we always come back to this conspiracy debate. i'm surprised someone never said anything about zionists yet.
by the way, every website or piece of evidence shown has been debunked. it just seems that people just want to find out clues to something that isn't there.
the attacks could have been prolonged, but certainly not prevented. they were going to get us because nobody was paying enough attention to terrorism... at the time. furthermore, anybody would know how crappy of a job airline security is. if it wasn't on september 11, it could have been september 12 or the 13th or any other day. (thinking about it now, conspiracists would have a field day if it had been on the 13th... it was a friday that year)
i just want to know, if the world trade center and pentagon had been bombed, then please tell me where those planes were? i'd love you conspiracists to tell a family i know that their daddy faked his death.
Last Edit: Jun 27, 2007 2:24:53 GMT -5 by nyr401994 - Back to Top
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 27, 2007 4:46:34 GMT -5
security measuers pre 9/11 were shit. hence the boxcutters. and box cutters can do a shit load of damage. its reported that the terrorists even killed a few ppl on the plane with them.
think about it: The terrorists claim that this is a normal hijacking where in which they will land the plane and negotiate a deal, if something happens they have a bomb to explode the plane with -- atleast a threatened bomb.
never in the history of public transport had a plane been hijacked and crashed into a building, so the ppl on the plane had no reason not to believe the hijackers
Stepout, in no way is it hard to believe that terrorists hijacked a plane using box cutters.
I'm surprised people haven't brought up that Bin Laden's relatives were flown out of the country a week or so before the bombings. I haven't read much of it lately but that's one big thing i remember. my other computer has all the stuff saved.
Make all the theories you want. There have been what? 5 official statements from the CIA etc proving that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened, the fact that he did nothing about it is the part we should be worried about.
And something must've happened at the pentagon. why would the security tapes from buildings around the pentagon that could've caught a glimpse be taken as they supposedly were?
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 29, 2007 19:30:41 GMT -5
you get those memos all the fuckin time! Where was the British government today? Where was Clinton when the WTC bombing happened in 1993? The US Embassies in Africa in 1998? And the USS Cole in 2000?
YOU CANT STOP THEM ALL. We have to right 100% of the time, the terrorists have to be right once.
Anyway, Clinton is more at fault for 9/11 than Bush is! 9/11 took 8 years to plan, Bush was in office for 8 months. And its no accdient we havnt seen a terrorist attack on the US since 9/11.
As for Bin Ladens family....who gives a crap? Bin Ladens family are legit, decent people. They have nothing to do with Osama. they prob wanted to leave so they wouldnt be persecuted, which is fair enough.
Did you not see how many motions Clinton tried to start?
"The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Specifically, Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
In fact, Gramm was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders. It should also be noted that Gramm's wife, Wendy, sat on the Enron Board of Directors.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement."
Clinton had the DEAL sealed to cut off al-Qaeda's money. And Bush terminates it. Hm.
Bush had plenty of warnings. If the first thing you get is a warning about a threat, and your constantly being reminded with memos suggesting the same thing, USE YOUR BRAIN ITS PLANNED.
" In August of 2001, Russian intelligence services notified the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been trained for suicide missions, and Putin himself confirmed that this warning was delivered "in the strongest possible terms," specifically regarding threats to airports and government buildings.
In that same month, the Israeli security agency Mossad issued a warning to both the FBI and the CIA that up to 200 bin Laden followers were planning a major assault on America, aimed at vulnerable targets. The Los Angeles Times later confirmed via unnamed US officials that the Mossad warnings had been received.
On August 6, 2001, George W. Bush received his Presidential Daily Briefing. The briefing described active plots to attack the United States by Osama bin Laden. The word "hijacking" appeared in that briefing. Bush reacted to this warning by continuing with his month-long vacation in Texas." ----------------------------------------
To WTC bombings of 93, Clinton was in office a FUCKING month. January 20th inaugurated, Feb 26rd, WTC bombed. Bush SR was in office in 91, 2 years before, he;s more to blame right using your logic.
"Ramzi Yousef, born in Kuwait, began in 1991 to plan a bombing attack within the United States. Yousef's uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Ali Fadden, who later was considered "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks," gave him advice and tips over the phone, and funded him with a US$660 wire transfer.
Yousef entered the United States with a false Iraqi passport in 1992. Police found instructions on making a bomb in Yousef's partner's luggage. The name Abu Barra, an alias of Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, appeared in the manuals. Yousef's partner was arrested on the spot for his false passport and his bombmaking instructions. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) holding cells were overcrowded, and Yousef, claiming political asylum, was given a hearing date." ----------------------------------------
To US Embassies bombing of 98, Clinton attacked TERRORIST targets immediately after, not an innocent country. (who's dictator leader happened to try to kill your daddy and had the resource in which your wealth is based ON)
"In response to the bombings, U.S. President Bill Clinton ordered Operation Infinite Reach, a series of cruise missile strikes on terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan on August 20, 1998, announcing the planned strike in a primetime address on American television." --------------------------------------- And to continue
stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Last Edit: Jun 29, 2007 22:09:42 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 29, 2007 22:23:29 GMT -5
Yeah cos committing genocide is really innocent, right? Saddam killed more people than those who have died in this war.
Clinton also had many many chances to kill OBL, but he himself decided against it
Those cruise missiles did nothing! Bush was spot on in Afghanistan (of course we dont have OBL, but that hardly matters -- as long as hes on the run). AQ no longer have a base ((which is ironic, bc thats what AlQaeda means lol(unless we leave and admit defeat in iraq)), they no longer have training ample training camps or any of that nonsense. The Taliban have also been eliminated. Much better than a few cruise missiles, that's for sure.
Bush wouldnt have been able to prevent 9/11 anyway, he got that specific memo in August, attack happened in september, unless he banned all airline of course - which isnt practical
The point is, Bush along with the rest of the US and Western World learnt from 9/11. The American public seem to be getting complacent again, and i fear it's gonna take another 9/11 for them to realize it. People who talk about 'fear mongering' and 'conspiracies' dont help the cause. And Edwards claiming that the WOT is not real and just a bumper sticker just ruled him out of getting any votes.
And now your complaining about the lengths Bush has gone to keeping us safe. You claim its OTT and not needed. You cant have it both ways.
I guess it makes sense to advocate killing of innocent people, of chaos and destruction, of pure anarchy. Yeah, you would make a great politician.
A politician is the very bottom of things I'd want to be.
Clinton attacked a verified TERRORIST target, didn't invade an innocent country with a full out army, the whole nine yards, take out its ruler (yes an evil dictator, had to be gotten away with), and then try to force upon our system of government onto them.
He wasn't spot on in Afganistan, he couldn't find a damned thing he said he had proof of! Yes they took out the Taliban, and thats a good note.
"The war successfully removed the Taliban from power, although there has been a resurgence in Taliban forces. The war has been less successful in achieving the goal of restricting Al-Qaeda's movement. Since the invasion, Afghanistan has become less stable due to increased warlord and Taliban activity, growing illegal drug production, and a fragile government with limited control outside of Kabul"
Let alone we did just as bad killing innocent civilians on our first attack. "According to Marc W. Herold's Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing at least 3,700 and probably closer to 5,000 civilians were killed as a result of U.S. bombing."
And its going very well. "In November of 2006 , the U.N. Security Council warned that Afghanistan may become a failed state due to increased Taliban violence, growing illegal drug production, and fragile State institutions. In 2006, Afghanistan was rated 10th on the failed states index, up from 11th in 2005. From 2005 to 2006, the number of suicide attacks, direct fire attacks, and improvised explosive devices all increased. Declassified intelligence documents show that Al Qaeda, Taiban, Haqqani Network and Hezb-i-Islami sanctuaries have increased fourfold over the last year in Afghanistan. The campaign in Afghanistan successfully unseated the Taliban from power, but has been significantly less successful at achieving the primary policy goal of ensuring that Al-Qaeda can no longer operate in Afghanistan."
Okay not to have OBL? Why did we go to Afghanistan then!? Surely we meant to take the mastermind of various attacks on the US, yes we took out his organization, but he's still on the loose. The man has kidney dialysis and has to be hooked up to a machine let alone all the other problems with him, and we can't find him? www.doctorzebra.com/prez/a_binladen.htm
Last Edit: Jun 29, 2007 22:52:02 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top