The Instigator
kthanksbye
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DenyEverything
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

9/11 was an inside job.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
DenyEverything
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 24361
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

kthanksbye

Pro

This will be a 5 round debate.

1: State opinion
2-4:Explanation/Rebuttal
5: Closing statement

Please be courteous and informed.

Forgive me if I am a little bit confused about over all format, as I am new to this site.


Opening statement: The events of September 11th, 2001, were formulated and carried out by the American government. :

Looking forward to a good debate.

DenyEverything

Con

Hello, I am a bit of a noob to this site, and this debate format, but I look forward to a good debate with you. I believe that 9/11 was not a inside job planned and carried out by the U.S. Government. (I believe you have the burden of proof in this argument.) The U.S. Government, to give a bit of background, is concerned mainly (in the area of national security) with large (perhaps continental) mega-nations capable of defeating the U.S. and its allies in a war [1]. Terrorist attacks themselves are secondary concerns to national security as they generally do not involve a large number of casualties specifically 2996 [2] in 9/11 (as compared to wars) while direct wars against the US pose a much greater threat. If you accept that the US is mainly concerned with nations capable of sustaining such a large and violent war, they could come from three regions: 1. A Eurasian Mega-state 2. A South America Mega-state or 3. A Middle Eastern Mega-state. Africa is too geographically divided and unstable to unite, and will remain that way for at least a generation.

1. A Eurasian Mega State- Russia already poses a threat to the US as a military foe and is only mitigated by the fact that Russia has little motivation to attack the US and is not in a position to assault the US (an attack on Alaska is plausible but unlikely because of the harsh weather conditions). The Vietnam and Korean wars were motivated by the spread of influence of the USSR and the US was afraid of the USSR pulling Vietnam, Korea and the neighboring nations under Communism and the USSR mega-state.

2. A South American Mega State- Brazil is: 1. In close proximity to the US 2. Holds a significant world economic position not controlled by the US and 3. Unrivaled and mostly unthreatened by the nations surrounding it. Brazil does not hold a directly offensive position against the US, but if Brazil gains more territory and power, it may become a threat.

3. A Middle Eastern Mega State- This is where 9/11 comes in. One, if not the primary motivation for the 9/11 attacks was to provoke a counter assault in the Middle East. It was a large show of hate and violence that killed US Citizens on US Soil. al-Qaeda was at that time based in Afghanistan, an Islamic nation in the Middle East. The terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks were religiously motivated and wanted international attention for their cause, and they wanted to strengthen their movement at home by provoking a counter-attack on the Middle East, making the US look bad and framing them as the instigators. Perhaps one of their motivations was to recreate the caliphate, with Osama Bin Laden as caliph, and the US may have viewed the festering of al-Qaeda in their country could cause greater fundamentalist Islamic unity and perhaps even create a mega state to declare war on the US in the name of retribution for the crusades and the War on Terror and the spread of their shared religion.

Why the US was not behind the attacks:

(1) al-Qaeda and its splinter and sister groups are real, powerful, and vehemently against the West and Christianity. They pose a direct threat to the US and its citizens that is not matched by any other NGO.

(2) the US Government would not benefit from Iraqi or Pakistani or Afghani oil. The US holds a strategic petroleum reserve (estimated 727 million barrels [3]) for use in emergencies, but that is replenished easily from other sources besides the Middle East. Invading the oil producing countries would not directly affect the cost of world oil, and in the first place the US Government would not benefit from lower oil prices, private companies would. If you suspect that the reason the US was "inside 9/11" was oil, instead look to who would benefit- private companies attempting to replenish reserves to satisfy shareholders.

(3) the US Government only eliminates a threat by invading the Middle East in the War on Terror. The US loses money, troops, public support/approval, and faces a risk of alienating NATO nations participating.

Even if you believe the US has the power to keep what would be an extremely controversial operation from being revealed to the public, and has the funding, and has the manpower, what is the motive? Not oil, not power (the nations the US invaded are on a slow but visible path to autonomy and self-governance, with troops being pulled out of thse countries daily.) The US Government had no part in the 9/11 attacks and it is slightly paranoid to believe they did. I look forward to hearing your argument. Thank you, this is DenyEverything.

Citations:



[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)
Debate Round No. 1
kthanksbye

Pro

kthanksbye forfeited this round.
DenyEverything

Con

Hello kthanksbye, I'm sorry you were unable to post an argument for round #2, however I understand if there were more pressing matters at hand. Please post a comment to this debate when you get a chance. I'm afraid I may have to forfeit if you do not post an argument after this. I will not argue for this round.
Debate Round No. 2
kthanksbye

Pro

kthanksbye forfeited this round.
DenyEverything

Con

Hello kthanksbye, you have had 6 days to respond and have failed to do so. I have presented my argument and you have not. I will not argue further.
Debate Round No. 3
kthanksbye

Pro

kthanksbye forfeited this round.
DenyEverything

Con

DenyEverything forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
kthanksbye

Pro

kthanksbye forfeited this round.
DenyEverything

Con

DenyEverything forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wierdman 4 years ago
wierdman
Are you saying that it was a conspiracy by the government?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 4 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
kthanksbyeDenyEverythingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF