[Justa]

Theres a difference between someone benefitting from an act and knowing about it beforehand or even committing the act. A big difference. I'll let you consider the evidence needed to prove someone had specific apriori knowledge of any of these attacks. That's one of the lamest indictments going.

Secondly, even if prior knowledge is proven (most unlikely) that doesn't absolve the perpetrators. Should the U.S. have not made a Declaration of War against the Japanese? Should we not have liberated Kuwait? Should we not conduct the WOT?

Try your reasoning on yourself: if you failed to buckle your seatbelt before driving your car and got in an accident would you like it if your insurance agent told you they weren't going to honor the claim because by not wearing the belt it showed you had prior knowledge and therefore got in the accident on purpose? It's just stupid reasoning dude. It's wild, speculative crap. And we don't base our freedoms or our government on stupid stuff like that.

[Arator]

As my last post has been pulled, it is obvious that any further argument or discussion along these lines will not be permitted. Hence, it would be futile and pointless for me to pursue it.

Perhaps if we should meet at another forum, we could continue this exchange. Until then...