| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| what if the hijackers were from America ? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 21 2003, 06:12 PM (203 Views) | |
| nztrekkie | Sep 21 2003, 06:12 PM Post #1 |
|
Lieutenant
|
I was thinking the other day about how the response to 9/11 might have been if the hijackers were American. eg: what would have happened if Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were flying the WTC planes ? Obvioulsly, the response would have been would different, but how different and does it really make any difference to anything at all ???? I just thought that if McVeigh and Nichols were flying the planes which crashed in to the towers, would the "world be changed forever"?, would a young sportsman from a small town in NZ have been barred from going on a Rugby tour to Canada, simply because he had an old drink driving conviction ? would no expense be spared raiding the homes of anyone in America suspected of anti govt views?, would people's civil rights and due processes be compromised as the govt "bought these terrorists to justice" ? (don't actually here the word "justice used anymore by govt speakers like they used to - wonder why ?) would "anti govt" suspects be coralled off to Cuba ? funnily enough, when surfing the net to find out the name of McVeigh's side kick, I saw many articles where Americans had already been asking my question - but in reverse. people have been asking, "what would have happened if the Oaklahoma bombers were Muslim?" would the suspects have been politely interviewed on "60 Minutes ?" would white Americans have been targeted as guilty (granted - by a minority) even before anything was known at all about what happened ? (like Muslims were straight after the attacks), etc..... anyone thought about this stuff before ? what are your thoughts ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Sep 21 2003, 06:36 PM Post #2 |
|
Time to put something here
|
The difference would be an internal one vs an external one. This is a world of difference so I do not believe a comparison can be made - There just two different a situation. On a personal note I do not thing money should be spared when it comes to stopping all killers anywhere. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Sep 21 2003, 07:27 PM Post #3 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
NZ, as you should know by now I am Canadian. I have not heard this particular story. I was out of the country for a year, did it happen last year? Or is this something that happened to you personally? If this happened to you then at least it explains some of the bitterness you seem to have. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| desainte | Sep 21 2003, 08:43 PM Post #4 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
Min - This happened earlier in the year. A young rugby player trying to go to a tournament in Canada was banned because he had a drink/driving conviction here in NZ This was probably going a little far when it comes to border security as I'm sure he was not a threat, though I agree utterly with banning hardened or repeat offenders from travelling internationally. I'm sure this incident made a bigger impact in the news here than it did in Canada . . .
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 21 2003, 08:44 PM Post #5 |
|
Lieutenant
|
no it wasn't me - there was 3 young NZ people who were prohibited from entering Canada on temporary sports visas simply because they had (relativley) minor convictions to their name. It seemed a bit over the top to me. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Sep 21 2003, 09:21 PM Post #6 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
If anything I believe that things would be the same if the hijackers had been American. The real hijackers were from outside, and we were able to come together to face this external threat. With McVeigh and Nichols, you at had individuals that were associated with a variety of extremist anti-government groups. They were not your Joe Yankee person next door. In fact, most American born terrorists in our history have always been detatched from mainstream society. The Oklahoma bombings, the Columbine shootings, serial killers, all of these incidents involve people that are either shunned by society or are members of groups that hate society. America as a people can band together and see these groups as the enemy. You will never see Joe Normal doing these things because Joes Normal has no reason to hate America. The worst thing he will probably do is attend a protest rally. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Sep 21 2003, 09:31 PM Post #7 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Thanks for the info. Sounds like it happened during my stay in Houston. It definitely did not make the papers there! :lol:
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 21 2003, 10:01 PM Post #8 |
|
Lieutenant
|
Can you elaborate a little please ? what would be "the same" ???? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Sep 21 2003, 10:36 PM Post #9 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
The reaction would be the same with terrorists either domestic or foreign. The fact of the matter is that the only American citizens that would want to hurt America are those who are either directly shunned by society already (Columbine) or are members of groups that are against the American government (McVeigh). Therefore, when an American citizen attacks America, it is easy for the rest of the country to pull together for support and combat whatever domestic group was responsible for this. In fact, it is much easier to combat American groups then those abroad just because by attacking America, they are attacking their recruiting area. If they have no new members to add to their ranks, then these domestic terror cells (usually white supremecy or anti-federalist groups) dry up. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 21 2003, 11:34 PM Post #10 |
|
Lieutenant
|
I would have thought much of this was rather obvious - terrorists being from out of main stream society and the like. Of course Mc Veigh and Nichols were assocaited with a variety of extremeist groups - that's why they were terrorists - my question was.....or is now....were these extremist / terrorist or whatever groups rounded up and held without charge ? were these groups infiltrated like the muslim groups have been ? did US troops swoop on known locations across the US and recover their computors, personal records, or anything that may link them with further attacks? what was done in order to protect America from further domestic terrorist based attacks ? in other words.....were the American terrorists and their associated groups and cohorts in America (or even anyone remotely thought to be their cohort) exposed to the same treatment as the muslim world has been since 9/11 ? do groups of these extremists still live happily in the US today ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Sep 22 2003, 02:43 AM Post #11 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
NZ, you are referring to the so-called militias. Groups that are composed of political extremists with racist predilections (okay I am stating something you probably are somewhat aware of, but bear with me). Many militias were infiltrated after the Oklahoma incident. There have been efforts to curtail their activities and get rid of them. The resopnse was proportionate to what happened in Oklahoma. A very bad event, to be sure, but not something entirely unexpected. Consider the first attempt by Islamic extremists to blow up the WTC in 1993 with a car bomb, again a measured response comparable to what was done with the militia groups (the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta in 1996 also, Eric Rudolph is the suspect in that and was mentioned in another post elsewhere on this board recently). Now, if September 11 had been the result of homegrown terrorists, I suspect that much of what has happened since in the way heightened airport security and threat assessment would still be taking place. Not to the degree it is now, but somewhat surely. There would probably not be a Patriot Act, but background checks would be easier to come by. As Dandandat observed, it's the difference between an external versus an internal threat. We would still feel vulnerable, but still feel secure from outside assault. There would not be a perception that we are at war so due process would largely be unaltered. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Sep 22 2003, 07:50 AM Post #12 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
In some cases the government seized computers and stuff. Just look at the Unabomber. They searched his home and found a typewriter that matched the letters being sent out. If anything, it is easier to get information on domestic terrorism suspects because we can get search warrants put out on them. Changes made? The Oklahoma attacks brought about a whole slew of changes on how federal buildings conduct security. The Columbine attacks heightened school security and started a bunch of anti-hazing programs. Are these groups given the same treatment as Muslems? Well I'd like to point out first that most Muslems aren't on the same level as these people. If anything these groups are treated worse then the Muslems ever were. Many of these groups are Neo-Nazis, KKK, or some sort of other white supremecy group. Others are anti-federal government that are training for some sort of government crackdown that they believe will just suddenly spring up. Whenever these people open their mouths and noise comes out, it usually stays as noise because nobody bothers to listen and interpret the noise into words. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Sep 22 2003, 12:26 PM Post #13 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Many of these groups are also like MEChA and the New Black Panthers, too... let's not single out only white folks, no matter how wrong they are. While we're at it, what about ELF and Friends of the Earth? The last two are DEFINITE TERROR GROUPS. (Why don't their acts get reported? Because they are LEFTIST groups who claim to love the enviiiiiironment.) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Sep 22 2003, 01:03 PM Post #14 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
You are quite right Admiral. A case in point, and it had very few ramifications actually. On Earth Day 1990 a group claiming to be Earth First about a mile and a half from my home in the pouring rain at about 5 a.m. cut down a huge metal P.G.&E electric utility tower causing a widespread blackout throughout the Monterey Bay Area nd into parts of the Santa Clara Valley. It took a couple days to get everything back on-line. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| jschmitty | Sep 23 2003, 05:07 PM Post #15 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
I dont think it would be different if the hijackers were like John Walker or someone else with outside help. Somebody like Tim McVeigh? I think we could see the Michigan Militia obliterated. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:31 PM Jul 11