5 terror attacks in 2 days

[quade 3]

Check it out . . .

http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[freeflir29 0]

Funny...but VERY untrue. There are DAILY threats. period.

[quade 3]

Quote

So it's not like they need a genious to run things.

No, not a genius, but certainly somebody with an imagination that goes beyond the traditional thinking of our security people.

The reason the attacks of September 11th were so successful is that nobody in our government had the imagination to think of that as a real possibility. The planning and implementation fo the attack was simple and very effective and that took one hell of a lot of imagination on their part to carry out.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Zenister 0]

and have been for quite some time..

the elevated alert level is a security blanket for the sheep to feel safer, it doesnt do much more to increase security than make everyones lives more annoying..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[SkyDekker 1,145]

very funny Quade

Clay:

I once again agree with you and once again I state, all the more reason to keep hunting them down.

[falxori 0]

Quote

Basically we have cut off the original heads of AQ. The problem is...new ones are springing up every day.

very true, and not only in AQ case, so what do you do?
find a way to make them think terror will not gain them anything...
any ideas?

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

So it's not like they need a genious to run things.

No, not a genius, but certainly somebody with an imagination that goes beyond the traditional thinking of our security people.

The reason the attacks of September 11th were so successful is that nobody in our government had the imagination to think of that as a real possibility. The planning and implementation fo the attack was simple and very effective and that took one hell of a lot of imagination on their part to carry out.

not really there were several threat assessments before that pointed out the possibility and it wasnt that imaginative at all. Government rarely thinks 'outside the box' until forced to do so and after a few months that flexibility hardens again into predicatible patterns.

nothing the terrorists have done of late has been creative or innovative we've just been unprepared and complacent.. i can think of lots of way in which we are still very vulnerable, but no one really wants to listen.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 2,434]

>In any event, funding for OBL/AQ cannot, imo, be attributed directly
> to Reagan only.

I agree; Reagan simply provided the funding to a terrorist group of which OBL and Al Qaeda was a later offshoot.

> Considering the amount of attacks during Clinton's
> years in office, and his several opportunities (and his refusal of said
> opportunities) to capture/apprehend him, I would say that far more
> liability lands on Clinton's head than can be laid on GWB.

I suppose we will disagree here. I would argue that someone who helps create a terrorist bears more responsibility for his existence than someone who simply fails to capture him.

Let me ask you this from the other direction - let's say Hussein gave billions in money and weapons to a terrorist group and an offshoot of that later group pulled off 9/11. Al-Assad (president of Syria) had a chance to capture those terrorists in 2000 but didn't because he didn't want to risk pissing them off. Who, in your view, would hold more responsibility for 9/11 - Hussein or Al-Assad?

[Michele 1]

Bill, with all due respect, I think you missed the point.

Billions were given to the ISI, who then passed it on to several different groups, among them the MAK. AQ was an offshoot begun as a split in ideological issues, and established in 1988 (will 2x check that when I have my notes handy). Therefore, AQ didn't exist until 1988 (or thereabouts), and so no funding could've come their way because they didn't even exist.

As I said in my previous post, the funding was a foreign policy decision, made by Carter originally, and increased by Reagan, as a direct response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan at a time when the Cold War was on (but being won).

Now, as you and I may have a fundamental disagreement on that point, let me ask you something else in a different way.

If someone had the opportunity to apprehend a mass murderer, one folks had been warned about for many years, and declined to apprehend that person, is he not more culpable for the resultant issues then someone who never had the chance? Is there more responsibility placed on someone who never had an opportunity to catch the bad guy over the person who could've done so (not once or twice - but four times...)?

And were you able to get that quote? I know you're jumping, but I would really be interested in that. Thanks again!

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 2,434]

> Is there more responsibility placed on someone who never had an
>opportunity to catch the bad guy over the person who could've done
> so (not once or twice - but four times...)?

More blame would be placed on the person who armed the murderer's gang and gave them their first targets than on the person who tried, but failed, to stop him - even if he had four chances to try and only availed himself of one. At the time, people were claiming that Clinton was trying to kill Bin Laden to distract people from the Lewinsky saga; that may have stayed his hand even further in the future.

From the Washington Post, via Snopes:
-------------
In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation -- from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed -- he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier -- recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.
---------------

>And were you able to get that quote? I know you're jumping, but I
> would really be interested in that. Thanks again!

Original came from Dan Perkins' blog. (www.thismodernworld.com; quote would be in the blog archive.) He's opinionated but usually gets quotes right. I did a search and got 120 hits for that exact quote, on everything from a newspaper in Bend, Oregon to "Human Beans" magazine whatever that is. So it's either a quote or a very persistent (and consistent from site to site) urban myth. It's not in Snopes.

In any case I will henceforth change my usage of that quote (since it isn't substantiated, in its entirety, by any very reliable sources) to:

"So I don't know where he is. I just don't spend that much time on him . . . I truly am not that concerned about him." -George W Bush, 3/13/02

Fair?

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Then why do you figure he said that doing that just isn't a priority?

Sometimes the best way to get a someone like this is to let him believe we've moved on, let him drop his guard and nail his a$$.

[Michele 1]

Quote

Fair?

Good deal.

Quote

More blame would be placed on the person who armed the murderer's gang and gave them their first targets than on the person who tried, but failed, to stop him

O.K., so let me change the circumstances to a less complicated scenario for a moment.

Your position is the cop, knowing where a murderer is, having the ability to go and arrest him, and yet not apprehending him, is actually less responsible than the gun manufacturer who made the gun 12 years before, and who sold the gun legally to another person, who then sold the gun to the murderer?

Does that translate to your position? (and no, I am not trying to bring in a gun debate - it's just the only example I can think of right now!)

Quote

At the time, people were claiming that Clinton was trying to kill Bin Laden to distract people from the Lewinsky saga; that may have stayed his hand even further in the future.

Maybe it did. And maybe he didn't realize the danger. If memory serves (again, I am working noteless) when the Saudi government asks if you want this guy, and you say no, I just have a sincere difficulty understanding that. Call me simplistic, or naive...but that really was a dropping of the ball, irrespective of the reasons given.

If you are excusing Clinton because there was an outcry - a "Wag the Dog" (and yes, I remember that well), all you are indicating is that he didn't have the moral ability to do what was right regardless of his poll numbers and public perception, and yes, I think there is even more culpability contained therein, as well.

I have never said Reagan didn't contribute to the making of OBL and AQ; what I have said is that the contributions began as far back as Carter, continued through Reagan and Bush Sr, began to manifest itself in attacks during the Clinton administration, and has progressed from there to what we have today.

And I will reiterate that AQ was not established until 1988, and did not begin their attacks until shortly thereafter.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So it's not like they need a genious to run things.

No, not a genius, but certainly somebody with an imagination that goes beyond the traditional thinking of our security people.

The reason the attacks of September 11th were so successful is that nobody in our government had the imagination to think of that as a real possibility. The planning and implementation fo the attack was simple and very effective and that took one hell of a lot of imagination on their part to carry out.

not really there were several threat assessments before that pointed out the possibility and it wasnt that imaginative at all. Government rarely thinks 'outside the box' until forced to do so and after a few months that flexibility hardens again into predicatible patterns.

nothing the terrorists have done of late has been creative or innovative we've just been unprepared and complacent.. i can think of lots of way in which we are still very vulnerable, but no one really wants to listen.

Being in a state of permanent war is a godsend to an administration (as George Orwell observed in 1948). Not only does it keep your support up, but it allows you to run roughshod over the Constitution and the apologists defend you. Has anyone read Patriot Act II? Scary stuff.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,148]

Quote

Your position is the cop, knowing where a murderer is, having the ability to go and arrest him, and yet not apprehending him, is actually less responsible than the gun manufacturer who made the gun 12 years before, and who sold the gun legally to another person, who then sold the gun to the murderer?

To me, the position is the person (not cop), thinking he knows knows where that person might be, not going to his house and shooting him up, should have done so.

The US is not the world's cop. It's not our job. And if we turn into the world's cop, then if we never ever mess up, we're OK. But if we do, then there's a world of hurt to pay. Vigilante justice is good only as long as it works.

Consider the backlash when Clinton did try to root out Bin Laden -- all the jokes about "Wag the Dog." And we didn't get him (hindsight, of course, shows how unbelievably stupid all Democrats are all the time -- Michele, by the way -- this particular aside is not directed at you).

It's not surprising that, since the US didn't consider itself to be the world's cop in the 1990's they didn't keep trying. Really. Especially since the penalty for screwing up came from inside and outside.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,434]

>Your position is the cop, knowing where a murderer is, having the
> ability to go and arrest him, and yet not apprehending him, is
> actually less responsible than the gun manufacturer who made the
> gun 12 years before, and who sold the gun legally to another
> person, who then sold the gun to the murderer?

If the gun manufacturer intentionally gave guns to the gang so they could go and kill a bunch of people - and helped train the gang to do just that - they bear more responsibility than the cop who tried once to catch him, actually fired on him - but missed.

>Call me simplistic, or naive...but that really was a dropping of the
>ball, irrespective of the reasons given.

Agreed.

>If you are excusing Clinton because there was an outcry - a "Wag
> the Dog" (and yes, I remember that well), all you are indicating is
> that he didn't have the moral ability to do what was right regardless
> of his poll numbers. . .

Not at all; Clinton should have done more, despite the cries of republicans that he should do less. His acts (increase in anti-terror spending, the omnibus anti-terror bill of 1995, his one attempt to kill Bin Laden) did not go far enough. Neither, so far, have Bush's. Both presidents took action to try to stop Bin Laden. Clinton failed in eight years; Bush has so far failed, but he's got another five or six years to go. I hope he succeeds where Clinton failed. Until he does, I hope he places more importance on finding Bin Laden than some of his words might indicate.

I think it's sort of a shame that whenever there is a criticism of Bush, the near-immediate reply is "Yeah, well, Clinton was lying down on the job/getting blowjobs/a lying SOB!" I think it's possible that both democratic and republican presidents screw up. Both republicans and democrats can (and have been) 'soft on terror.' When discussing the future, it's more important to make sure we don't make the same mistakes over and over, rather than proving that one side is better than the other. I think it's regrettable that so much political debate boils down to this.

And I regret that the actions of a previous president made it such an issue. THAT's a mistake I hope we can avoid repeating.

[quade 3]

Let's also not forget that until September 11th, Bin Laden was mostly only thought to be dangerous to us, but on that date it was pretty much proven.

So, Clinton may have gotten a bit of resistance from the Republicans because of that, whereas Bush has virtually nobody opposing his efforts in the U.S. government.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Let's also not forget that until September 11th, Bin Laden was mostly only thought to be dangerous to us, but on that date it was pretty much proven.

I recall a speech from DCI George Tenet in 1999 stating, "International terrorism, both on its own and in conjunction with narcotics traffickers, international criminals and those seeking weapons of mass destruction. You need go no further than Usama Bin Ladin...."

It sucks when people don't listen.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 3]

And that's a fine statement by the DCI, but there was very little thought about Bin Laden in the mind of the American public -- therefor not huge outcry and no politcal gain in funding his capture.

Now there is.

Further, it's entirely possible that had GWB not won the election that the attacks of September 11th never would have been carried out. Remember that this is all a very personal thing for these people and the Bush family carries a hatered in that part of the world that, like it or not, the Gore family doesn't have.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gawain 0]

I don't think the election would've mattered. IIRC, reports indicated nearly two years of planning for the 9/11 attacks. GWB was in office for less than 9 months.

Regardless of that, I wholly disagree with your theory about the attack not occurring at all if Gore were in office. The Clinton administration did little to position itself any more favorably with that region. I'm not saying they were wrong by any stretch, if anything I feel they should have done more. Simply citing that in terms of pure policy, Gore would've been a more appealing target for UBL due to actions (or lack thereof) of the previous eight years.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 3]

I mearly said it was possible.

Had the Iraqi government had a change in its' Administration, we may have never attacked them. I see it as being simply the other side of the coin.

Lots of plans are made many years in advance and never carried out. We'll never know if the attacks of September 11th would have been called off for a different Administration -- I think it's interesting to ponder though.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I mearly said it was possible.

Had the Iraqi government had a change in its' Administration, we may have never attacked them. I see it as being simply the other side of the coin.

I don't think it was that simple, but even if it was, it's still not an apples-to-apples comparison. A change in our political leadership happens every four years. A change in political leadership in the middle east requires a death, revolution or passing of power from one authority to another. In Saddam's case, that would've been his son. In the event of the whole family getting nixxed, the void would've been filled immediately by Iranian influences.

US actions in the region were inevitable in almost every scenario.

The Iraqis wouldn't get a vote. Neither would the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians, Kuwaitis...ad infinitum.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rgoper 0]

Quote

I don't think the election would've mattered. IIRC, reports indicated nearly two years of planning for the 9/11 attacks. GWB was in office for less than 9 months.

Regardless of that, I wholly disagree with your theory about the attack not occurring at all if Gore were in office.

this is killing me, but i gotta go with Quade on this one. the 09/11 incident was planned and organized strictly to slap Wyatt Sr. in the face through Wyatt Jr. i've heard too much "scuttlebutt" overseas to believe otherwise. let's be honest with each other, it doesn't take 2 years to conjure up a plan of this type, it could have been carried out at any time, under any administration.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[Michele 1]

Hi, quade...

Quote

Let's also not forget that until September 11th, Bin Laden was mostly only thought to be dangerous to us, but on that date it was pretty much proven.

OBL was placed on the FBI's Most Wanted list June 07, 1999. If there was ample enough evidence at that point, it had been known for many years that OBL was a significant danger. By the time he had been placed on the list, AQ/OBL was known for the following:

~ 1993: Bin-Ladin was involved in operations against US troops in Somalia (Blackhawk Down).
~ 1993 (February) thought to have been involved in some of the planning of the first WTC bombing.
~ 1995 it is thought that OBL financed something called a "Gulf Battalion" organized by the IGR (Iranian Guards of the Revolution). It seems OBL had convinced Yemeni Sheik Abd-al-Majid al-Zandani to strategically position troops of the "Gulf Battalion" in al-Zandani's camps in Yemen for rapid use in Gulf countries when circmustances permited.
~ 1996 OBL is suspected by the US of being responsible for bomb attacks on American troops in Dharan, Saudi Arabia.
~ In mid-1996 a meeting of various leaders gatehred by OBL obtained an agreement "to use force to confront all foreign forces stationed on Islamic land," and to form a planning committee of sorts.
~ 1996 (August) OBL publically issued his fatwah "Declaration of War" against the United States.
~ 1996 (November) while denying culpability, he praised the bombings in Riyadh and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and promised other attacks would follow. He finally admitted the Blackhawk Down attacks on U.S. military personnel in Somalia and Yemen, declaring that "we used to hunt them down in Mogadishu".
~ 1997 (February)OBL states in a broadcast interview that "if someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters."
~ 1998 (February) OBL announces the new alliance of terrorist organizations, the "International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders." The Front included the Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Harakat ul-Ansar, among other groups. The Front declared its intention to attack Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world, as well as our allies.
~ 1998 (May) he stated at a press conference in Afghanistan that we would see the results of his threats "in a few weeks."
~ 1998 in August orchestrated bombings of the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed at least 301 individuals and injured more than 5,000 others (here's his "few weeks").


Additionally, he has been implicated in teh following plans which were either interrupted or stopped somehow.
~ 1994 Pope john Paul assassination during his visit to Manila
~ 1995 President Clinton assassination during Philippines visit
~ 1995 "Project Bojinka" discovered in Manila; designed to bomb in midair US trans-Pacific flights (sound familiar?) (remind me to someday tell you about the guy who ran this one...interesting link to WTC 93...)
~ 1999, New Years Eve bomb Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. (bad guy was arrested crossing the boarder several days earlier...)
Also plotted to carry out terrorist operations against US and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations in late 1999.

Quote

Clinton may have gotten a bit of resistance from the Republicans because of that, whereas Bush has virtually nobody opposing his efforts in the U.S. government.

I don't think it was resistence he got from republicans; his omnibus act in 1995 was thwarted by pressure from the ACLU, claiming it would inhibit constitutional rights, and so forth. And yes, I honestly think he honestly thought we were not in such great danger; the economy was booming, we had never (prior to 1995) had a terrorist attack of any sizeable impact on our soil, and the public had its' head up its' a$$ as a general whole. However, that is not what the president is there for - he is there to ascertain dangers and handle issues...and Clinton did neither, despite pressure from many areas (as Gawain pointed out). When presented with opportunities, he did nothing - with the exception of one single attack which garnered nothing. And in his doing nothing, it allowed OBL/AQ the thought that they could go bigger, without consequence. Thus, 9/11/01.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[TheAnvil 0]

THE ANVIL RETURNS to the thread

Darn. Have a rough bit of work - not done yet - and look what happens. The thread takes on a new life.

I agree that it was a lack of imagination on the part of the government, but not on the part of the Al Quaida jerkoffs. Remember that book by Clancy where the Japanese dude flies the airliner right into the capitol building in DC and takes it out during the President's state of the union? I'm amazed there weren't defenses atop the Pentagon and the White House within months of that being published.

On to further posts......

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 2,434]

>I don't think it was resistence he got from republicans;

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congressional efforts to draft new anti-terrorism legislation before the August recess at the end of the week collapsed Thursday night in a partisan stalemate. But lawmakers said there is hope for agreement after the monthlong break.
. . .
Conservative House members had demanded that people under investigation by law authorities be able to sue individual officers for wrongful collection of private information.
. . . .
President Clinton has urged Congress to take quick action, because of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta and the crash of TWA Flight 800, suspected to have been caused by a bomb.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/01/wh.terror.bill/index.html