RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


CuriousLord -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 10:18:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Isn't there some way to blame this all on Carter or maybe Kennedy?


Ah, no. Let's blame it all on Bush instead. Just easier, plus we obviously don't like him as much. Plus, we need someone to blame, right? It has to be someone's fault.


Actually, a convincing argument could be made that it was Eisenhower's fault. Nobody in this country seems to know or care what we did to Iran in 1953, but it set the tone for enduring resentment toward the U.S. All because so much of our God-given oil was inexplicably hiding under their sand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

And then Reagan helped Al Qaida get its start by funding the Mujaheddin.


Personally, I'm of the opinion that Jesus did it.




NorthernGent -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 11:28:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

Isn't there some way to blame this all on Carter or maybe Kennedy?


Ah, no. Let's blame it all on Bush instead. Just easier, plus we obviously don't like him as much. Plus, we need someone to blame, right? It has to be someone's fault.


Actually, a convincing argument could be made that it was Eisenhower's fault. Nobody in this country seems to know or care what we did to Iran in 1953, but it set the tone for enduring resentment toward the U.S. All because so much of our God-given oil was inexplicably hiding under their sand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

And then Reagan helped Al Qaida get its start by funding the Mujaheddin.


'Not just Iran......Venezuala, Brazil, The Phillipines, Iraq, Russia, Nicaragua etc

'Meddle in enough peoples' affairs, and at some point, something will come back the other way: every dog gets its day.




meatcleaver -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 12:48:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Good point.

Susan,Susan my dear.I must point out that hundreds of thousands, of Amerians have fought and died,for over 200 years, to bring these precious,unique,and awesome rights, to us.We owe it to them ,to preserve what they gave us .Otherwise,we`re dishonoring them and saying their sacrifice was meaningless.



Take away the two world wars and most American wars like most wars fought by Europeans were wars of oppression and not wars fighting for freedoms. America, despite its unwillingness to admit it, is and has been as imperial and aggressive as European powers have been in the past. The difference seems to be that Europe accepts its past has contributed to terrorism where the US refuses to accept its share of the responsibility. The first part of fighting terrorism, is understanding its causes and not making the same mistakes of the past.

It just depresses me that so many European countries have kow towed to Bush and even when they think his policies are nutty as fruitcake, have sent along a couple of stretcher bearers as moral support. No doubt that is because of investments that wealthy Europeans have. Most wars are about power and greed and 9/11 was not an isolated attack on innocent people, the first attacks on innocent people were made by the west.




Politesub53 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 3:02:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

To be fair i think the 9/11 attack took some planning. Even if Bush had continued the hunt for Bin Laden, maybe it was already too late to prevent an attack. Having said that, maybe continuing to hunt for him would have led to info that foiled the attack. Its really impossible to be sure one way or the other.


Yeah, it seems like there are so many things that a President has to keep track of that being concerned with one terrorist organization that hadn't done something like 9/11 yet in America right away after entering office, instead of everything else, would've been irresponsible.

In a way, I sort of see Bush as a doctor who lost a pacient who made a note of a minor headache to a sudden brain anerisum (however it's spelt).  I mean, sure, he had a bit of warning, but it was so vague and not exactly major that going to check for it, with all the other things his career demands, would've been wholey irresponsible.


With respect, what was vague about the following events.

Attacks on US soliers in Somalia ( After Bin Laden had been expelled from Saudia and set up base in Khartoum )

The attacks on the US Embassies In East Africa... Several hundred killed.

The bombing of the USS Cole.

The first bombing of the WTC...... I read a report that they had also planned to use a plane in this attack. but i cant recall the link.

I realise all the above were not specific regards 9/11, although i think several intelligence agencies had passed on warnings.




SusanofO -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 4:14:24 AM)

Owner59/meatcleaver/johnxinxscruz:  You took what I said out of context. I said I was not in favor of warrantless searches, but if there ever was a good reason for them, and it averted a terrorist attack, and I had to make a choice - my choice would definitely be to avert the attack and overlook the warrantless search. You act as if this has never been done before. Trust me, it has been - WWII, Vietnam, and other wars, too. In any case, it might not be right - what I said was, if it couldn't be avoided, and would avert a terrorist attack, I'd do it. Quite different (IMO) from portraying it as something I advocate under any and all conditions. And in any case -

I am pretty tired of people who can't look at the following real progress as far as catching Terrorists (below), never seem to read facts pertinent to what is actually happening when they say they claim they want to debate a topic, and toss around their opinions as if they were "the facts". Well, we all have a right to our opinions, I suppose. Just don't expect me to revere them as if they mean as much as a real fact would mean (to me).

It's fine with me if you all want to end up in a room with some Terorrist, with a gun pointed at your head, proclaiming you will never give up your right to a warrantless phone tap - just don't expect everyone else to have that same tough armor (nonsensical, depending on the situation, IMO). If you want to do it, fine with me. Just don't gamble w/my safety, thanks.

If you think I am over-reacting, well, my reasoning is that if the U.S. has caught this Terrorists and foiled this many of their plots since 9-11, it (to me) means that the Terrorists are not exactly done" being Terrorists, and are still at work. And it strikes me as somewhat more effective a response to it, than bone-headed complacency.

IMO, these Terrorist people think nothing of killing others. It's their plan. Thye have training camps that teach people how to kill us. They will die just for the opportunity to do it. If you have forgotten the horror of 9-11, you have  a very short memory.
*I do not want to discuss the war in Iraq. I already know it has zero to do with 9-11, so please don't bring it up.

In these kinds of discussions, the thing I never seem to hear is anyone who objects to "the way we are doing things" propose their own (supposedly better) plan for catching Terrorists. So, let's hear it. What is your fool-proof plan for catching Terrorists?  

It is fine for people to whine (at the same time, no less) that our "rights" out being taken away and also that Bush "didn't do enough" to prevent 9-11.

However - Since 9-11 the U.S. has been quite active in catching Terrorists - not that anyone capable of blathering on and whining about what how bad off we are here in the U.S. for pages, would ever have the energy to look it up on the Internet (which takes about 1 minute, tops). Also, these Terrorists were around long before Bush was ever President, regardless of what h could or could not have done to prevent 9-11 from happening. 

There is plenty of information on this site (below - see also the part labelled "Response to Terrorism") about exactly what the U.S. is doing to try to catch them, and listing at least 10-15 Terrorist plots the U.S. government has foiled (that could well have saved thousands of lives, and not all of them in the U.S. either, meatcleaver) since 9-11. And this is just the list until late 2005 - by now I am sure there are more.

If you find this all this work on behalf of your (and my) safety that objectionable, then maybe you should go try living in China, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan - where you'll undoubtedly be allowed tons of Internet access, religious freedoms, many of the other kinds of freedoms you've grown accustomed to, and that your heart could possibly desire.



07 October 2005
White House Issues List of 10 Foiled al-Qaida Plots
Foiled plots targeted U.S. government, tourists
In a major address outlining his strategy on the war against terrorism delivered to the National Endowment for Democracy October 6, President Bush said that 10 major al-Qaida plots were disrupted since September 11, 2001 -- two involving a plan to use commercial airliners to attack targets on the East and West Coasts of the United States. (See transcript.)
The president said the United States and its partners had also foiled at least five additional al-Qaida efforts to case potential U.S. government sites and locations frequented by tourists.

For more on U.S. policy, see Response to Terrorism. (Note: There is lots of information hereon what the U.S. is doing to stop Terrorism)

The following October 6 White House fact sheet offers background to the president's references:
(begin fact sheet)

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
October 6, 2005
Plots, Casings, And Infiltrations Referenced In President Bush's Remarks On The War On Terror
"Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least 10 serious al-Qaida terrorist plots since September 11 -- including three al-Qaida plots to attack inside the United States.  We have stopped at least five more al-Qaida efforts to case targets in the United States or infiltrate operatives into our country."
10 PLOTS


1. The West Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked airplanes.  The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 9/11.

2. The East Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States using hijacked commercial airplanes.

3. The Jose Padilla Plot: In May 2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States.  One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" in the U.S.

4. The 2004 U.K. Urban Targets Plot: In mid-2004 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom.  These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites.

5. The 2003 Karachi Plot: In the Spring of 2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack Westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.

6. The Heathrow Airport Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and several partners disrupted a plot to attack Heathrow Airport [outside London] using hijacked commercial airliners.  The planning for this attack was undertaken by a major 9/11 operational figure.

7. The 2004 U.K. Plot: In the Spring of 2004 the U.S. and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in the U.K.

8. The 2002 Arabian Gulf Shipping Plot: In late 2002 and 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al-Qa'ida operatives to attack ships in the Arabian Gulf.

9. The 2002 Straits of Hormuz Plot: In 2002 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz.

10. The 2003 Tourist Site Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States.

FIVE CASINGS AND INFILTRATIONS

1. The U.S. Government & Tourist Sites Tasking: In 2003 and 2004, an individual was tasked by al-Qa'ida to case important U.S. government and tourist targets within the United States.

2. The Gas Station Tasking: In approximately 2003, an individual was tasked to collect targeting information on U.S. gas stations and their support mechanisms on behalf of a senior al-Qa'ida planner.

3. Iyman Faris & the Brooklyn Bridge: In 2003, and in conjunction with a partner nation, the U.S. government arrested and prosecuted Iyman Faris, who was exploring the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge in New York.  Faris ultimately pleaded guilty to providing material support to al-Qa'ida and is now in a federal correctional institution.

4. 2001 Tasking: In 2001, al-Qa'ida sent an individual to facilitate post-September 11 attacks in the U.S.  U.S. law enforcement authorities arrested the individual.

5. 2003 Tasking: In 2003, an individual was tasked by an al-Qa'ida leader to conduct reconnaissance on populated areas in the U.S.
(end fact sheet)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

- Susan

[Mod Note:  images removed]





CuriousLord -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 4:21:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

To be fair i think the 9/11 attack took some planning. Even if Bush had continued the hunt for Bin Laden, maybe it was already too late to prevent an attack. Having said that, maybe continuing to hunt for him would have led to info that foiled the attack. Its really impossible to be sure one way or the other.


Yeah, it seems like there are so many things that a President has to keep track of that being concerned with one terrorist organization that hadn't done something like 9/11 yet in America right away after entering office, instead of everything else, would've been irresponsible.

In a way, I sort of see Bush as a doctor who lost a pacient who made a note of a minor headache to a sudden brain anerisum (however it's spelt).  I mean, sure, he had a bit of warning, but it was so vague and not exactly major that going to check for it, with all the other things his career demands, would've been wholey irresponsible.


With respect, what was vague about the following events.

Attacks on US soliers in Somalia ( After Bin Laden had been expelled from Saudia and set up base in Khartoum )

The attacks on the US Embassies In East Africa... Several hundred killed.

The bombing of the USS Cole.

The first bombing of the WTC...... I read a report that they had also planned to use a plane in this attack. but i cant recall the link.

I realise all the above were not specific regards 9/11, although i think several intelligence agencies had passed on warnings.


So far, the "vague" idea comes from one of the, well, conspiracy theorists here not too long back.  He cited a memo which was given to Bush, saying something along the lines of, "We have reason to believe that (it was either Bin Laden or Al Qaeda) is going to strike the US", or something like this.  It struck me as pretty vague.

Still, I say that it was vague as.. well, did anyone see 9/11 coming?  Planes being hijacked and flown into the WTC?  Were there any direct warnings along these lines?

While I love to debate things like this, the ethics and decisions and such- I'm unstudied.  So I'm pretty unaware of some of the things you mentioned.

About the "With respect, "-  It's okay, I know you're a good guy; I'll take things you say in good faith as being respectful, and I'd ask for the same privledge.




Mercnbeth -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 6:37:44 AM)

quote:

Take away the two world wars and most American wars like most wars fought by Europeans were wars of oppression and not wars fighting for freedoms.
MC,
Waking up this morning I looked at this post and thought I was in the humor section. It would be similar to saying, "take away the sun and it would be dark during the daytime."

Come on MC, using selective history is even less effective in a debate than using history in general to rationalize a position. Take away those two world wars and you'd be speaking German and most of the Pacific rim would be under a red sun flag.

It's bad enough that few point to the selective application of wanting to install "democratic principles" (whatever they are) in places like Iraq where there is oil but not in Dafur where there isn't. I no longer trust any government provided justification for intervention and have researched enough information to be confident in the position that most, if not all, current interventions are paybacks for PAC money paid to politicians. The plurality for Congressional votes is always on the side of PAC money. Once confident that issues such as Iraq spending are in the clear then the puppets are allowed to vote on the other side - but always a minority. The afterward rhetoric provides spin for the electorate fools who beleive they effected "change". Why else would a plurality, elected on an "end the war" wave not pass a simple 'no' vote on spending? One vote to stop spending and the Iraq war is over.

There is no isolation of issue and no isolated or selective history. Not that it justifies anything or supports anything going on currently but the present and near future is more relevant.




RCdc -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 7:07:17 AM)

quote:

I am pretty tired of people who can't look at the following real progress as far as catching Terrorists (below), never seem to read facts pertinent to what is actually happening <snip>


What makes me sick and 'tired' is the whole - 'it's about getting the terrorists' slant.
I smell it and I call it as it steams - .B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.
 
Explain exactly what a terrorist is without describing yourself and then tell me it's all about the 'terrorists'.[8|]
One persons terrorist is another person freedom fighter.  Bush is a terrorist, only he is on the side you(generic) support.  Say that outloud, however, and you are unpatriotic OR a terrorist - go figure.[>:]
 
Peace
the.dark.




greyarcher315 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 7:23:39 AM)

 A terrorist is someone who uses violance and the threat of violance as thier primary means of obtaining politcal goals.
  And disagreeing with Preident Bush's policies and actions does not make you unpatriotic, but claiming he's a terrorist makes you sound unreasonable. Bush is only one person in the government, and unless you want to claim the whole US government is a terrorist organisation you probably should think of some other way to describe him.
  Also, could you please tell me who's freedom BIn Laden is fighting for? just wondering.




Sinergy -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 7:27:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: greyarcher315

A terrorist is someone who uses violance and the threat of violance as thier primary means of obtaining politcal goals.



Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld all fit that description.

Sinergy




meatcleaver -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 7:52:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

There is plenty of information on this site (below - see also the part labelled "Response to Terrorism") about exactly what the U.S. is doing to try to catch them, and listing at least 10-15 Terrorist plots the U.S. government has foiled (that could well have saved thousands of lives, and not all of them in the U.S. either, meatcleaver) since 9-11. And this is just the list until late 2005 - by now I am sure there are more.




What I am saying is, when it comes to terrorism, the west saying it is an innocent victim of mindless terrorists, is like a mugger complaining he's been punched in the face by the person he attacked.

Yes, the muslim terrorists out there are mindless criminals but there is no need to look far for the criminals that helped create them.




philosophy -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 7:55:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: greyarcher315

A terrorist is someone who uses violance and the threat of violance as thier primary means of obtaining politcal goals.


...why does this not describe the actions of Bush leading up and during to the Iraq war? The war on terror is, at heart, a political goal. Bush's government have used violence and the threat of violence to prosecute said war. So, going on your own definition Bush is a terrorist. 




meatcleaver -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 8:02:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Come on MC, using selective history is even less effective in a debate than using history in general to rationalize a position. Take away those two world wars and you'd be speaking German and most of the Pacific rim would be under a red sun flag.



Germany had ran into the ground before the US joined the war. It's western front stalled because it lost the battle of Britain, its eastern front stalled because it couldn't supply its troops. Without US help the war would have fallen into a war of attrition that would have probably gone on for years or ended in a negotiated settlement but I wouldn't be speaking German.

But that is not my point, my point being that most wars fought by western powers have been wars of annexation, oppression and greed. It is not for nothing that the west have been seen historically and in many places still are, seen as oppressors or the material supporters of oppressors.




meatcleaver -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 8:06:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: greyarcher315

A terrorist is someone who uses violance and the threat of violance as thier primary means of obtaining politcal goals.


...why does this not describe the actions of Bush leading up and during to the Iraq war? The war on terror is, at heart, a political goal. Bush's government have used violence and the threat of violence to prosecute said war. So, going on your own definition Bush is a terrorist. 


This is my point.

But it is not just Bush and it is not just the US that has been guilty. The European empires preceded the American empire.




Owner59 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 8:16:42 AM)

FDR:


So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.


Sound words,especially today/




Real0ne -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 8:53:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

FDR:


So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.


Sound words,especially today/


what a war presidents pitch for more war!

yeh sound advice


"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."  --Thomas Jefferson



i suppose if victory is shoot em all dead and let god sort em out then that is a good rally call.







SugarMyChurro -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 9:20:44 AM)

"Spy Master Admits Error"
Intel czar Mike McConnell told Congress a new law helped bring down a terror plot. The facts say otherwise.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20749773/site/newsweek/

Sept. 12, 2007 - In a new embarrassment for the Bush administration's top spymaster, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is withdrawing an assertion he made to Congress this week that a recently passed electronic-surveillance law helped U.S. authorities foil a major terror plot in Germany.

-----

Of course.




RCdc -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 9:38:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: greyarcher315

A terrorist is someone who uses violance and the threat of violance as thier primary means of obtaining politcal goals.
And disagreeing with Preident Bush's policies and actions does not make you unpatriotic, but claiming he's a terrorist makes you sound unreasonable. Bush is only one person in the government, and unless you want to claim the whole US government is a terrorist organisation you probably should think of some other way to describe him.
Also, could you please tell me who's freedom BIn Laden is fighting for? just wondering.



[8|]
Peace
the.dark.




luckydog1 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 10:00:06 AM)

"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. "

FDR did say that...He also locked all the Americans of Japanese descent up in internment camps, as well as quite a few others.  So do we just care about what they say, not what they do?




Politesub53 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/13/2007 10:37:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

This is my point.

But it is not just Bush and it is not just the US that has been guilty. The European empires preceded the American empire.


Meatclever.....What about the effect that the Ottoman and Persian empires have had on the middle east and Afghanistan.

Most Western Empires, and i am assuming you mean European, had little influence in the middle east until WW1. Prior to that the Turks had held sway. Persia invaded Afghanistan in the 1700s to try and impose Shia religion on a Sunni people. What did that have to do with the west ?




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875