Torture or "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"

[David]

Which do you value more, bearded terrorist or innocent civilians? If a single torture - not "enhanced integration", but torture - session on a terrorist can save one american, or even has a good chance of such, I'm for it. Our military is out there to save lives. If interrogation,even by waterboarding, is part of that mission, then go ahead.

The flaw with your whole argument hinges on the assumption that torture must relate to "bearded terrorists". This is not always the case; you could potentially be the next government torture victim, so does that mean you're a terrorist. Remove that one phrase, and you're sitting on a pointless argument, so your argument just lies on a fallacy.

The government could be trying to get information out of a serial killer. A serial killer is not a terrorist by definition, so your argument does not support this situation, and many others. Or after 9/11, an array of Muslims were brought into interrogation, and many were found to be innocent civilians of a wider terrorist attack. They were tortured for information, and regardless of the situation, someone innocent was tortured.

Clearly the US military isn't there to genuinely save lives. Take World War Two for example. Innocent Japanese civilians were killed as part of the government's scheme to end WW2. The fact still remains that over 200,000 Japanese were killed and this was to stop a "possible" 5 million US soldiers. Clearly that line of argument is fallacious. The fact that the US government went down the line of argument of "better them then us" clearly shows their intentions, and it hasn't changed to this very day.

And why so self-centered?

session on a terrorist can save one american

What about the Australians or the Brits? It just shows your whole argument is based on assumptions which are contestable.

 

[Cosmic]

What about the Australians or the Brits?

Sure, saving them would be fine too.

The flaw with your whole argument hinges on the assumption that torture must relate to "bearded terrorists".

We are at war with bearded terrorists, not serial killers. I am talking about foreigners who take up arms against the United States, such as Al Qaeda, not bunny rabbits.

Clearly the US military isn't there to genuinely save lives. Take World War Two for example. Innocent Japanese civilians were killed as part of the government's scheme to end WW2. The fact still remains that over 200,000 Japanese were killed and this was to stop a "possible" 5 million US soldiers.

Lame leftist cliche. It's only people on the internet that ever mention Hiroshima because any real person - say, someone that graduated high school - knows the stupidity of bringing that up.

 

[David]

Clearly the US military isn't there to genuinely save lives. Take World War Two for example. Innocent Japanese civilians were killed as part of the government's scheme to end WW2. The fact still remains that over 200,000 Japanese were killed and this was to stop a "possible" 5 million US soldiers.

Lame leftist cliche. It's only people on the internet that ever mention Hiroshima because any real person - say, someone that graduated high school - knows the stupidity of bringing that up.

You clearly like to just assume and "hope" your arguments just fall into place, without any raw evidence to support your claims. Clearly you want this to become personal. The logic behind your argument is flawed and has no substantial claim on the wider community.

Provide evidence that I am a leftist. Provide evidence that it's only people on the Internet that mention Hiroshima. Provide evidence that I am not a real person. Provide evidence that I'm a high school drop-out. You don't have any, and funnily enough, it's people like you who don't know how to make a sound rebuttal in a debate, and so try to make the other feel insecure in a debate, which clearly isn't going to work. You've got to come up with something better than that little claim.

Clearly you just have to assume in order to make a sound argument, which is fallacious in itself. You don't provide evidence to back your claims, which shows the flaw behind the logic of all your arguments.

We are at war with bearded terrorists, not serial killers. I am talking about foreigners who take up arms against the United States, such as Al Qaeda, not bunny rabbits.

Oh, so from that, I can only infer that serial killers are of no relevance to the world society. Again, you only voice for USA, and clearly is not what the topic revolves around. You say that serial killers = bunny rabbits, well again your logic is very flawed, and hardly elementary at the most.

A normal citizen of a country, who holds no national role, so the average Joe, a terrorist isn't going to be their main concern. A serial killer might be because they are irrationally on normal people. They don't utilize cells or have reasons against government agencies; they work on chance, and so anyone can be targeted. I would be more worried, as a normal citizen of some rapist on the train late at night when I get home from work, as opposed to a terrorist attack. Sure, it might happen, but the chances are slim, and they generally need some reason to attack.

 

[P8I.com]

Clearly the US military isn't there to genuinely save lives. Take World War Two for example. Innocent Japanese civilians were killed as part of the government's scheme to end WW2. The fact still remains that over 200,000 Japanese were killed and this was to stop a "possible" 5 million US soldiers.

How many Japanese do you think would've died had we invaded and fought them from the ground? Much more than 200, 000. We're up against the same problem with extremist Muslims; a religion that compels its followers to kill. At that time, most Japanese citizens followed a very brutal, militaristic, and nationalistic religion. They were prepared to fight to the death if need be (hence the Kamikaze). Goebbels, Hitler's right-hand man, wrote in his diary that he wished that the religion of Germany had been that of the Japanese. And the reason, again, was that the Japanese religion made warriors and Germany's did not.

 

[Cosmic]

@DavidL: Provide evidence that the United States dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan please. It has to be a reputable source.

 

[David]

How many Japanese do you think would've died had we invaded and fought them from the ground? Much more than 200, 000. We're up against the same problem with extremist Muslims; a religion that compels its followers to kill. At that time, most Japanese citizens followed a very brutal, militaristic, and nationalistic religion. They were prepared to fight to the death if need be (hence the Kamikaze). Goebbels, Hitler's right-hand man, wrote in his diary that he wished that the religion of Germany had been that of the Japanese. And the reason, again, was that the Japanese religion made warriors and Germany's did not.

Ok, before I start, I want to say that I voice a historical and philosophical view, not a leftist/rightist view.

The relevancy of "would've died" or "if" statements is flushed out by logic. That clearly didn't happen, so there's no point begging onto that as your line of argument. Historically, 200,000 Japanese civilians have died as a direct result of the A-Bomb. Furthermore, 2-3 generations continue to be affected by the radiation. They are all historical facts. However, to say that sparing Japanese lives in order to save more US lives is not a sound argument, as Truman acted on chance.

As for the bolded part, I would like to see raw evidence of that. "Most" is a very strong word to use, ie. more than 50% if we're talking in probability.

@DavidL: Provide evidence that the United States dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan please. It has to be a reputable source.

Not via the Internet, but I could easily ask my father's friend who was there at the time. First-hand account witnesses are always a reputable source, eg. court cases, historiography, historical claims, debates.

I could probably present this link: http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm Being a US site, it could have bias, but why would the US admit to dropping the bomb? Because they did. A .gov also holds reputation, as there are very limited people who can obtain access to editing that file.

However, again, you're line of argument is flawed. Unless you can prove that "everyone who has said that the US dropped a nuclear bomb onto Japan" is deluded or illusionary, then you can put the argument back on the other person. You have just made a claim, without ever rebutting my argument. There isn't any debating logic in that.

 

[P8I.com]

Yeah but it isn't. There are no ticking time bomb scenarios in real life. 24 is a good show, but it isn't real. That's the thing here. Torture has also been proven by numerous interrogators to be counter productive and actually just ineffective totally. I remember a few years back there was a case where a CIA interrogator gave a terrorist a copy of Harry Potter and had normal conversations with him about what America is really for, and showed him that America is not what Bin Laden says it is. Of course at that point, the suspect gave up all information he had. There are a whole ton of links against torture proving its uselessness and ineffectiveness. I have to check a backup page of my old forum to find them.

Instead of guns, how about on the battlefield, we just do what that person did: hand out Harry Potter books and have a conversation with them. It's genius! We'll save lots of money, I'm sure. Although, we may run into a problem when we have to purchase caskets for the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that turn up dead.

Of course there are ticking time bomb scenarios in real life. Are you saying you've never been a situation where you had to get something done at that exact moment or else? If not, you're lucky.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Yeah but it isn't. There are no ticking time bomb scenarios in real life. 24 is a good show, but it isn't real. That's the thing here. Torture has also been proven by numerous interrogators to be counter productive and actually just ineffective totally. I remember a few years back there was a case where a CIA interrogator gave a terrorist a copy of Harry Potter and had normal conversations with him about what America is really for, and showed him that America is not what Bin Laden says it is. Of course at that point, the suspect gave up all information he had. There are a whole ton of links against torture proving its uselessness and ineffectiveness. I have to check a backup page of my old forum to find them.

Instead of guns, how about on the battlefield, we just do what that person did: hand out Harry Potter books and have a conversation with them. It's genius! We'll save lots of money, I'm sure. Although, we may run into a problem when we have to purchase caskets for the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that turn up dead.

I'm not even going to give an answer to that. That was the most retarded rebuke I've ever seen. Way past what Cosmic throws out.

Of course there are ticking time bomb scenarios in real life. Are you saying you've never been a situation where you had to get something done at that exact moment or else? If not, you're lucky.

I meant for national security situations.

 

[P8I.com]

How many Japanese do you think would've died had we invaded and fought them from the ground? Much more than 200, 000. We're up against the same problem with extremist Muslims; a religion that compels its followers to kill. At that time, most Japanese citizens followed a very brutal, militaristic, and nationalistic religion. They were prepared to fight to the death if need be (hence the Kamikaze). Goebbels, Hitler's right-hand man, wrote in his diary that he wished that the religion of Germany had been that of the Japanese. And the reason, again, was that the Japanese religion made warriors and Germany's did not.

Ok, before I start, I want to say that I voice a historical and philosophical view, not a leftist/rightist view.

The relevancy of "would've died" or "if" statements is flushed out by logic. That clearly didn't happen, so there's no point begging onto that as your line of argument. Historically, 200,000 Japanese civilians have died as a direct result of the A-Bomb. Furthermore, 2-3 generations continue to be affected by the radiation. They are all historical facts. However, to say that sparing Japanese lives in order to save more US lives is not a sound argument, as Truman acted on chance.

As for the bolded part, I would like to see raw evidence of that. "Most" is a very strong word to use, ie. more than 50% if we're talking in probability.

Actually, it's very important. Let's use 9/11 as an example. If, say, one of our people were able to shoot down the planes before they hit the towers. The people on those planes would've died, right? But 3000+ people would've been saved. This is what actually happened in Japan with the atomic bomb. We dropped it to avoid having to engage them on the ground and saved countless number of lives in the process.

Are you aware of the history of Shinto? It wasn't an option for Japanese citizens during WW2. They were forced to become followers of the state's Shinto religion.

-- 27 Sep 2010, 01:29 --

Yeah but it isn't. There are no ticking time bomb scenarios in real life. 24 is a good show, but it isn't real. That's the thing here. Torture has also been proven by numerous interrogators to be counter productive and actually just ineffective totally. I remember a few years back there was a case where a CIA interrogator gave a terrorist a copy of Harry Potter and had normal conversations with him about what America is really for, and showed him that America is not what Bin Laden says it is. Of course at that point, the suspect gave up all information he had. There are a whole ton of links against torture proving its uselessness and ineffectiveness. I have to check a backup page of my old forum to find them.

Instead of guns, how about on the battlefield, we just do what that person did: hand out Harry Potter books and have a conversation with them. It's genius! We'll save lots of money, I'm sure. Although, we may run into a problem when we have to purchase caskets for the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that turn up dead.

I'm not even going to give an answer to that. That was the most retarded rebuke I've ever seen. Way past what Cosmic throws out.

Of course there are ticking time bomb scenarios in real life. Are you saying you've never been a situation where you had to get something done at that exact moment or else? If not, you're lucky.

I meant for national security situations.

It's no more ridiculous than claiming that waterboarding is less effective than giving a terrorist a Harry Potter book and having a conversation with him.

If there are urgent, "ticking-time bomb" situations in our personal lives, then you can bet that there are real ticking-time bomb situations in the national security field.

 

[David]

Actually, it's very important. Let's use 9/11 as an example. If, say, one of our people were able to shoot down the planes before they hit the towers. The people on those planes would've died, right? But 3000+ people would've been saved. This is what actually happened in Japan with the atomic bomb. We dropped it to avoid having to engage them on the ground and saved countless number of lives in the process.

Again, the "if" statement, but I'll debate this one. There is little to no evidence for US control towers to recognize that the first plane that hit the tower contained terrorists, unless I am mistaken with that. So, how could one justify shooting down a plane without any certain reasoning? That's where your logic falls short, but to continue, 3000+ would not have been "saved". The correct statement would be that 120 people would have died, and that's it. When you look at this from time perspectives, prior to the attack, we would not have known that "3000 people" would have died as a result from the attack, so 3000 people would not have been saved, it's just that 3000 people would not have died, and only 120 or so people would have.

As for the bold, it's all assumption. You haven't saved countless lives; countless lives have just not been killed. There is a difference in statement, and it's for you to realize. You can't prove that Truman's next move was by foot, or you can't prove that countless lives would have been saved. When you make that type of argumentation, you can only assume what happens as a result of an event, by logic, but when the logic relies on an assumption to happen, then it its contestable as whether it's a sound argument or not.

Are you aware of the history of Shinto? It wasn't an option for Japanese citizens during WW2. They were forced to become followers of the state's Shinto religion.

It may not have been an option, but unless you can get into the minds of all those supposed followers, then you can't justify in saying that the majority followed the Shinto beliefs from A to Z. It may be true, but it's a sketchy claim. I would like to hear from a Japanese survivour, just to see which side of the argument they lie on; it would be interesting.

 

[P8I.com]

Actually, it's very important. Let's use 9/11 as an example. If, say, one of our people were able to shoot down the planes before they hit the towers. The people on those planes would've died, right? But 3000+ people would've been saved. This is what actually happened in Japan with the atomic bomb. We dropped it to avoid having to engage them on the ground and saved countless number of lives in the process.

Again, the "if" statement, but I'll debate this one. There is little to no evidence for US control towers to recognize that the first plane that hit the tower contained terrorists, unless I am mistaken with that. So, how could one justify shooting down a plane without any certain reasoning? That's where your logic falls short, but to continue, 3000+ would not have been "saved". The correct statement would be that 120 people would have died, and that's it. When you look at this from time perspectives, prior to the attack, we would not have known that "3000 people" would have died as a result from the attack, so 3000 people would not have been saved, it's just that 3000 people would not have died, and only 120 or so people would have.

As for the bold, it's all assumption. You haven't saved countless lives; countless lives have just not been killed. There is a difference in statement, and it's for you to realize. You can't prove that Truman's next move was by foot, or you can't prove that countless lives would have been saved. When you make that type of argumentation, you can only assume what happens as a result of an event, by logic, but when the logic relies on an assumption to happen, then it its contestable as whether it's a sound argument or not.

We knew that the planes had been hijacked and it would've been within our rights to shoot them down. That's what happens. If a plane is hijacked and headed towards a populated city, and we're able to locate it in time, it's going to be shot down. We don't work the way you apparently think we do. You don't let 100 or so people live just to watch thousands more die. Did we know how many people were inside of the buildings? Yes. So it's reasonable to assume that a much larger amount of people would die in the towers than on the planes. We might not have been able to foresee the collapse, but the crash itself was destined to take out lots of individuals.

I can prove that Truman's alternative move was to go in on the ground and invade Japan. Research 'Operation Downfall.' It was cancelled in favor of the atomic bomb.

 

[Cosmic]

I'm not even going to give an answer to that. That was the most retarded rebuke I've ever seen. Way past what Cosmic throws out.

Then ignore it instead of troll? You answered it by saying that, FYI. "I'm never going to talk to you again because you didn't give me that candy bar, mommy" is a statement which contradicts itself, because you have to open your mouth to say it.

@DavidL:You know very little of history. Let me give you a history lesson. The Japanese Emperor was about to surrender to the United states over the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, An army major decided that he did not want his nation to be shamed. Thus, he recruited the aid of several generals and took over the royal palace to prevent the broadcast of the surrender via radio the next morning. However, a US air-force mission was flying over Tokyo en route to another location. There was a blackout due to the fear that the Americans were going to drop an atomic bomb on Tokyo. The blackout ruined the plans of the coup, as they were unable to intercept the emperor or the surrender message in time. Therefore, due to the feat that an atomic bomb would be dropped on Tokyo, the Japanese surrender was guarenteed.

Source: History Channel's "The Last Mission".

Furthermore, top military analysts at the time, all of which graduated college and high-school, unlike you most likely, have all assessed that the death tool would have been greater if the Japanese had not surrendered. It is a fact that the Japanese had never lost a war during the existence of their nation, thus the civilians would have been fighting us just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. The atomic bomb is also a glorification, really, as you do not need an atomic bomb to level a city. Here are some stats for 'ya:

all civilians:

Germans dead in WWII: 900,000 - 3,170,000
Japanese killed in WWII: 580,000
China: 7,000,000 (mostly killed by japs)

Source: Wikipedia.

As you can see, China saw the most deaths, mostly at the hands of the japs. then there was Germany, THEN japan. You should be flaming the US for killing Germans in the bombing of German cities, not for killing only a few Japanese people comparatively. You are over-glorifying the use of a weapon which you do not like. Stop grasping at straws. It was necessary and, in fact, wasn't much of a tragedy compared to other things in that very same war. Do you still despise Germany for the Holocaust, even though they are no longer ruled by Nazis and are now a very stable, western, country?

 

[David]

We knew that the planes had been hijacked and it would've been within our rights to shoot them down.

Then the logic follows as to why it was never shot down. 😕 I can't speak for the controllers, but I find it highly unlikely that the controllers knew of the first attack, but probably would have assumed all the other attacks were by terrorists, by logic.

That's what happens. If a plane is hijacked and headed towards a populated city, and we're able to locate it in time, it's going to be shot down. We don't work the way you apparently think we do. You don't let 100 or so people live just to watch thousands more die. Did we know how many people were inside of the buildings? Yes. So it's reasonable to assume that a much larger amount of people would die in the towers than on the planes. We might not have been able to foresee the collapse, but the crash itself was destined to take out lots of individuals.

Um, that's exactly not how I interpreted it. My claim revolved around a question of "were the controllers aware of a hijack?". And no, it is not reasonable to say that 3000 people would have died because it's all by assumption. You base that claim on the assumption that the terrorists were indeed going for the twin towers, but you couldn't have proved that before the actual attack happened. If so, I think you should work for the CIA.

I can prove that Truman's alternative move was to go in on the ground and invade Japan. Research 'Operation Downfall.' It was cancelled in favor of the atomic bomb.

No you can't. You can't prove by showing me a document. Who's to say that Truman could have suddenly fell ill and then he would have changed his mind, or who's to say that Truman could have died just before the A-Bomb attack. There would have been an infinite possibility of events which could have altered his choice. Operation Downfall could have happened, but since it didn't, it's not satisfactory evidence to justify that the alternative was only Operation Downfall.

@DavidL:You know very little of history. Let me give you a history lesson. The Japanese Emperor was about to surrender to the United states over the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, An army major decided that he did not want his nation to be shamed. Thus, he recruited the aid of several generals and took over the royal palace to prevent the broadcast of the surrender via radio the next morning. However, a US air-force mission was flying over Tokyo en route to another location. There was a blackout due to the fear that the Americans were going to drop an atomic bomb on Tokyo. The blackout ruined the plans of the coup, as they were unable to intercept the emperor or the surrender message in time. Therefore, due to the feat that an atomic bomb would be dropped on Tokyo, the Japanese surrender was guarenteed.

Source: History Channel's "The Last Mission".

First hand witnesses override secondary sources. Any historian would agree.

Furthermore, top military analysts at the time, all of which graduated college and high-school, unlike you most likely, have all assessed that the death tool would have been greater if the Japanese had not surrendered. It is a fact that the Japanese had never lost a war during the existence of their nation, thus the civilians would have been fighting us just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. The atomic bomb is also a glorification, really, as you do not need an atomic bomb to level a city.

You really do like making things personal, eh? Military analysts can provide a possible outcome of deaths, yet we will never know that exact amount.

Here are some stats for 'ya:

all civilians:

Germans dead in WWII: 900,000 - 3,170,000
Japanese killed in WWII: 580,000
China: 7,000,000 (mostly killed by japs)

Source: Wikipedia.

You choose Wikipedia as one of your main sources; no need to make any further comment.

As you can see, China saw the most deaths, mostly at the hands of the japs. then there was Germany, THEN japan. You should be flaming the US for killing Germans in the bombing of German cities, not for killing only a few Japanese people comparatively. You are over-glorifying the use of a weapon which you do not like. Stop grasping at straws. It was necessary and, in fact, wasn't much of a tragedy compared to other things in that very same war.

Again, you voice too many assumptions. 1. necessity of flaming the US for Germany (you assume I don't have an opinion on that), 2. "over-glorifying the use of a weapon which you do not like" (prove that I have said I don't like the weapon), 3. "it was necessary" (how can you say that killing innocent civilians is necessary to save US lives?).

Do you still despise Germany for the Holocaust, even though they are no longer ruled by Nazis and are now a very stable, western, country?

Who said I despise Germany? The German system has changed; the US hasn't. The German approach has changed; the US hasn't. The German ideology has changed; the US hasn't. The US seems to continue to voice "better you than us".

 

[P8I.com]

It may not have been an option, but unless you can get into the minds of all those supposed followers, then you can't justify in saying that the majority followed the Shinto beliefs from A to Z. It may be true, but it's a sketchy claim. I would like to hear from a Japanese survivour, just to see which side of the argument they lie on; it would be interesting.

Well, apparently, these people ran the risk of being killed if they didn't practice Shinto. Japan was an imperialistic and heavily nationalistic society; a society where one had to recognize the emperor as a divine being. So do you really think it matters what they felt deep down inside? They were going to do the bidding of the state regardless. It was the same way in Germany. That's why the two made such good friends.

It's not fair at all for you to say that America didn't care about the innocent lives lost. I mean we're talking about Harry Truman here. Not exactly a blood-thirsty or hateful man. He did what he had to do at a time of great stress. If you want to blame someone, blame Japanese leadership. No one asked them to attack us, and nobody made them continue to fight after the war was clearly over for the Axis.

 

[Cosmic]

No you can't. You can't prove by showing me a document. Who's to say that Truman could have suddenly fell ill and then he would have changed his mind, or who's to say that Truman could have died just before the A-Bomb attack. There would have been an infinite possibility of events which could have altered his choice. Operation Downfall could have happened, but since it didn't, it's not satisfactory evidence to justify that the alternative was only Operation Downfall.

DavidL, why fight World War II then? Hitler could have dropped dead of cancer if we had just let them take over Britain. Prove to me that he wouldn't have. Also, FYI, Hitler was developing his own nuclear weapon.

 

[David]

Well, apparently, these people ran the risk of being killed if they didn't practice Shinto. Japan was an imperialistic and heavily nationalistic society; a society where one had to recognize the emperor as a divine being. So do you really think it matters what they felt deep down inside? They were going to do the bidding of the state regardless. It was the same way in Germany. That's why the two made such good friends.

I agree.

It's not fair at all for you to say that America didn't care about the innocent lives lost. I mean we're talking about Harry Truman here. Not exactly a blood-thirsty or hateful man. He did what he had to do at a time of great stress. If you want to blame someone, blame Japanese leadership. No one asked them to attack us, and nobody made them continue to fight after the war was clearly over for the Axis.

Of course it's fair; USA just had the ideology of "better you than us", and is evident even after the war during nuclear testing in the Pacific. USA did not have to go to war, but chose to after being attacked. Again, USA chose to go overseas to attack. Not saying they shouldn't have, but psychologically, we make decisions to protect ourselves, not others in times of hardship.

DavidL, why fight World War II then? Hitler could have dropped dead of cancer if we had just let them take over Britain. Prove to me that he wouldn't have. Also, FYI, Hitler was developing his own nuclear weapon.

Germany had failed with the development of the A-Bomb. The natural ingredient of heavy water need to sustain the bomb's creation was not able to be transported over the lake (can't remember name) to the main bomb site, hence Germany was out of the nuclear race much early in the 40's. But really, your argument is basically trying to bash at my statements by turning the "prove that" statement back onto me. I said that because your argument was not logical, you're saying that because you don't agree with me. I am arguing the logic of your statements, which is what debate is about.

 

[P8I.com]

edited

 

[David]

I don't have to assume anything, being that the attack has already occurred. We don't have to play like we don't know what actually happened.

Um, exactly my point. For the WW2 example, it happened, and that's a fact, but following assumptions of if the bomb wasn't released is all questionable.

Explain to me how anything would've changed by us shooting the planes down?

Let's see, shooting planes down do not necessarily mean the people in the planes would die. The possibility that a terrorist would remain alive is rare, but if that was the case, we could get information from him (the purpose of this whole debate, which seems to have gone way off topic). Then again, the Twin Towers would still remain.

They had been planning these attacks for months, maybe even years. What we do while they're in the progress of carrying out their mission isn't going to magically change their target.

You can make that claim, but on the basis of what evidence? I'm happy to agree that they've been planning for a long time; it doesn't just come by chance.

Now, they might choose a different target once we stop them from attacking another target. But that's different than saying it's just an assumption to say that they were going for the towers. It may be an assumption, but it's one that we now know is correct.

You don't know if that's correct or not. Once an assumption becomes the "correct" view, then it becomes the truth, or an observation. It's not an assumption anymore.

I see what you were getting at, though, and I don't agree with it.

Same with me.

Rarely do we know all of the facts before we act. You'll probably say, "well, that's the problem." No, it's not. It's possible that those men just wanted to get to McDonald's faster, and were just borrowing the plane. It's possible that they would've just landed the plane safely and held them as hostages. There are an endless number of possibilities.

The second is plausible. Psychologically, a terrorist would not "borrow" a plane to McDonald's.

The safest solution is not to wait and see what happens. It's to eliminate the threat. And in the case of 9/11, those hijacked airplanes were clearly a threat.

If it was the "safest" solution, then why weren't the planes shot down? Logically, because they didn't know of the first plane being hijacked. Once they knew the first one was indeed hijacked, then by logic, other plances in the vicinity would be of high alert and awareness.

Also, you have to remember that AQ had talked about using planes to attack our largest buildings. In the 90s, AQ bombed WTC.

And this would have been known by CIA Intel, but a certain date would be hardly guessable.

 

[InfiniteJest]

 

[Cosmic]

@DavidL: way to ignore 90% of my points. I ask that you respond to the rest of my post. Perhaps you can't?