9/11 coverup?

[gekko]

Used as justification by whom?

Apparently, you missed the failed attempts by the US to tie Al-Qaeda to Sadam. Oh wait, that must have been only more propaganda that you, but not the rest of us, were smart enough to realize was nonsense. The only reason this is till not being tried is people were aware enough and quick enough on the draw to recognize how ridiculous this link was.

Nowadays, the rhetoric used is a little more general. Citing the need to be prepared and the horrors of 9/11 has proven an effective way (relatively speaking -- obviously the war has not been the strong campaign point Bush had hoped it would be) to keep the public behind the war.

Is it specifially 'Sadam was behind 9/11, if we don't go in he'll do it again?' No. However, in harnessing the emotional response of americans to the outrageous attack, the administration has used the past as provocation to the armed response.

Was it the only justification used? No. Was it the primary justification used? No. Then why the heck did I mention it?

I mentioned it as direct reply to your question.

How does anti-American sentiment justify terrorism, murder, and bloodshed?

Anti-American sentiments don't justify terrorism. Anti-American sentiments are not used to justify terrorism. Anti-American sentiments are a good indication of when terrorism is going to occur. The justification (which I do not agree with -- the justification is in the eyes of the terrorists) is the actions and feelings that cause the anti-American sentiments. So while my question may not have been specific enough for your tastes, nor was your own.

gekko