• 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

That's because they're ****ing flies. Just shoo them away, who cares. They can't wage actual war against us. All they can do is about one a decade or something, blow up a building or attempt to. The success of 9/11 will never be repeated by terrorists again, they lucked out on that one. They're really not worth too much investment of time, resource, money, and life.
 
So how come Bush didn't do something to fix Clinton's alleged mistakes once he took office? If more action was warranted, he could have done it.
 
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...

If you are going to make sure you have enemies so you can have wars (which seems to be the plan) you kind of have to. Look at poor Sweden. They don't meddle and they don't bomb people and they have no wars. Stupid Swedish.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Is this guy credible? Who knows. It makes sense though, and should be discussed without the nonsense you started. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The nonsense is blaming ONE president for 9/11 like you are doing all the while taking the word of a terrorist over any other analysis. Classic :rofl
 
American said:
The George W. Bush Presidential Transition: The Disconnect Between Politics and Policy

Typical reasons caused during presidential transitions. Reading through the article it just seems typical of how the govt works. It was less than nine months and many of Bush's officers hadn't been confirmed yet.
Click to expand...

Totally lame excuse! If it was that imporant, he should have done it immediately!

The truth is that Bush didn't think it was that important either. He let Clinton's policies continue. I don't blame him for that at all, but it's totally unfair to bash Clinton only.
 
Moderator's Warning:
A few things.

First, lets stick to the topic. On that note though, consistancy of argument by those within a debate is a legitimate tactic during a debate and is not derailing nor flaming in and of itself.

Second, a one off stick to the topic type comment is one thing. Repeated and continual posts attempting to play mod does not address the topic and in and of themselves are derailing. Stop it.

Third, if anyone wants to continue to insult or degrade another members service to the country then they will get dinged for flaming
 
First, I agree with Riv. The people “to blame” for 9/11 are the people that planned, funded, and executed 9/11. You don’t blame a rape victim for getting raped, you don’t blame a president for his country being attacked.

Second, you can however point to actions that helped enable it or increased the risk for such events to happen. Clinton is responsible for a large number of such things. While yes, Bush followed Clinton’s precedence, Clinton was physically in office and in power for the 1993 WTC bombings, the Khobar tower bombings, the Embassy bombings, and the U.S.S. Cole bombings giving him thorough and direct experience with these things multiple times. It was under him that the Gorelick Wall truly came into prominence, causing intelligence not to be shared between cases. It was him in the Commander and Chief position during Mogadishu. And while I understand the hesitance of believing a terrorists statements these statements mixed with previous ones by Bin Laden that, given their context, read more as actual belief than simply propaganda gives credence to the notion that they had largely viewed us as weak willed when it came to military matters.

Is this to say that the actions of Clinton are the ONLY ones that helped open up the situation to happening, or that Clinton is the only politician or President to have not taken it seriously or performed actions that exacerbated the situation? Absolutely not. Its undeniable our continued presence in the middle east and support of Israel angered Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. One could argue our support of the rebels in Afghanistan during the cold war directly lead to their gain in power which lead to 9/11. One could also argue that those were “Good” actions that contributed to the end result while Clinton’s were “bad” actions, hell I’d say I’m more in that line of thinking then the other ways.

What one can’t say however is that Clinton and his policies were directly, and seemingly through the implications primarily or solely, responsible for creating the situation in which 9/11 occurred. I do personally believe he had a large hand in it, but the blame for the climate that allowed it to happen can be spread amongst many people even if Clinton is one of the larger ones in that grouping.
 
TheNextEra said:
The nonsense is blaming ONE president for 9/11 like you are doing all the while taking the word of a terrorist over any other analysis. Classic :rofl
Click to expand...



Uhm did you read the whole thread? I think you should. :roll:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Uhm did you read the whole thread? I think you should. :roll:
Click to expand...

I have, and you blaming Clinton for 9/11 is pathetic at best. Your blaming Clinton for 9/11 is the definition of partisan hackery.
 
TheNextEra said:
I have, and you blaming Clinton for 9/11 is pathetic at best. Your blaming Clinton for 9/11 is the definition of partisan hackery.
Click to expand...

So your not going to notice where i said bush up until sept 10th dropped the ball or acknowledged the two presidents before were no help either?


Yeah i'm the partisan hack :roll:
 
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...


Please enlighten us all, between January 20, 2001 - Sept. 11, 2001, what steps exactly did W. take to take out Bin Laden and AQ?

I mean, with the memo 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' you'd think he would have done something, right?

Appeasement and timidness, indeed.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Appeasment and timidness, led directly to the 911 attacks.
Click to expand...

See, here's where I think you're wrong. I think that did in part help lead to it, but not directly. Why?

Because stubborness and displays of power also helped lead to it. Take for example our support of Israel despite knowing it inflamed the radicals, our remaining in the midst of the middle east following the Iraq War, and our exertion of our influence and power in the puppeting of the rebels in afghanistan. None of those three acts could be considered appeasement nor timidness yet all also had a hand in leading to the inevitable attacks.
 
hazlnut said:
Please enlighten us all, between January 20, 2001 - Sept. 11, 2001, what steps exactly did W. take to take out Bin Laden and AQ?

I mean, with the memo 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' you'd think he would have done something, right?

Appeasement and timidness, indeed.
Click to expand...

Reading, it does a body good. And by "does a body good" I mean "doesn't make you look foolish"

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So your not going to notice where i said bush up until sept 10th dropped the ball or acknowledged the two presidents before were no help either?
Click to expand...

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I don't think Bush had a clue on sept 10th.
Click to expand...

(In regards to Bush not doing anything more than Clinton)
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
He should have.... NEXT!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Also, you should try to speak to people in the intelligence community. Especially ones without a large agenda or wanting to get their names recognized. Warnings of imminent of potential attacks are hardly uncommon, nor routinely acted upon directly by a President. Simply because one got leaked that seems OBVIOUS strictly out of hindsight means absolutely nothing, especially when you refuse to have the intellectual honesty to view it objectively from a pre-9/11 stand point and have the inability to view it in the full panoramic view that would be the entirity of the Presidents briefs of potential threats.
 
Last edited:
Why are people still talking about what Bin Laden thinks? The guy is obviously dead. We haven't seen a video recording of him in years, and the only "evidence" are murky audio recordings that are probably being done by his peons. The less cred we give this guy by talking about his former existence, the less his stupidity will proliferate.

The 9/11 attacks were the fault of Al Qaeda, but there were still things the U.S. admin at the time could have done differently. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, so it's easy to nitpick now. I do think, based on how leaders (such as the Saudi King) were being flown out of the country in advance, that there was some degree of advanced alert within the intelligence community.

So, we can definitely blame Al Qaeda for the actual attack, but I think the White House did a poor job at damage control. My sister's friend in Toronto at the time received a recording from others in the Muslim community telling them that if they or anyone they know are planning to go to NYC in the fall, that they should avoid it; also, if they know people there, they should tell them to get out. I think the CIA had more than enough heads up.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Reading, it does a body good. And by "does a body good" I mean "doesn't make you look foolish"
Click to expand...

I respond to one post at time, Zyph, ol' pal.

Beginning with the OP -- I question Rev's understanding of history regarding who did what with AQ.

Now, if Rev wants to backpedal..um, er..elaborate on his OP throughout thread, good for him, showing some intellectual honesty. We need more of that around DP.

However, to start an odviously partisan Clinton/Dem bashing thread, then start adding footnotes as you go along... Pretty lame, Rev.

Pret-ty LAME.

Why not get all your thoughts collected in one OP before you press that little button at the bottom?

I read, I responded.
 
hazlnut said:
I respond to one post at time, Zyph, ol' pal.

Beginning with the OP -- I question Rev's understanding of history regarding who did what with AQ.

Now, if Rev wants to backpedal..um, er..elaborate on his OP throughout thread, good for him, showing some intellectual honesty. We need more of that around DP.

However, to start an odviously partisan Clinton/Dem bashing thread, then start adding footnotes as you go along... Pretty lame, Rev.

Pret-ty LAME.

Why not get all your thoughts collected in one OP before you press that little button at the bottom?

I read, I responded.
Click to expand...

Uhm the person quoted in the article was speaking about how osama viewed the actions of the clinton admin a certain way. My aknowledgement of other presidents was to appease the red herrings thrown about in this thread.


But lets not talk about the article and co tinue to talk about the grwatnesd that is the good reverend :pimpdaddy:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Uhm the person quoted in the article was speaking about how osama viewed the actions of the clinton admin a certain way. My aknowledgement of other presidents was to appease the red herrings thrown about in this thread.
Click to expand...

Not a redd herring, just making sure this isn't a partisan thing.
 
:roll: as to not seek the ire of the powers that be. I wont comment on the irony of your post.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:roll: as to not seek the ire of the powers that be. I wont comment on the irony of your post.
Click to expand...

I didn't accuse anyone of being partisan, I checked to make sure they weren't.
 
Zyphlin said:
See, here's where I think you're wrong. I think that did in part help lead to it, but not directly. Why?

Because stubborness and displays of power also helped lead to it. Take for example our support of Israel despite knowing it inflamed the radicals, our remaining in the midst of the middle east following the Iraq War, and our exertion of our influence and power in the puppeting of the rebels in afghanistan. None of those three acts could be considered appeasement nor timidness yet all also had a hand in leading to the inevitable attacks.
Click to expand...

This aspect of our foreign policy (the non-stop meddling, support of this group or that one, and displays of power) is all too often overlooked by the right. It's also overemphasized by the left. No shock either way I suppose. I do think we enter into such actions with the intention that somehow we'll benefit in some way, it's just that in the long run it far too often turns out the opposite. Which is why I tend to dislike all the meddling, but that is another thread. Regarding 9/11 we brought the ball and nudged it down the hill. Al Qaeda lit it on fire and aimed it. Yes, it was their doing and they have the blood of 3000+ on their hands. But it may not have happened had we not provided the proverbial gun in the first place. After all, they did not just spin the globe and have it land on the U.S. as the spot to attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom