0
falxori

5 terror attacks in 2 days

Recommended Posts

Oh, I agree that the idea is similar and the book may have in fact been the source of the idea, but then again, ideas are a dime a dozen. What I was talking about was how to actually go about doing it. Finding the right people, getting them trained in our system, using simple flight sims to train them. It took a heck of a lot more than just coming up with the idea of doing the attacks and at every level they took some pretty imaginative steps to pull it off. They also made some bonehead moves, but since they really weren't worried about covering their tracks it didn't matter.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Bill)
Quote

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.


Do you really think so?

In this situation, the "gang" (AQ/OBL) didn't exist. MAK existed. In 1989, when Azzam was assassinated in a car bomb, there was a fundamental ideology split between MAK (which existed) and OBL, who took some members and left. Granted, OBL had a hand in the development of MAK and it's existence, but he was not the head guy. The "gang", as you put it, only existed after 1988, and by then, Reagan was out of office. If you look at the timeline I put in my response to quade, you will see when AQ became very active - and that was after Gulf War 1. Further, it was the non-response of Clinton to known attacks that allowed OBL, imo, to gather more and more strength. He solidified his alliances, created funding sources, and garnered recruitment during that time. Thus a fullfledged terrorist parastate was developed and born.

I think that, instead of money, there are other issues which need addressing. For instance, if someone gave me millions of dollars, I am not likely to become a terrorist; nor you, nor anyone I know. Therefore, there is a fundamental issue which is not being addressed, and focussing simply on money is not the answer. Identifying, preventing and stern consequences may yeild far more than just looking to see who was in office at which time. After all, it began with Carter...who is considered a very peaceful man by all accounts.

Quote

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.


Again, I don't think we can lay this at any single party's feet. It spans decades, and at least 4 administrations (2 democratic, 2 republican). However, I do think that, having had the opportunities where others did not Clinton should said "damn the polls, I have to get this vile man...". He didn't...and because of his ineffective single attempt, OBL and AQ saw an opportunity to strike at us without consequence. I have long held that 9/11 was a crisis Clinton longed for - his personality is best suited for that, moreso than Bush. However, it occurred on Bush's watch, rather than Clinton's. Bush has the opportunity which had presented itself in a far smaller way to Clinton. And Bush is doing something about it. Clinton didn't.

Quote

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!"


And I think it's a shame, too. I also think it's a shame that republicans are being blamed for the creation of OBL...fankly, I think a guy can get laid and still do his job...it's just that Clinton didn't do his job, irrespective of where his pecker was. He just didn't do his job.

Quote

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.


Why is it a pity that a debate boils down to responsibility? If I am tasked on handling a situation, understanding how it occurred in the first place is paramount. In that way, we can prevent it from occuring again. Any of the incidents posts and resultant discussion is exactly that - learning from the past, so as not to repeat it. Honestly, this has been an interesting exchange, and I understand your position more. I hope you've learned more from me, as well. And I have been thinking that my next project will be how does one become a terrorist, what motivations/conditions/attitudes must occur with which sort of personality so that I can understand how this happens better. So how is this bad?

Quote

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.


Hear, hear!

Ciels-
Michele


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the bill actually discussed herein, but the gist of this article seems to indicate that the Republicans weren't opposed to the wiretaps themselves. It seems that they were against individuals being deprived of the right to sue law enforcement officers for improperly collecting private information as a result of the aforementioned wiretaps.

I HATE the disaster that the tort system has become, but can see their point. I don't think the mere collection of private info accidentally should be grounds for a lawsuit, but the USE of such info in an improper/inappropriate or criminal manner would be grounds for launching a lawsuit.

;)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, the ACLU opposed this act pretty strongly.

Excepted:
The American Civil Liberties Union opposes this legislation. We urge members of the House to vote against H.R. 1710. Instead of being a tool to prevent "another Oklahoma City" the portions of the legislation that violate civil liberties have little to do with preventing such a bombing attack in the future. They are instead a collection of measures--many of which have been offered before--attached to legislation promulgated as anti-terrorism legislation. Indeed, much of the bill is little more than a number of misguided immigration restrictions totally unrelated to terrorism.
Now, I know situations are fluid, but it wasn't simply the republicans who stood "in the way"...

Further reading on the analysis of this bill by David Cole, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center here

Excepted:
...it also prohibits a wide range of
First Amendment protected activities, resurrects "guilt by association"
as a guiding principle of criminal and immigration law, and creates an
unprecedented "alien terrorist removal procedure" that would deny
immigrants the most basic of due process protections -- the right to
confront the evidence the government seeks to use against one. This
memorandum briefly addresses those provisions of the bill that raise
the gravest civil liberties concerns.


Both of these positions mirror your own difficulties to the Patriot Act passed last year...and I somehow doubt you are a republican ;).

Ciels-
Michele



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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Both of these positions mirror your own difficulties to the Patriot Act passed last year...and I somehow doubt you are a republican ;).



Not yet he's not. We're wearing him down slowly but surely. He's just delaying the inevitable.....hehehehehe

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Now, I know situations are fluid, but it wasn't simply the republicans
>who stood "in the way"...

It was congressional republicans who stopped the bill. The ACLU may not have liked it, but they have no direct power to stop the bill. The republicans do (and they stopped it.)

>Both of these positions mirror your own difficulties to the Patriot Act
>passed last year...and I somehow doubt you are a republican

Yep; I didn't like this act either. As I am often accused here of being a lefty, and have been accused of being a right-wing idiot on environmental BBSes, I've given up trying to define my positions into any single category. A treehugger in one guy's book is a right wing idiot in someone else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morning, Bill...

Quote

t was congressional republicans who stopped the bill.



The original bill was submitted to the Senate and passed 91-8 (July 7, 1995). It went over to Congress, was defeated originally, modifed, resubmitted, and in March, 1996 the modified bill was voted on and passed 229-191 (close indeed). I don't have the breakdown of D/R in the 104th Congress right at hand, so I can't tell if it went exactly on party lines or not. In any event, a version of the Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act was passed at that time. The first version of it was not passed by congress, but stating that nothing was passed even though Clinton tried and was defeated by the republicans is not exactly accurate.

If anyone wants to read the bill which was passed in March 1996, here is the link. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/s735.htm

As to which party anyone belongs to, I frankly don't really care. I have certain aspects of my beliefs which mirror republican ideology, some which mirror democratic ideology, and some which mirror neither.

Ciels-
Michele


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>And Bush is doing something about it. Clinton didn't.

Uh, Clinton tried and failed. Bush tried and failed. Al Qaeda is still killing Americans. Bush has the rest of his term(s) to succeed, but so far they're both batting zero when it comes to getting Bin Laden.

I think so far Bush's greatest success on that front has been assembling a coalition of nations willing to help us fight terror. Over 50% of the Al Qaeda higher-ups we have gotten have been arrested/killed by non-US forces. After 9/11 it seemed like the world was with us. That's fading now with the anti-US hatred our latest war has spawned in the Middle East; I hope he can get it back. That's pretty much our only chance to bring down Al Qaeda.

>Why is it a pity that a debate boils down to responsibility?

It is a pity that a debate boils down to the republicans defending republicans and the democrats defending democrats. As I said, look at all the threads which begin with either a complaint or praise of Bush, to which the response is "Yeah, well, Clinton sucked! (or was great.)" There is a bit more to learning from the past than that.

Note I am not claiming that you're doing that, but you have to admit that's where most of the political discussions here go.

Often, arguments here remind me of that famous Simpsons episode where aliens kidnap Bob Dole and Clinton, kill them both, and take their place. Their ruse is revealed, but they say "Ha! There is nothing you can do! In your two-party system, you must vote for one of us, and we will _both_ enslave you!"

Fast forward a year, and humanity is enslaved. Homer says "Don't blame me, I voted for the other one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. The ACLU is a powerful voice in the democratic party. Over the past ten years the tenor and direction of their arguments has become increasingly radical, so I tend to ignore them a lot more than I used to. However, when they speak, democrats listen. Always. They might not agree or take what action they recommend, but listen they do.

moon pies,

Vinny the Anvil
;)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Note I am not claiming that you're doing that, but you have to admit that's where most of the political discussions here go.


Yes, some might go there, and then again, there are posts in this thread that verge on being personal attacks (or are actually those, instead). But reasonable discussion promotes reasonable response...and an area within which to look at the entire picture (such as Carter originating funding, the passage of the omnibus bill in 1996, etc.). And to be totally honest and fair, I have placed blame on Clinton, as you have placed blame on Reagan.

Quote

Uh, Clinton tried and failed. Bush tried and failed.


Clinton had 8 years to pursue AQ...and failed miserably in total. Bush has had less than 2 years, and has succeeded admirably in many areas of the fight. Literally, in less then 25% of the same time allocated to Clinton, he has made a 50% increase on the goal. I'd say that's pretty impressive. If he does it singlehandedly or by putting a coalition together is not the question to me...it's the progress on debilitating AQ to such a degree as to ameliorate or eliminate the threat they pose.

Going back to the original issue, AQ has cells in place (and has had them for years) in many different countries. If you cut a worm in half, it grows again and in fact you double the worm count. But if you keep working, keep handling the worm, expose them to sun, etc. they die. So, it would seem, it is the same with AQ.

I have no doubt that we will be attacked again, and likely here (in the US). I also think that there is a note of desperation in the latest AQ audio tape, and that while there will be answers to that particular call to arms, I don't necessarily think they will be on the order of 9/11 (and I could be wrong). I believe the worm to be dying, I suppose, not because I've been told so by folks, but because of what I see, read, and hear (which is extensive).

Focus should now go towards preventing the ideology which creates terrorism as an answer in the first place (and no, I am not specifically targeting any one ideology in particular). I said it before, and I will say it again...throwing money at me, you, or any of the folks I know will NOT create terrorism (at any point in my life it would not have occurred...). So, what does, in fact, create terrorism? That is the question I think needs to be addressed now.

Quote

It is a pity that a debate boils down to the republicans defending republicans and the democrats defending democrats


But....but...it doesn't always. If one really looks at some statements, what one sees is the human nature of "hey, I can't have the blood of thousands of people on my hands. I can't live with that. Therefore I will point the finger elsewhere". And that, Bill, is human nature and to be expected. However, like I've said above, there is responsibility and "blame" to be spread amongst both parties, although I do see it more on Clinton than on Carter, Reagan, Bush or Bush. That is my assessment of the situation, from a position of reading, searching, looking, and thinking about it...not party lines.

(And I'm sorry, but I don't watch the Simpsons, so I don't really get your reference to it.).

Ciels-
Michele


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Clinton had 8 years to pursue AQ...and failed miserably in total. Bush has had less than 2 years, and has succeeded admirably in many areas of the fight. Literally, in less then 25% of the same time allocated to Clinton, he has made a 50% increase on the goal. I'd say that's pretty impressive.



Michelle,

You have to admit though that the political climates are completely different. Do you really think Bush would have steered the same course if September 11, 2001 had not happened?

To me this is comparing apples to oranges. I am not defending either with this point, just trying to indicate that it is not a fair comparison IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SkyDekker I'm putting on extra socks here in a minute because Hell has frozen right over - we agree! :D:D:D

11 Sep changed the course of the Bush presidency entirely. It made him compeletely reshape his foreign policy, create an entire new department (don't agree with that), and alter his domestic policy as well in many many respects. Like 7 Dec 1941, 11 Sep 2001 will be a date remembered by all.

I am pretty sure that Bush would have acted differently than El Jefe Clintonista with regards to dealing with terrorists and other little noids of foreign policy, but definitely NOT in the manner he did after 9/11. No question there.

I do think Clinton was the worst president of the 20th century followed closely by Carter - even though both did some good for the nation during their term in office. I think the absolute WORST thing he could have done with regards to terrorists is give Yassar Arafat so much credibility as a leader in the civilized world. Arafat should be tried and executed for his roles in the Israeli Olympic massacre in Munich and the assassination of the US charge d'affairs in Khartoum among many many other crimes. Disgusting.

Now for those socks......(kidding of course)

Vinny the Anvil
:P

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You have to admit though that the political climates are completely different


I concur wholeheartedly.

I really don't know if there would've been any action taken, and in time I might have had the same complaints about Bush as I do about Clinton's inaction. Sadly, 9/11 did occur. And that's the reality of the situation, and so I make my comparisons from that perspective.

Ciels-
Michele


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woodrow Wilson.....hmmm.....he DID give us the Eighteenth Ammendment, which in turn gave us Ted 'The Bottle' Kennedy.....

No dude, I'd really have to put him ahead of both Carter and El Jefe Clintonista. Even though I'm a devout beer drinker and detest Ted Kennedy, I don't put Wilson behind these two. Wilson's administration did see the beginning of direct election of Senators and Women's Suffrage - both of which I wholeheartedly support. I also think that though the League of Nations was a failure and the UN is following it into irrelevance, the idea of an open forum for nations to discuss their differences is good in principle.

Wilson was also a real leader - from everything I've read about the man, unlike Clinton or Carter. Carter's "...the country is in a malaise and I don't know what to do about it..." coupled with his traitorous decision not to allow breeder reactors (he's a nuclear engineer and DAMNED well knew better) and many other things put him well below Wilson. Clinton's multitude of scandals, inept foreign policy, giving credibility to Arafat, loathing of the military, perjury, and many other reasons make him the lowest on the totem pole in my book.

Back to Wilson, though, you CAN make a strong argument that he's the worst. 18th ammendment aside, his ludicrous views of submarine warfare prior to WWI and his views on the Versailles Treaty were bungling at its best/worst. I can see why you bring him up, but he's still down there - my own two cents.

Beers,

Vinny
;)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I can't find the statistic, but it was reported fairly widely, terrorist attacks last year were down.



I happen to have the statistics at the house. This is from the US Department of State "Patterns of Global Terrorism" 2001 and 2002 editions.

2001 Total International Attacks 348
2002 Total International Attacks 199
2001 Total International Deaths 3,572
2002 Total International Deaths 725

Looks like a fairly significant difference to me. I've got the numbers all the way back to 1980. If you are a statistics guru, this is not normal variation. Something has happened to decrease terrorist attacks.

I think if anyone is trying to connect the recent terrorist attacks to the Iraq War then they are going out on a limb. All evidence I've seen points to them being planned well before the war.

You have to remember, Bush also said this would be a long war. It will not be won overnight. Luckily, we've got people with the guts to finish the fight despite the McDonalds Generation (demonstrated by many here) wanting instant gratification.


"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know that about the man - you seem to have read more about him than I. I've never seen or read Birth of a Nation so I really can't comment on that.

Even so, dude, just based on his legacy I'd put him above the two. Everything I've read about the man - which obviously isn't as much as you - tells me that he had leadership qualities that both El Jefe Clintonista and Jimmy Carter lacked. Also unlike them, he actually presided over a presidency with a legacy - bad in some cases, but a legacy nonetheless. Women's Suffrage and direct election of senators were major steps forward in my opinion.

I've slammed Carter a bit, but it was under his administration that the LA class attack submarines and several other shipbuilding programs that spurred the economy and strengthened the military were authorized. I think he's a good man, but a horrid president. His accepting the Nobel was a disgrace to the nation as well, but he's no longer president. Blah blah blah....I digress.

As much as racists and segregationists piss me off, it was the norm for many during Wilson's time period, even among many well educated people. Disgusting how slavery took us down that road. Truly disgusting. The Brits came to their senses far before we 'colonists' did on that issue.

I'm going to go snag a rental rig and jump as mine is enroute to the manufacturer.

Thanks for pointing that out about Wilson! I didn't know. Interesting.

Nutter Butters,

Vinny
:S

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly recommend everyone here who has not seen Birth of a Nation do so. IMDB

A 1915 silent film subtitled The Klansmen, Birth of a Nation recounts the evil deeds of southern blacks and the heroism of the KKK who bravely seek them out and hang them. There is a great scene where Abraham Lincoln is framed as Jesus.

This has been voted one of the 100 best american films and to this day is hallmarked for its technical breakthroughs. It is also disturbingly racist - a point that some try to mitigate by claiming its historical authenticity. Just read through the user reviews on the IMDB linked above.
A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'll take a look at it. Interesting reviews. I've never heard of the film, but have seen idiots who think like that. I'm a Catholic boy from Appalachia and know first-hand how the KKKlan just LOOOOOOOOVES us as well - SOBs. "So called Christians known as Catholics" is a phrase I find particularly disdainful.

Thanks again dude! I didn't know that existed. I still hold that ole Wilson is above the other two, but that's just my own two cents.

Beers,

Vinny
:S:P:)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0