September 11 Was a Hoax

Despite the fact that my opponent's entire argument about the Iraq Invasion is a complete red herring, I shall respond to his posts as best I can. However, first, it would be remiss of me to assert that this point is moot without any reasoning behind it. The resolution states that "September 11 Was a Hoax." For the invasion of Iraq based on September 11 to fulfill PRO's obligation towards the resolution, he must show that the government was behind BOTH acts. For example, the Government may have used Hurricane Katrina to advance some disaster management policy while playing on the fear and insecurities of the people - this does not mean the Hurricane Katrina was a HOAX. I'm sure my opponent can see the implications of asserting that the Iraq Invasion fulfills the resolution - he would have to prove that in some way the events of September 11 were engineered beforehand to provide an excuse to invade Iraq, not merely that it was used after the fact as a convenient happenstance. With that in mind, I'll turn towards some of his statements.... ****************************************** >> "In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11." This is all well and good, but not very compelling. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are (or were) both international terrorists and bitter enemies of the United States. It might be fair to say that in 2003, they were #1 and #2 on the United States' hit list (or as I like to say, "The Americanshitlist"). Furthermore, your own source says "Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president." That right there refutes most of your own argument. >> "A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago." The irrational belief of 45% of Americans is not indicative of a hoax. More than 45% of Americans believe in God - does this necessitate God's existence? Of course not... this is an ad populum fallacy. >> "In a defenselink news article put out by the DOD Donald Rumsfeld says the Al Qaeda terrorist network crosses more than 50 countries, the task is to go after it, and the Taliban, "until Americans can go about their lives without fear."" My opponent treats this quote as though Al Qaeda is not to be feared... a multinational organization we don't really know *that much* about, hell bent on destroying America? An organization that is well-funded, well-organized, and most like able to get their hands on nuclear weapons? Of course America should be scared!! This quote is not evidence of the government USING fear to control the population at all! It's just a statement that this fear exists... >> "You see starting in the days following 9/11 the U.S. government touted war. A "global war on terrorism" which essentially means we can invade any country suspected of hiding or aiding terrorists. Iraq was right there. Rich with oil, had a cruel Dictatorship and had the "Taliban" which conveniently had a double motive in that: the NATO had just removed many of their leaders from power; and as I said before their religion." A Global War on Terror... yes... And at the top of the list in the GWOT? Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah, the Taliban... Saddam Hussein WAS a terrorist, in addition to being in violation of NATO/UN sanctions. Going to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda (and the Taliban regime that was sheltering them) without attacking Hussein would be like making two trips to Wal-Mart - one for clothes and another for groceries. Furthermore, the notion that we attacked Iraq for their oil is somewhat ludicrous - attacking Iraq caused oil prices to go UP, we get more oil from Saudi Arabia (where the terrorists were from) anyway, AND there's more oil available in Alaska than we could ever get from Iraq. >> "To many coincidences. So well planned." What coincidences? What plan? You mean the plan that happened AFTER the events of 9-11?? That's not evidence of a hoax - that's usage after the fact!! >> "This information had these men who had been doing these jobs for years so worried that they immediately contacted the White House. The Bush administration however saw no cause to worry and ignored warnings from National Security experts." This is evidence of the Bush Administration's incompetence, NOT a hoax. >> "The Story: Step 1: Stage or ignore warnings about an attack: blame it on al-Quaeda or the Taliban. Step 2: Declare war on terrorism (a definition so broad by the way as to give the US almost unlimited authority in any middle eastern country and many others) Step 3: Mobilize troops in Iraq and Afghanistan" Ignoring warnings is NOT a hoax, unless it is done on purpose, which becomes more like staging anyway. To prove this is a viable scenario, my opponent has to prove that Step 1 was indeed deliberate, and he has provided no evidence for any sort of deliberate action taken to perpetrate a hoax. >> "[Bush?] took action against Iraq and Afghanistan countries we had been at War with not a decade before with our current Presidents father. Did Bush go in to finish what his father could not?" This notion is pretty silly, considering that US involvement in Iraq began in 1980 at the start of the Iraq-Iran war under president REAGAN. Why did we back Iraq? Perhaps because of the Iran hostage crisis (under CARTER)... The Gulf War under Bush Sr. is an extension of the Iraq-Iran war, NOT a US action. >> "He has kept us scared and off balance and as such unable to band together as a people and tell him what he is doing is wrong in any way. Just keep them scared... Fear always works." Whatever happened to proving a hoax? This is political commentary on Bush's conduct since 2003.... ************************************************* My opponent has done nothing this round except expand a red herring argument that does not address the resolution. If he wishes to backtrack this argument and provide a valid basis, he needs to show deliberate action towards engineering September 11 to be a hoax in order to invade Iraq. Remember that usage after the fact does not indicate in ANY WAY that the events of 9-11-01 were part of a hoax.