It is commonly agreed that the US was justified under international law to attack Afghanistan in response to the Taleban's haboring of the entity that attacked us.
Let's assume that the hijackers targeting the Pentagon missed and flew into the river. Also let's assume that the passengers of flight 97 were able to overcome their captors.
Those attacks aside for the sake of argument:
What if the planes hit the towers but they didn't collapse? Should we still have retaliated?
What if only one plane hit its target and didn't collapse the tower. Should we have retaliated ?
What if the terrorist instead of using planes, planted a bomb in the basement of one the towers attempting to collapse one tower onto the other and they failed to topple the tower? Should we have retaliated?
What if that bombing occured 2 years to the day after the 'Highway of Death' which forced a humiliated Hussein into a ceasefire and we had conclusive evidence that the bombmaker was an Iraqi intelligence agent. The motive and the means. Should we have retaliated ?
USA Today
Free Republic
Democracy Now
What if about the same time they attempted to assassinate the ex-President that defeated Hussein?
The New Yorker
Exactly how long is the statute of limitations on a terrorist attack?
Update:
Check out Captain's Quarters for emerging info on this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment