• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bin Laden had 'no clue' about Sept. 11 retaliation

misterman said:
Yes, it did. Like your claim that I was off-topic, this claim is just completely outside reality.
Click to expand...




ok, your not worth my time. If you want to discuss what my actual position is, get back to me. Otherwise. Have a nice day.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So as we can see, Inaction by the Clinton administration fueled the confidence of Osama and AQ. This is not actually news to some of us. We often state that one needs to respond harshly to these attacks....


Appeasment and timidness, led directly to the 911 attacks.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, it's been well known in the intelligence community for some time now that OBL had no idea we were gonna strike back with such force. My major is Homeland Security and I have had former FBI agents as my instructors + all the books written after the fact mention this. It was not only Clinton though. But you are correct in stating that after such things as the USS Cole, African Embassies, 93 trade tower attack, etc etc. OBL figured that since we did not retaliate very hard after these attacks than why should he have to worry after 9/11? He really did believe we would cave in and collapse as a society and never fly again, never travel, and especially not retaliate as hard as we did. Not many people truly understand this, glad you pointed it out to the masses.
 
Rightwing86 said:
Yeah well, it's been well known in the intelligence community for some time now that OBL had no idea we were gonna strike back with such force. My major is Homeland Security and I have had former FBI agents as my instructors + all the books written after the fact mention this. It was not only Clinton though. But you are correct in stating that after such things as the USS Cole, African Embassies, 93 trade tower attack, etc etc. OBL figured that since we did not retaliate very hard after these attacks than why should he have to worry after 9/11? He really did believe we would cave in and collapse as a society and never fly again, never travel, and especially not retaliate as hard as we did. Not many people truly understand this, glad you pointed it out to the masses.
Click to expand...




I just posted an article what OBL's right hand man had said. The attacks on me personally and the vitriolic hatred is rather shocking.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
ok, your not worth my time. If you want to discuss what my actual position is, get back to me. Otherwise. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

I do want to discuss it. I asked you which countries you think Clinton should have invaded or attacked in response to these bombings. So, which ones?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Go ahead, see what happens. You made that asinine contention, we supposedly reconciled what each of us meant. But I guess a dishonest person like you, tends to forget that in an attempt to slam someone.



As to your asinine contention. I think Bush dropped the ball as well, by not taking the threats seriously. While your searching why don't you look for that as well.


Now are you done with your big mouthed baiting/flaming or are you going to continue to try to derail this thread with your nonsense.
Click to expand...

This is typical, you blame me because I called you for taking the word of a terrorist, something you would condemn any one on the left for doing. It's not my fault there is no depth you will not stoop to score political points.
 
Everyone stop doing personal attacks! It's tiresome. Talk about the topic on hand. Give credit where credit is due, and stop bringing up old threads that have nothing to do with this one. Talk about information that has come out from OBL Sources or government sources, talk about failures and successes of certain administrations that are pertaining to this topic. If someone believes something, post something relevant to refute the oppositions points, it's very simple. I have faith in all of you!
 
Redress said:
This is typical, you blame me because I called you for taking the word of a terrorist, something you would condemn any one on the left for doing. It's not my fault there is no depth you will not stoop to score political points.
Click to expand...



Do you have anything on the topic, or are you simply going to troll me today?
 
Rightwing86 said:
Yeah well, it's been well known in the intelligence community for some time now that OBL had no idea we were gonna strike back with such force. My major is Homeland Security and I have had former FBI agents as my instructors + all the books written after the fact mention this. It was not only Clinton though. But you are correct in stating that after such things as the USS Cole, African Embassies, 93 trade tower attack, etc etc. OBL figured that since we did not retaliate very hard after these attacks than why should he have to worry after 9/11? He really did believe we would cave in and collapse as a society and never fly again, never travel, and especially not retaliate as hard as we did. Not many people truly understand this, glad you pointed it out to the masses.
Click to expand...

As I see it, the reason we didn't do much is we really couldn't, for two reasons.

First, the attacks were just soft enough not to justify taking it to the next level of invading a Middle Eastern country, which had all kinds of negative political problems with it. The Arab countries would go ballistic claiming it was a pretext. Nobody could say that after 9/11.

Second, bin Laden was still an individual, and it's hard for us to hit him. Once he got firmly entangled with the Taliban, though, he was much more a state actor with a military force to engage. We could use military force against that.

The mistake the critics are making is looking at our tools and thinking the biggest, most aggressive tool (military action) is the best or most effective one. It may have made us feel good to invade somebody, but it didn't mean it was wise at the time.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Do you have anything on the topic, or are you simply going to troll me today?
Click to expand...

You are not going to explain why the words of a terrorist are credible, other than you want them to be true?
 
misterman said:
As I see it, the reason we didn't do much is we really couldn't, for two reasons.

First, the attacks were just soft enough not to justify taking it to the next level of invading a Middle Eastern country, which had all kinds of negative political problems with it. The Arab countries would go ballistic claiming it was a pretext. Nobody could say that after 9/11.

Second, bin Laden was still an individual, and it's hard for us to hit him. Once he got firmly entangled with the Taliban, though, he was much more a state actor with a military force to engage. We could use military force against that.

The mistake the critics are making is looking at our tools and thinking the biggest, most aggressive tool (military action) is the best or most effective one. It may have made us feel good to invade somebody, but it didn't mean it was wise at the time.
Click to expand...

Good points. I am not arguing whether the Clinton administrations did or did not do enough. I am simply stating the fact the OBL did not think we would attack a Middle Eastern country for the very same reasons you listed. OBL is not stupid, a very well educated man. He understood that those attacks listed were as you say "soft" or possibly not enough to warrant a full on attack by American forces. He assumed he could bump it up a notch and see how far he could push the United States, and he lost that gamble. He did not think we would invade, we did and crushed the Taliban and pushed back Al Q. severely decimating his forces. That is what we are discussing but, very good points.
 
Last edited:
Also, keep in mind Mister, that people were fed up with these attacks. Even before 9/11, people wanted something done. How many more attacks would OBL have done if we had not reacted as hard as we did? How many more American Embassies, naval vessels, airline hijackings, terminal hijacks, Olympic games, suicide bombers, attempted political assassinations would these terrorist groups do before these "soft" attacks became too common? You may call them "soft" attacks and I understand what you mean, but these families that lost loved ones I guarantee you do not refer to them as "soft" attacks. American civilians and servicemen still died. Now maybe you could suggest that we work behind the scenes with Delta Force, Army Rangers, Seals, Green Berets etc... and maybe you are right that this would have been more effective, truly though, I doubt we will ever know. I would love to talk more but I have a test in a couple hours on Juvenile Justice, and I need to get a 80+ on the exam. I'll be back on here later though.
 
Rightwing86 said:
Good points. I am not arguing whether the Clinton administrations did or did not do enough. I am simply stating the fact the OBL did not think we would attack a Middle Eastern country for the very same reasons you listed.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, I was just adding my thoughts.

OBL is not stupid, a very well educated man. He understood that those attacks listed were as you say "soft" or possibly not enough to warrant a full on attack by American forces. He assumed he could bump it up a notch and see how far he could push the United States, and he lost that gamble. He did not think we would invade, we did and crushed the Taliban and pushed back Al Q. severely decimating his forces. That is what we are discussing but, very good points.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Rightwing86 said:
Also, keep in mind Mister, that people were fed up with these attacks. Even before 9/11, people wanted something done. How many more attacks would OBL have done if we had not reacted as hard as we did? How many more American Embassies, naval vessels, airline hijackings, terminal hijacks, Olympic games, suicide bombers, attempted political assassinations would these terrorist groups do before these "soft" attacks became too common? You may call them "soft" attacks and I understand what you mean, but these families that lost loved ones I guarantee you do not refer to them as "soft" attacks. American civilians and servicemen still died. Now maybe you could suggest that we work behind the scenes with Delta Force, Army Rangers, Seals, Green Berets etc... and maybe you are right that this would have been more effective, truly though, I doubt we will ever know. I would love to talk more but I have a test in a couple hours on Juvenile Justice, and I need to get a 80+ on the exam. I'll be back on here later though.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows for sure how far they could push these "soft" attacks (by which I mean just not as big and not on US soil - I agree that "soft" really isn't the right word). Would alot of small attacks had the same impact on our response as one big one did on 9/11? Hard to say.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You know what. Your strawman has failed.


I also quote this guy as well.. Used to start threads to discuss.

The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International




See when the enemy tells you something, you should listen. What would his motivation be for lying in this case?
Click to expand...

Some one else who is not entirely credible based on the story you link.

Nevertheless, there is no way the scenario he depicts can be seen as a plan which al-Qaida can follow step by step. The terrorist network just doesn't work like that anymore. The significance of the central leadership has diminished and its direct commands have lost a great deal of importance. The supposed master plan for the years 2000 to 2020 reads in parts more like a group of ideas cobbled together in retrospect, than something planned and presented in advance. And not to mention the terrorist agenda is simply unworkable: the idea that al-Qaida could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd. The 20-year plan is based mainly on religious ideas. It hardly has anything to do with reality -- especially phases four to seven.
Click to expand...

Now, why should we take the word of this terrorist? You have given no reason at all why he is credible. I mean yes, you love his message, but why is it credible. You have not answered that, at all.
 
Redress said:
Some one else who is not entirely credible based on the story you link.



Now, why should we take the word of this terrorist? You have given no reason at all why he is credible. I mean yes, you love his message, but why is it credible. You have not answered that, at all.
Click to expand...




Ok, sure your soooo right. Bin laden knew we would start 2 huge wars, and all this.


It's irrelevant actually. But even without this terrorists commentary, it's common sense, that Bin Laden would not have an idea of what our attacks were, and if he was performing attacks and not impressed by our responses by calling us a paper tiger (which he has), why would he think our response would be any different?


Is this guy credible? Who knows. It makes sense though, and should be discussed without the nonsense you started. :shrug:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Ok, sure your soooo right. Bin laden knew we would start 2 huge wars, and all this.


It's irrelevant actually. But even without this terrorists commentary, it's common sense, that Bin Laden would not have an idea of what our attacks were, and if he was performing attacks and not impressed by our responses by calling us a paper tiger (which he has), why would he think our response would be any different?


Is this guy credible? Who knows. It makes sense though, and should be discussed without the nonsense you started. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Osama bin Laden did not know or understand George W Bush. He did not know that Bush meant what he said, that the tough talk also walked.
 
American said:
Osama bin Laden did not know or understand George W Bush. He did not know that Bush meant what he said, that the tough talk also walked.
Click to expand...

That is not what the guy Rev quoted said though:

Zawahiri laughed when he warned those at the 2000 meeting that the U.S. response would be swift, hard and long, Benotman says.
Click to expand...

Before Bush was even elected, this guy claims he said the US would respond. Funny how Rev did not comment on that part....
 
Redress said:
That is not what the guy Rev quoted said though:



Before Bush was even elected, this guy claims he said the US would respond. Funny how Rev did not comment on that part....
Click to expand...




actually I did, I laughed when Spud made a joke about it. :shrug:



but to your idiotic point.


What he was saying was that even clinton would have responded with a much heavier hand if he carried out 911. I agree. Now what? :roll:


That's not the point. the point is he was saying that the previous inactions emboldened him towards the 911 plan.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
That is not what the guy Rev quoted said though:



Before Bush was even elected, this guy claims he said the US would respond. Funny how Rev did not comment on that part....
Click to expand...
Benotman seemed to understand perfectly for some reason.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So as we can see, Inaction by the Clinton administration fueled the confidence of Osama and AQ. This is not actually news to some of us. We often state that one needs to respond harshly to these attacks....


Appeasment and timidness, led directly to the 911 attacks.
Click to expand...

What do you mean inaction by Clinton? He bombed a lot of ****, just in a different part of the globe. We're almost always bombing someone.
 
Ikari said:
What do you mean inaction by Clinton? He bombed a lot of ****, just in a different part of the globe. We're almost always bombing someone.
Click to expand...





an aspirin factory here, a few impotent cruise missile volley's there. Basically, so the navy didn't feel so useless. :ssst:


Seriously though, according to the article in question, OBL was wholey unimpressed with our responses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom