you've laid out much of a case for anything.

You'd have to present some actual evidence, or data to support your contentions ..... rather than just spin from the Wesayso Corporation ....

Like was pointed earlier: it's half a premise .... with really nothing whatsoever to support it ... other than a little unsupported speculation which lacks any sort of detail ....

 

[RLENT]

Do you even know what a "straw man" logical fallacy is?

Clearly, he does - in fact, based on the evidence to hand, you'd have to say that he's entirely familiar with it ..... since hardly a post goes by, where he does not rely on strawmen or some other form of logical fallacy to try and make a case ....

Have you noticed how he keeps bringing up "justified" or "justification" in his arguments ?

The only logical explanation I can come up with for that is he's apparently either totally unable or unwilling to actually understand what you have said.

No one is talking about justification (except for him) - to suggest otherwise is just plain silly.

The premise that was actually put forward is about causation ..... not justification.

Conflating the two serves no useful other than to confuse the matter, and render any dialog unproductive.

Of course, if one is totally unwilling to assume any responsibility whatsoever for the causes of certain things, and wishes to construct some sort of delusional alternate reality, where the actions of one side simply do not matter, and everything that happens can only be due to the actions of one of the parties, then ignoring the facts of history and twisting the matter into something other than what it actually is, is a perfect way to go .....

Most of civilized man fully understands the principle of cause and effect, and it is largely self-evident to most folks (at least those who are not serial deniers of responsibility and culpability of their own, or their own sides, actions)

Of course, it is a hallmark of the utterly irresponsible to want blame others completely and totally, for matters in which their own actions may have played at least some part in causing.

This is done largely because those doing so full well understand that admitting cause, assigns and apportions responsibility, and renders one culpable or accountable, to a greater or lesser degree.

It is certainly politically expedient to deny responsibility for any and all causation of various situations - ya just sweep relevant facts under the rug. Neat, tidy, quick .....

It happens to be the very same thing a criminal will often do - it's nearly always someone else's fault, either for the actions they have committed, or for condition they find themselves in ...

It also happens to be totally delusional .....

 

[Turtle]

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331
§ 2331. Definitions

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared,
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

United States Code: Title 18,2331. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute


Yes, the U.S. Code has its own definition and it's the one that counts. No, it's no stretch at all to apply these definitions to the perps and the organizers.

It's absolutely a stretch if you are trying to assert that a bunch of religious wackos are somehow equated to a military force. Apparently, you think 9 guys is a force. You also keep confusing a group of religious extremists with that of a nation state.

You also don't have a clue as to what started all this, as you've stated you don't recall us meddling in any Al Quaeda affairs or those of Bin Laden, despite bin Laden many years ago giving two interviews to The Independent's Robert Fisk and then one to CNN's Peter Arnett, where he outlined exactly what the problems were, and what the consequences would be if our meddling continued.

So they're justified in killing 3000 people and inflicting billiions of dollars in damage because they think we were "meddling in their religion"?

Seriously? I JUST got through saying that our meddling "certainly doesn't excuse the attack or even mitigate it in any way." That's a labored euphemism, I suppose, for 'doesn't justify'. But to make it even plainer, no, they were not in any way, shape or form justified in what they did. By the same token, we aren't 100% a blameless victim, either.

First of all, what "meddling"?

Sticking our nose into other people's business, instead of minding our own. Trying to force them to do things they don't want to do, simply because we want them to do it. Doing things that negatively affect them despite their objections.

Secondly, since when did "meddling" become a casus belli?

I don't know that it does, in general, especially in this case, considering "casus belli" is something very specific one can point to, the actual incident (like the bombing of Pearl Harbor) which causes the case of war to become reality.

Thirdly it doesn't matter what their perceived affront is; if a bunch of Islamic fundamemtalist radicals who want everyone to live in the 12th century are offended by some aspect of U.S. foreign policy, it doesn't justify an act of mass carnage.

That's incredibly arrogant to think that any an all aspects of US foreign policy should be tolerated without objection or retaliation.

(A) There doesn't have to be a declared war prior to an act of war

That's very true.

(B) There doesn't have to be an armed conflict in process - their attack could be said to have started the armed conflict. Technically, their prior attacks on the WTC, USS Cole and the Beiruit barracks had established the armed conflict years earlier.

That's certainly the way it was spun and sold to the American people.

(C) The 911 perps were an armed force carrying out an attack against our homeland. That's an act of war and a de facto declaration of war.

Let's see... wrong, right, wrong, and wrong.

We didn't want to invade Afghanistan - they were harboring the militants that attacked us.

Yes we did want to, otherwise we wouldn't have. The US rarely does anything it doesn't want to do.

At any rate, the U.S. should be conducting its foreign policy based on its own best interest, not our popularity quotient in the rest of the world.

Yeah, but the problem is we're generally a bully about it. Negotiations generally consist of, "You'll do as I say and you'll like it, or else." People are getting so tired of it they are beginning to not even care what the "or else" consists of.

There's a situation developing in Iran right now to which our pathetic President choses to only pay lip service, and candidate Paul claims is "none of our business". That very statement disqualifies Paul as a legitimate candidate since it displays his complete lack of understanding foreign affairs in the Middle East. If Iran is allowed to develop a nuclear bomb we will learn very quickly that it's very much our business, just as the French and British learned how Hitler's rearmament in the late 1930s was their business as well.

The problem with the developing situation in Iran is that is largely of our own doing. We've been bullying Iran, and Muslims in the region for decades. What been going on over there in the Middle East is none of our business, never has been. Yet we've stuck our nose into it and made it our business, and now we're stuck with it. We had a choice to make these people out friends or to make them our enemies, and we chose to make them our enemies. That was pretty stupid. All we have to do is start minding our own business and get out of the business of minding their business, treat them like we treat our friends, show them we are no threat to them, and mean it, and they have no reason to want to kill us. It's really that simple. We won't do that, of course.