How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Pathway to 9/11   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Pathway to 9/11

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


25 posted 09-10-2006 12:18 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

What was the time interval between the first World Trade Center bombing and 9/11?

I'm sure Mike doesn't want to give Clinton credit for all those years of peace and prosperity.




That's what I said Mike -- the time interval between the first World Trade Center bombing and 9/11.  I'm totally open to including overseas terror activity during that time period in comparison against U.S. personnel deaths and injuries overseas post 9/11.  I think that would be a completely objective analysis.

You cited this sentence;

quote:

Many conservatives feel that the comparatively restrained response of the Clinton Administration, at the time embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal, which included the cruise missile strikes of Operation Infinite Reach and the arrest and prosecution of some of the perpetrators, was a factor in emboldening al Qaeda to undertake the September 11th terrorist attacks of 2001.



apparently from this article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings

which is a statement about someone's opinion.  It is a true statement because some conservatives, possibly even 'many' do FEEL that way.  That does not mean that their opinion or FEELING is a fact.  In fact, the following sentence is;

quote:

Though only pure speculation, it has also raised the political debate in the United States about whether to respond to terrorism with a military or law enforcement paradigm.



This bit of cutting and pasting puts you in the same league as your hero Michael Moore!  

You also cite this statement;

quote:

Washington’s inattentiveness towards East Africa and its insensitivity to local and regional factors helped to create conditions favorable to al Qaeda.



At last we agree that U.S. actions lead to the creation of terrorists!  

Let's go ahead and quote the follow on paragraph after your citation as well:

quote:

Al Qaeda’s list of grievances against the West included American participation in the first Gulf War, military operations in Somalia, and military involvement in Yemen. However, the United States presence in Saudi Arabia - a state that is home to a number of the holiest sites in Islam - was perhaps the focal point of al Qaeda’s anger. Permanent U.S. military installations in the region represented a lack of Saudi Arabian control over its territory and were thought to threaten the Muslim sacred cities of Mecca and Medina. Osama bin Laden believed that “the Americans were infidels and their garrisons propped up a corrupt, insufficiently Islamic Saudi elite.” As U.S. economic and political interests continued to create a greater presence in the Middle East, al Qaeda began targeting U.S. interests abroad.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


26 posted 09-10-2006 09:31 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

At last we agree that U.S. actions lead to the creation of terrorists!

You will get no argument from me there, reb. I may have some reservation of using the word "creation", since terrorists have been around in the Middle East for a good part of history but U.S. actions have certainly aimed their attention towards us.

So what should we have done? Not done anything in Somalia and Yemen? Did we arbitrarily go in there on our own, with UN approval or what? Would it have been better to do nothing so that the rest of the world could scream and condemn the US for not doing anything? Should we have stayed out of the first Gulf War and just let Hussein take over Kuwait, kill the ruling parties and absorb it? Should we have not set up bases in Saudi Arabia, a friendly and leading producer of our imported oil, with their approval?

Yes, I suppose we could have adopted a "none of my business" policy and done nothing in the Middle East or Africa at all....become complete isolationists with regards to the rest of the world. Would that have been acceptable? Should we have gogne with a "if I close my eyes you can't see me" policy? What would the world say about the United States then, this great superpower, defender of democracy then? In that case we would be villified for NOT doing anything.

Face it, LR. No matter what we did, the results would have been the same. Terrorists would have found ways to use either our actions or inactions to paint us as the enemy needed to be attacked. They are simply fashioning these actions to create their own excuses. The bottom line is that non-Muslims, non-believers, infidels are the enemy and must be destroyed, wherever they are. That is the doctrine they have presented publicly and that is the doctrine by which they lead their people and create terroristic activities.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


27 posted 09-10-2006 04:48 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

How many times do we have to go down the 'you can't criticize because you don't have anything better' path?  The question, and the answers, are undoubtedly getting a little old.

quote:

Face it, LR. No matter what we did, the results would have been the same.



I don't have to face that because it isn't true. When a cake is baked with soy flour instead of wheat flour the results are decidedly different.  

What I do accept is that if there had been no 9/11 we'd still be mired in a mess in Iraq because the Bush administration and the Neo-cons were dead set on taking military action in Iraq before 9/11 and that's all they were working on prior to 9/11.

If, however, the Supreme Court had made a different decision and Al Gore was in office -- I doubt seriously that you would disagree that things would be different right now.  We might not agree on how they would be different but-- we'd agree things would be different.  (and no, I'm not asking for a diatribe on how they would be different because we're already too far off the subject)

A 'none of my business' policy in the Middle East is hardly the solution -- the solution is to partner with the Middle Eastern societies (instead of the corrupt regimes) to cut off the supply of recruits to the terrorist organizations.  There's nothing we're ever going to do to convert OBL from his evil ways -- but we can and must convince the 12 year olds in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and other Arab states et al that the OBL rainbow doesn't have a pot of gold at the end.

Even more important is to foster an understanding and respect for Arab and Moslem culture.  This is an area where the Democrats even fail in this country -- and one of the reasons why the Republicans win elections off of votes from common people who wind up voting against their own economic interest because the Democrat 'elitists' look down their noses at the 'Wal Mart culture'.  

We specifically didn't need to and shouldn't have set up permanent bases in Saudi Arabia.  We had the capacity to set up very close off shore and could have defended the oil wells just as easily without offending the Saudi and Moslem world with the presence of infidels on holy land.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


28 posted 09-10-2006 05:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

How many times do we have to go down the 'you can't criticize because you don't have anything better' path?  The question, and the answers, are undoubtedly getting a little old.

I honestly have no idea what that statement is supposed to mean nor do I recognize any specific "path" I was trying to go down. It was an attempt on my part at normal conversation. I see nowhere where I was criticizing anyone by that last comment. Our Middle Eastern policy has been that way for decades, over a variety of presidents. Sorry if it's getting old to you, LR.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


29 posted 09-11-2006 01:23 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I'm just curious if anyone watched "9/11" on CBS last night, which I watched as an alternative to the ABC dramatization.

It is a most emotional, tear-jerking documentary which features mostly real, raw footage of escape and rescue efforts during and in the aftermath of September 11th. It's not politicized; it's all simply about seeing 9/11 through the eyes of some of the 343 firefighters who died that day, and a man with a camera.

Though I have always understood that when things incinerate the fires can completely consume almost anything, I was shocked to learn that you couldn't find any desks, any chairs, almost anything in the mountains of rubble and debris, and in fact the only part of a phone one rescue operator found was a strand of plate. And during the first 24 hours of rescue efforts, only one individual was saved.

I understand the documentary has gotten criticism for some instances of profanity among firefighters in the footage, but it certainly doesn't take away that this is a pure and enthralling production, and I certainly couldn't blame anyone, especially those feet from Ground Zero, for cursing that day, with the instances of profanity still rather modest as it is in the production.  

Absolutely heartaching to watch, yet beautiful all the same, and I absolutely loved the update for this year as well, as well as the conclusion that featured photographs of every one of the rescuers who lost their lives this day, arranged in sets of four on American flags.

Bless them all this day.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


30 posted 09-16-2006 02:15 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=9705

It seems nobody should get a pass.

quote:
Why were Bush's neocon security advisers so insouciant about terrorism? They were still fighting the last war. Obsessed over Russia, China, Iraq and missile defense, the cold warriors refused to give an audience to the career White House security experts who presciently warned about the new greater threat from al-Qaeda terrorists.

The White House before 9/11 held some 100 Cabinet meetings on Iraq, Russia, missile defense and other Bush-41 hobbyhorses, and only one on terrorism. Rice insists al-Qaeda was priority No. 1, but a speech she'd planned to deliver on Sept. 11, 2001, contained no mention of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic terrorists. The focus of the policy speech, before the neocon School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was missile defense, and not of the passenger airliner variety.

In fact, Rice overlooked al-Qaeda in every public speech she made between Jan. 20, 2001, and Sept. 11, 2001, a Nexis search reveals. Even stretching all the way back to early 1993, when the World Trade Center was first hit, Rice mentions al-Qaeda not a single time in any speech, article or media interview.

By comparison, she cites Iraq more than 1,000 times from 1993 to 2001.

And the same misguided set of priorities were in place over at the Pentagon in the run-up to 9/11. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his neoconspirators were just as stuck in the Cold War. Al-Qaeda hardly registered on their radar screen, either – even though the attack on the Cole was arguably an act of war. Al-Qaeda killed 17 U.S. sailors and injured more than 30 while nearly sinking a Navy destroyer anchored in the port of Aden, Yemen. Yet there was no response from the Pentagon at all.


The article continues to point out that administrations and often enough generals tend to start a new war by fighting the last one.

I think they fight and continue to fight the wrong one.

Nothing seems to hold the Right's attention except attacking those who, well, aren't on the Right.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


31 posted 09-23-2006 09:32 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

interesting bit of info I stumbled across..how sad that this could have prevented so much.

2000 al-Qaeda Summit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The 2000 al-Qaeda Summit was a meeting of several high-level al-Qaeda members held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The meeting was held in the hotel room of Yazid Sufaat, a former army captain and businessman, in a hotel in Kuala Lumpur. The meeting lasted from January 5 to January 8, 2000. The summit's purpose was allegedly to plan future terrorist attacks, which apparently included the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and the 9/11 plot. The attendance consisted of Arab veterans of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, including Hambali, Ramzi Binalshibh, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar, and Tawfiq bin Attash.

Before the meeting, the United States intercepted a telephone call to Yemen by al-Mihdhar concerning arrangements for the trip. Osama bin Laden had called that number dozens of times. By request of the CIA, the Malaysian authorities videotaped the meeting, but no sound recordings were made. The men were also photographed when they came out of the meeting. U.S. investigators did not identify these men until much later. That Binalshibh attended the meeting was discovered by the investigators by looking into his credit card records. Sufaat was later arrested, but he denied that he knew any of the men and told that Hambali had arranged the meeting.


All they needed was to record the sound and so much could have been avoided.

(maybe it was illegal to do so?)
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Pathway to 9/11   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors