President Bush was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks on his own country
My position is obviously that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks considering there is little to no evidence that president Bush was behind the attacks.
I bring up this debate due to the fact that an overwhelming amount of people agree with the conspiracy theories that our leadership was behind the attacks. I'm simply claiming that they weren't. The burden of proof will be on you.
If you have questions, please leave a comment then challenge.
I see that my opponent can only use references from "tuthers" websites of whom which I prefer filled with theories and non-factual information. Wikipedia is not a proper website to site information or factual matter to support an argument.
I will keep this round rather short because my opponent has not offered much of any theoretic data to debunk.
"Al-Qaeda may have been responsible, but they were originally funded by the CIA. "
This is indeed correct information, however, it doesn"t directly link the Bush administration to the attacks. Al-Qaeda began as a logistical network to support Muslims fighting against the Soviet Union during the Afghan War (funded and trained by the CIA); members were recruited throughout the Islamic world. Soon after the war ended Al Qaeda split and merged with other radical Islamist groups like Egypt's Islamic jihad. This was the beginning of an ideology where any form of government not affiliated with radical Islam or sharia law were to be taken over/destroyed.
Al Qaeda were responsible for several terrorist attacks across the globe. They have attacked several of US embassies around the world and also were held responsible for the 1993 terrorist bombings in the world trade center. This link provides most of the terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda against US soil/personnel. http://www.nbcnews.com...
Why is this information important? Simple, it shows the consistency of the attacks and that Al qaeda is capable of conducting such an attack like the one during 9/11.
"Also the Bush family and the bin Laden family were (and probably still are) partners in the oil business. "
This information is still not to be considered evidence that the Bush administration had conducted these attacks. They were partners most likely for economic interest.
So you admitted the CIA was instrumental in training about Al-Qaeda, yet it seems you're suggesting the CIA isn't responsible for their actions. If a child is trained to be violent, is the parent at least at some fault when the child exhibits violent behavior?
Also Bush claimed that a major purpose for invasion was for possible WMDs. And we have yet to find them 13 years after the fact. You're right they were partners for economic interest. Blood for oil.
Did you know that Saddam had almost nothing to do with 9/11? He just happened to refuse to use the U.S. Dollar for oil trading. Which means less money for the U.S? How do you fix that? Kill him and install a favorable government of course.
Did you know the CIA is infamous for installing government that are favorable to U.S. interests? You can deny all you want. But the actions of the U.S. and the widely available information will ALWAYS prove you wrong.
Also, Halliburton gained major profit thanks to 9/11. Guess who was CEO of Halliburton in the 90's? None other than Bush's VP, Dick Cheney. Sorry to tell you, but America isn't always the good guy. If hardly ever. There was plenty of financial motivation to commit a false-flag on our country. Sadly for some people, money > human life.
http://content.time.com... (Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks)
http://www.globalresearch.ca... (No administration has ever been more in bed with the energy industry -- but does that mean Big Oil is calling Bush's shots?)
A parent raising a child is completely separate from a Central Intelligence Agency providing funds and training to combat a force that is taking over a nation. That analogy has no correlation with wartime efforts whatsoever. Al Qaeda is violent for what they believe in. Radical Islam has existed for thousands of years and is the source for these holy wars currently going on in the middle east.
"Radical Islam is a militant, politically activist ideology whose ultimate goal is to create a worldwide community, or caliphate, of Muslim believers. Determined to achieve this new world order by any means necessary, including violence and mass murder, radical Islam is characterized by its contempt for the beliefs, practices, and symbols of other religious traditions. This intolerant creed is cited by Islamists as the philosophical justification for their terrorism." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org...
Radical Islam was not created by the CIA. My opponent seems to have failed to read what I posted in my argument. Al Qaeda was split after the Afghanistan war. They merged with other top jihad groups. They completely disaligned themselves with the US and other western countries. After the merge was a birthplace for this new ideology that any government not enforcing strict sharia law should be eliminated and replaced with a sectarian government. http://www.infoplease.com...
As most of us know. WMDs were one of the primary reasons upon entering and invading Iraq. This resulted because of failed diplomacy attempts conducted by the UN and other coalition nations that were soon going to be involved in the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was required by the UN to file a weapons declaration that was 12,000 pages long. In December 2002 Iraq had failed to comply and were missing a few of his declarations. In January of 2003 UN inspectors found several empty chemical warheads. Yes, chemical weapons are WMDs. As the war went on past 2003 US and other coalition forces found small traces of chemical weapons. So yes, the U.S did find WMDs. They recovered small amounts of chemical weapons throughout the years.
I don"t want to forget mentioning this, but a year after the invasion NATO got involved, involving 30 countries. Adding to the four countries that conducted Operation Iraqi freedom. http://www.nato.int...
"Did you know that Saddam had almost nothing to do with 9/11? He just happened to refuse to use the U.S. Dollar for oil trading. Which means less money for the U.S? How do you fix that? Kill him and install a favorable government of course."
Yes I am aware, and so as the rest of the world, however, we did believe that Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda. So we fix that predicament by invading Iraq, capturing Saddam then sticking around for 10 years? You do realize we spent around 1 trillion dollars on training Iraqi forces and Iraqs infrastructure? We spent over 1.5 trillion dollars on both wars.
"You can deny all you want. But the actions of the U.S. and the widely available information will ALWAYS prove you wrong."
I can articulate the same for you. It can go both ways, considering that there is still no evidence that bush conducted these attacks.
"There was plenty of financial motivation to commit a false-flag on our country. Sadly for some people, money > human life."
Financial motivation huh? The cost to repair and cleanup 9/11 was damaging to our nations debt and economy.The loss of four commercial jets valued at $385 million. Replacement cost and destruction of World Trade Centers valued at $4.5 billion. Damage to the Pentagon is up to $1 billion. Clean up costs alone is $1.3 billion. Property and infrastructure damage is around $13 billion. Federal emergency funds valued at $40 billion. Losses to New York(jobs,taxes, infrastructure, cleaning) $93 billion. Loss of insurance industry and air traffic revenue of $50 billion. Fall of global markets, of course, incalculable. Oh, and not to forget thousands of innocent lives. Irreplacable. http://www.iags.org...
The risks outweigh the positives. We invaded two countries just so one corporation can make a profit? Just doesn't make sense. Just like a lot of theories I hear out there.
They may not have created radical Islam, but they utilized radical Islam. And even chemistry can show you that playing with unstable elements in uncontrolled environments can lead to disastrous and explosive consequences!
I also never stated that one corporation had gained financial benefits from the results of 9/11. That was your assumption.
Here's some info on those who benefited (http://globalresearch.ca...)
Also have you heard of Lucky Larry? (http://globalfire.tv...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
He was the leaseholder of the WTC. He showed up everyday to the towers. Except for September 11th of course. He also had insurance taken out on the WTC.
"Soon after the September 11 attacks, Silverstein declared his intent to rebuild, though he and his insurers became embroiled in a multi-year dispute over whether the attacks had constituted one event or two under the terms of the insurance policy, which provided for a maximum of $3.55 billion coverage per event. A settlement was reached in 2007, with insurers agreeing to pay out $4.55 billion, which was not as much as Silverstein had sought."
Also the WTC security company hired by Silverstein (Securacom [now Stratasec]) was owned by Marvin Bush. None other than George Bush's brother. That's not a coincidence by the way. (http://www.informationliberation.com...)
Final round will consist of my final arguments and my conclusion.
We were not the only country to fund Al Qaeda during the Afghanistan war in the 80s. Several countries came to the aid of coalition groups fighting against the soviets. I don’t understand the logic of truther when they say we created al Qaeda in the 80s then use them for the destruction and terror of our own country? There are hundreds of jihad groups why would the US blame Al Qaeda if the American people already knew we funded them?
My opponent’s arguments are based off of a few individuals and corporations gaining a profit when the economic downfall was far worse. One man received a compensation for the towers being destroyed and one corporation received just around 40 billion dollars in profit because he was Cheney’s friend? Then an airline industry received tax breaks. Doesn’t make any sense. The negatives of 9/11 far outweigh the positives, like i have stated in the previous rounds. My opponent focused his argument on the reasons why we went to Iraq. He never made arguments about why we entered Afghanistan almost immediately after the towers were hit. Iraq was almost 2 full years after.
One fact I would also like to point out. Congress did take a vote on a joint resolution that did pass for Operation Iraq Freedom. 77% were in favor. Bush must have been a mastermind to trick 77% of congress including Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. They voted in favor of invading Iraq.
Truthers are almost positive that the bush administration conducted these attacks even when there is still no evidence or even empirical evidence to charge Bush with this horrendous crime. Flying planes into your own infrastructure would damage your economy, like it did. Bush and Cheney are not retards, by any means; they wouldn’t fly planes into their own Department of Defense. Planning for war would not consist of attacking your own Defense Department. Truthers claim to have all the evidence but yet I still see Bush walking free. Vote pro.
Thanks to my opponent for a fun and good debate. You are knowledgeable on the subject and I’ll give you credit for that.
RealLifeRick forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|