The terrorists that perpetrated that atrocity all entered the country and learned to fly under the noses of the Clinton administration...facilitated, in large part, by Jamie Gorelick.
Can you say "Able Danger?" I knew that you could.
But its not as if Clinton was solely responsible for that. With the sheer number of arabs that flock to this country every day, and nothing on the scale of 9/11 ever happening before, we just got totally owned.
Clinton's administration isn't (directly) responsible for incompetent intelligence.
Probably indirectly, but then anyone could point out to how Prescott Bush and the Rockefellars "inadvertantly" funded Hitler
All I know is the economy had surplus under Clinton, and reagan-esque deficits under Bush.
All I know is George Herbert Walker Bush sold tanks, munitions, and other arms to IRAQ, then one of the things he said when trying to get Re-Elected was "the world's a dangerous place, you need a strong leader"
All I know is the parallels between that Bush re-election attempt and the recent one are very similar.
All I know is that with the population explosion there are a load more Evan Marriot's out there who buy into, deliberately eat, and love the taste of bull .
The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center would have been on that scale had the truck been positioned right.
What is it with you lefties and body counts? Just because only six people died in 1993, that was somehow less significant, in terms of being attacked by a terrorist element, than September 11th?
Just as the number of war dead has no relevance to the success or failure of an objective (except for attrition and, in that respect, we're way ahead of the enemy), the lack of dead doesn't lessen the insult of an enemy attack.
"Let" = He didn't retaliate against the first WTC bombing or that against the USS Cole. By inaction he gave the terrorists CONFIDENCE in that the US was a bunch of pussies and they could impose their will without fear of any real loss. It's been awhile, but their at ude has been well do ented.
The bully will continue to steal your lunch money until you kick his ass. That's about 98% causation, 2% opinion. It's very simple logic...more often that not sitting down and talking it over isn't going to do a damn thing. I'd say 100% causation, but there are always the really stupid ones that don't get it...so you have to leave some margin of error.
I'm not a leftie
But yes, the incident in 93 was less significant than 9/11. Killing 6 people is less significant than killing thousands. Please don't take me out of context and make me seem like i am saying those 6 people's deaths are to be ignored, those 6 people aren't important, etc. I think the entire 93 ordeal deserved a very strict investigation, and was a very very serious threat to our nation. But human life holds a certain value, and I feel that 9/11's death toll immediately puts it to higher significance than 93.
Both were important, both demanded serious investigations, reforms, actions.
Yeah i agree with this. It did not lessen that attack's significant at all. But the loads of dead in 9/11 increased that instances's significance.the lack of dead doesn't lessen the insult of an enemy attack
Okay, so why didn't Clinton take Sudan's offer to hand over the prick behind both the 1993 and the 2001 attacks?
I'm not a leftie
But yes, the incident in 93 was less significant than 9/11. Killing 6 people is less significant than killing thousands. Please don't take me out of context and make me seem like i am saying those 6 people's deaths are to be ignored, those 6 people aren't important, etc. I think the entire 93 ordeal deserved a very strict investigation, and was a very very serious threat to our nation. But human life holds a certain value, and I feel that 9/11's death toll immediately puts it to higher significance than 93.
Both were important, both demanded serious investigations, reforms, actions.
Do you think their intent was only 6? Where's the WTC now?
No, not really. We were just extremely lucky the first time. Not so much so the second time, but it could still have been worse...they could have hit an hour later when there could have been 50,000 or more.Yeah i agree with this. It did not lessen that attack's significant at all. But the loads of dead in 9/11 increased that instances's significance.
I follow your reasoning, but let me ask you this:
Do you think arab terrorist organizations lack the information or intelligence to understand the changes involved with changing administrations? (in other words, do you think they're stupid or hasty enough to believe what applies under one president works under another, esp. given they're diff. parties)
In my opinion, they would have attacked us again regardless, just like they will attack us again in the future.
Also:
Did Clinton have "legitimate" (now we know it to be false) information of WMD's or terrorist harboring to declare war on another soveriegn state at the time of those attacks?
Because it seems to me by "not letting" you mean taking action, like, initiating a war.
The reason they hate us could be that they see us as the bully...The bully will continue to steal your lunch money until you kick his ass.
In fact, had Clinton taken the first bombing more seriously and cleaned up the holes, in the middle east, that spawned these barbarians -- as President Bush is attempting to do now -- maybe September 11, 2001 would have never happened.
Nah, he was more interested in getting Saudi funding for his "Trailer-on-stilts" Presidential Library.
The intent obviously was not 6, and the 93 terrorist act was real in serious. But ask anyone in the rest of the world, with no connection to united states politics, which is of more significance:
1) A terrorist attack that threatens your nations well being and kills 6 people
2) A terrorist attack that threatens your nations well being and kills (guess) 10000 people
I'd have to say they would go with the latter.
You can't just throw the value of human life out the window, and the typical old conservative married couple will agree with war much more readily when the latter happens.
Do you think Clinton would have the strong public backing to declare war during 1993? A ruler or politicans cannot just declare war because they want to, there is also the consideration of the public.
Bush was lucky enough to benefit from the sheer devestation and fear of thousands (not 6) people dying, to get strong public support for attacks on afghanistan, and when those were seen in a decent light, he went ahead with the Iraqi war.
It wasn't only the inaction either. Bin Laden has stated that he was emboldened by Clinton's retreat from Mogadishu. He felt the American people no longer had a stomach for dead soldiers and therefore were ripe for attack."Let" = He didn't retaliate against the first WTC bombing or that against the USS Cole. By inaction he gave the terrorists CONFIDENCE in that the US was a bunch of pussies and they could impose their will without fear of any real loss. It's been awhile, but their at ude has been well do ented.
The bully will continue to steal your lunch money until you kick his ass. That's about 98% causation, 2% opinion. It's very simple logic...more often that not sitting down and talking it over isn't going to do a damn thing. I'd say 100% causation, but there are always the really stupid ones that don't get it...so you have to leave some margin of error.
You're confusing significance with costly.
If China launched a nuclear missile that exploded in the middle of a Nevada desert, with no one killed, that'd be pretty ing significant. More significant, I'd bargain, than 19 terrorists flying planes into two skyscrapers.
That terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 should have been significant enough for the freakin' President of the United States to get off his ing ass, pull his penis out of Monica's pie hole, and start killing terrorists somewhere.
Yeah, your last paragraph I totally agree with.
But, it still does have an effect on significance, insofar as the common man will commit himself to the cause of war when thousands have died, as opposed to just 6. Humans value human life, Democracy values human life. When you have the public support, or the public believes your ends are justified, then there are little obstructions to declaring a war. (ie the general public will accept the possibility that intelligence can be false much more readily)
I think during a changing administration it's the perfect time to strike ... I'm sure there's a higher degree of disorganization which would be normal during any personnel changes.
And they may still have struck anyway, but if there were any indication whatsoever that whatever they did would NOT go unpunished there may have been more hesitancy ... but that's just what I very strongly believe based on what I've heard over the years.
They hate us because of our gluttonous lifestyles, our freedom, our wealth and our power...we are the infidels. I believe their twisted interpretation of their religion says that they are supposed to wipe out everyone who does not believe as they do, which means we all need to die. I'm not too sure how much of that would be because we're a bully.
It's the President's job to make the case. Clinton wasn't willing, Bush was. Period.
i've been busy.. sorry, you missed me..
"They hate us because of our gluttonous lifestyles"
Bull .
1. Because US is occupying sacred Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries, exclusively because of oil.
2. Becaause US supports Israel against the Palestinian Muslims.
I'm sure some terrorist organizations do think this way, but some terrorist organizations that commit acts of terrorism are not brain-dead blind-faith kamikazee-men (whether or not al-qaeda or whatever fits this description requires a whole diff discussion)
But its my opinion that the 'normal' terrorist organization starts with a political end or goal, not religious. If we are talking a terrorist organization with a political goal, then ask why are they taking the terrorist route to achieve a political goal?
I would say because they have not been given a proper opportunity to be heard either in the national, or world-wide political forum.
What are these terrorists mad about? I'm no political science major, but if we ignore the idea that every young arab's desire and dream and influence is to destroy america, then I think we can find a starting point in a bunked up foreign policy.
I simply do not believe that the arab people grow up hating and despising and wanting to slaughter americans just because we are american. I don't believe it. Maybe I have too much faith in humanity. Maybe I think the current administration is trying to paint this picture in the minds of its voters for further public support.
What I do believe is the base reason these organizations are mad, are for political reasons.
No way man, its not just the will.
No ing way the american public allows an Iraqi War to drag on this long if 9/11 were exactly like the 1993 incident, theres just no way.
We're a democracy, a democracy set up to protect its people. To be raised in a democracy is to learn the value of people and their rights.
When the common man hears that thousands upon thousands have died, it pushes him further to the "initiate war" end of the spectrum than if only 6 died.
This is only just 1 issue, public sentiment, together with president's will, there has to be a plethora of other reasons affecting whether or not a nation will go to war.
Here's another: Intelligence
Did Clinton have the intelligence that Bush (thought he) had when he found it necessary to declare war.
If he didnt, then even a will to declare war may not have been enough.
Religion & politics aren't mutually exclusive over there, if I'm not mistaken. If we have a bunch of guys over there talking to them all like boutons does to us in this forum, though, Allahdamn right they hate Americans.But its my opinion that the 'normal' terrorist organization starts with a political end or goal, not religious. If we are talking a terrorist organization with a political goal, then ask why are they taking the terrorist route to achieve a political goal?
I partly agree with Spurswoman but for a different reason. They hate us becuase the Western influence on their "sheeples" is upsetting the caliphate apple-cart they've worked so hard to re-establish.
They hate our freedom because if it spreads to their oppressed, they've lost power.
Syria is about to be the first hard lesson in that reality. They've already lost their grip on Lebanon because of their taste of freedom. Now, Assad may lose Syria because of his retaliation on a Lebanese icon, Hariri.
People are already seriously divided. Is it going to take another attack killing 10,000 plus to have the support to finish the job?
I find this reason much more plausible than them hating americans just cuz of the american lifestyle.
Sorry, I was about to add something similar...thanks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote