• 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

What does "what clinton should have done" have to do with the topic of this thread.

Everything. Obviously.

Anyone else have an answer? If Clinton's actions were inadequate, what should he have done?
 
Everything. Obviously.

Anyone else have an answer? If Clinton's actions were inadequate, what should he have done?
I'm glad you asked. The Rev failed miserably on this one.

When we knew where bin Laden was, we should've hit him instead of waiting so that we could simultaneously hit a harmless medicine factory. Clinton let him slip away, but OBL is only one man. If we knew where the terrorist training camp was that time, then we probably knew many times. We should've kept going after those camps instead of doing a single retaliatory strike. Retaliation is nothing more than political posturing. Clinton should've been focused on prevention rather than retaliation but he was all about politics so he retaliated. He put politics above national security.

Secondly, Clinton must've done something wrong or Sandy Berger wouldn't have destroyed those documents.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad you asked. The Rev failed miserably on this one.

When we knew where bin Laden was, we should've hit him instead of waiting so that we could simultaneously hit a harmless medicine factory. Clinton let him slip away, but OBL is only one man.

Did we know where he was at that time? Where? And were we sure he was responsible at the time? I think we knew who he was at the time, but I know al Queda didn't exist yet.

And If we knew where the terrorist training camp was that time, then we probably knew many times. We should've kept going after those camps instead of doing a single retaliatory strike.

Where were the camps though? That's the key question. At the time, it might have made things worse to bomb certain middle eastern countries.

And you're assuming that the only, let alone the best, alternative is shooting missiles, when there might have been better ways that just weren't as big and loud and satisfying to our desire for revenge, yet more effective. And Clinton pursued some of those, which made sense at the time. Hindsight is 20/20.

We could play this game forever. Why didn't Regean bomb half of Lebanon or Iran (Hezbollah's benefactor) after the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks? And so on.

Thanks for having a rational response by the way.
 
Last edited:
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.

Even after we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan there was the same rhetoric coming from top al-Qa'ida. I honestly believe they have very little practical sense at the depth of the United States military.

http://www.house.gov/marshall/Zarqawi.html said:
1. The Americans

These, as you know, are the most cowardly of God’s creatures. They are an easy quarry, praise be to God. We ask God to enable us to kill and capture them to sow panic among those behind them and to trade them for our detained shaykhs and brothers.
 
Even after we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan there was the same rhetoric coming from top al-Qa'ida. I honestly believe they have very little practical sense at the depth of the United States military.

Excellent point, and of course, it's not like their rhetoric necessarily reflects their strategic intelligence. It's for rallying their troops, and baiting us.

And that brings up the opposite side of this debate - our overreaction based on emotion and a desire for revenge rather than rational strategy that takes into account all the consequences. In other words, the invasion of Iraq.
 
I'm glad you asked. The Rev failed miserably on this one.


Actually I didn't. Critisizm of Clinton is too uncomfortable for Misterman and others, so they try to change the topic to avoid being critical of thier own side. It's hyper-partisanism at its worst.


Secondly, Clinton must've done something wrong or Sandy Berger wouldn't have destroyed those documents.


I agree and this has more to do with the topic than misterman's derailment.
 
Actually I didn't. Critisizm of Clinton is too uncomfortable for Misterman and others, so they try to change the topic to avoid being critical of thier own side. It's hyper-partisanism at its worst.





I agree and this has more to do with the topic than misterman's derailment.

nice dodge there rev
you were invited to identify the specific acts clinton should have taken to deal with osama bin forgotten
and you respond that your failure to respond is because you don't want your partisan reply to make the opposition side uncomfortable
that is so unlike you, which causes one to speculate about the credibility of the basis for that non-response
give it a shot rev, tell us what specific actions clinton should have taken which he did not
we can handle it
 
Actually I didn't. Critisizm of Clinton is too uncomfortable for Misterman and others, so they try to change the topic to avoid being critical of thier own side. It's hyper-partisanism at its worst.

That's a load of crap. I'll gladly apply the same principle to other Presidents, including Bush and Reagan. It's not fair to apply our hindsight to them either.

It's a perfectly fair question. In fact, it's the only fair question. If you think Clinton didn't do something he should have done, what exactly should he have done?

If it "derails the thread," it's only because you can't think of an answer. Which makes my point. It derails your convenient little armchair quarterbacking party by forcing you to back up your claims.

Luckily others are willing to have a rational conversation.
 
Last edited:
That's a load of crap. I'll gladly apply the same principle to other Presidents, including Bush and Reagan. It's not fair to apply our hindsight to them either.

It's a perfectly fair question. In fact, it's the only fair question. If you think Clinton didn't do something he should have done, what exactly should he have done?

If it "derails the thread," it's only because you can't think of an answer. Which makes my point. It derails your convenient little armchair quarterbacking party by forcing you to back up your claims.

Luckily others are willing to have a rational conversation.






What do you think of AQ stating that they thought clinton was weak?
 
What do you think of AQ stating that they thought clinton was weak?

Sorry, but you said your were done with this topic. I don't trust you to discuss it rationally, without making all kinds of accusations about my motives, etc. Others have responded, so I'll continue with them. You can read along if you like.

But I've already addressed this anyway - see message #105.
 
nice dodge there rev
you were invited to identify the specific acts clinton should have taken to deal with osama bin forgotten
and you respond that your failure to respond is because you don't want your partisan reply to make the opposition side uncomfortable
that is so unlike you, which causes one to speculate about the credibility of the basis for that non-response
give it a shot rev, tell us what specific actions clinton should have taken which he did not
we can handle it




What does this have to do with Al qaeda viewing Clinton as weak, and emboldening them to attack?



/facepalm
 
Sorry, but you said your were done with this topic. I don't trust you to discuss it rationally, without making all kinds of accusations about my motives, etc. Others have responded, so I'll continue with them. You can read along if you like.

But I've already addressed this anyway - see message #105.





So you won't ever critisize clinton, nor will you consider what the enemy is telling us. Partisan hack much?
 
So you won't ever critisize clinton,

Sure I will.

I won't automatically assume that your criticism is justified though.

You are the one who refused to discuss it further, not me.

nor will you consider what the enemy is telling us.

I did consider it.

You said you were done. So maybe you should just read along.
 
so anything on the actual topic?

Yep, I'm engaged in discussion with others about the actual topic. You declared the actual topic was a red herring and ran off in a huff. So read along if you'd like.
 
What does this have to do with Al qaeda viewing Clinton as weak, and emboldening them to attack?



/facepalm

it has quite a bit to do with it
if clinton was actually weak, then what actions should he have taken on his watch to deal with osama bin forgotten
if you cannot identify any, and you have presented nothing more than your reluctance to do so, then you are simply parroting AQ propaganda
 
So you two have nothing on the topic, noted.

We have plenty on the topic, which we're discussing with other posters. YOU are the one who ran off in a tantrum when asked to discuss the topic.

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

Bin Laden had 'no clue' about Sept. 11 retaliation - wtop.com

WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden had no idea the U.S. would hit al-Qaida as hard as it has since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, a former bin Laden associate tells WTOP in an exclusive interview.

"I'm 100 percent sure they had no clue about what was going to happen," says Noman Benotman, who was head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the summer of 2000.

"What happened after the 11th of September was beyond their imagination, " says Benotman, who adds that al-Qaida thought the U.S. was a "paper tiger."



"I've spent time in the front line engaging with the enemy more than bin Laden and [Ayman Al-]Zawahiri and the entire group of al-Qaida."

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

Benotman attributes al-Qaida's overconfident attitude to the United States' response to al-Qaida attacks on its in embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998.

Zawahiri, according to Benotman, expected only a missile attack.

"When they attacked the embassies in East Africa, they estimated the U.S. launched 75 cruise missiles and eight people got killed. So they said this time, maybe they will launch 200 and they laughed about this."




I find it interesting that AQ was emboldened by the lack of reaction by the Clinton Administration. I also think they were morons for thinking we would only retaliate with "200 cruise missiles". I think even Clinton would have launced more than 200.... That said. Anyone have any input on how AQ was emboldened by the Clinton administraton?
 
I find it interesting that AQ was emboldened by the lack of reaction by the Clinton Administration. I also think they were morons for thinking we would only retaliate with "200 cruise missiles". I think even Clinton would have launced more than 200.... That said. Anyone have any input on how AQ was emboldened by the Clinton administraton?

They're fanatical islamists Reverend. I think they were and still are emboldened by their own stupidity and zealousy. Trying to bring partisanship into this is useless.
 
They're fanatical islamists Reverend. I think they were and still are emboldened by their own stupidity and zealousy. Trying to bring partisanship into this is useless.




Both bush's were weak as well up until 911, there is nothing partisan about discussing this imo. :shrug:


From this article and interview, do you think AQ would have done any different had Clinton dealt differently with AQ back in the day?
 
Both bush's were weak as well up until 911, there is nothing partisan about discussing this imo. :shrug:


From this article and interview, do you think AQ would have done any different had Clinton dealt differently with AQ back in the day?

I have no doubt at certain points, there were instances where things could have been done to prevent things like 9/11.

But the US has so many threats against it, it's probably unfreakin believable.

At the end of the day, it really sort of comes down to the fact that maybe you shouldn't have armed and trained these guys in the 80's :doh
 
Both bush's were weak as well up until 911, there is nothing partisan about discussing this imo. :shrug:


From this article and interview, do you think AQ would have done any different had Clinton dealt differently with AQ back in the day?

Depends on what he could have done differently. Yet you say that's a red herring.
 
Back
Top Bottom