• 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:
Depends on what he could have done differently. Yet you say that's a red herring.
Click to expand...

that's only because then YOU were the one asking the question

since he is now seeking the same response, it has become a legitimate aspect of the conversation
 
justabubba said:
that's only because then YOU were the one asking the question

since he is now seeking the same response, it has become a legitimate aspect of the conversation
Click to expand...

Yeah, he's even bringing it up himself!
 
Jetboogieman said:
I have no doubt at certain points, there were instances where things could have been done to prevent things like 9/11.
Click to expand...


absolutley, and it does not matter what that was. Point I am trying to ask, is, was Clintons response, as the AQ dude said, so weak that it emboldened AQ to grander things, and ultimatley a mistake in judgment on thier part to what our reaction would be?


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



This one was a bit more specific, including when OBL was offered to us by the Sudan. All these little mistakes, I think, as they are now confirming led to AQ becoming bolder and bolder.


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
Click to expand...




If we didn't would the USSR be around today? It's was a lesser of two evils.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
This one was a bit more specific, including when OBL was offered to us by the Sudan. All these little mistakes, I think, as they are now confirming led to AQ becoming bolder and bolder.
Click to expand...

Sudan did not offer him up to us. From the article I posted in message 10:

Perhaps the most sensational charge against Clinton to emerge in the months since Sept. 11 is the dubious claim that he somehow let an offer from Sudan to turn over bin Laden slip through his fingers. Sullivan blatantly misrepresents a definitive article that appeared in the Washington Post on Oct. 3, 2001, on this topic. "The Sudanese government offered to hand over bin Laden to the United States," Sullivan writes. "Astonishingly, the Clinton administration turned the offer down." But that phony accusation is exploded by the very first sentence of the Post article, which says only that Sudan offered to "arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody."
Click to expand...

If we didn't would the USSR be around today? It's was a lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

I agree.

So there were much greater issues that had to be considered back then? Choices were limited? And all the possible results were hard to predict?

Imagine that.
 
misterman said:
Sudan did not offer him up to us. From the article I posted in message 10:
Click to expand...


I guess Clinton was lying here then. :shrug:


http://archive.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3







I agree.

So there were much greater issues that had to be considered back then? Choices were limited? And all the possible results were hard to predict?

Imagine that.
Click to expand...



What are you talking about? What other evil prevented Bill Clinton from doing anything else?


Fact is, according to AQ, bin laden was emboldened by the inactions of CLinton. Do you agree that is what happened as admitted by AQ?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
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?
Click to expand...

Al qaeda is an accidental illusion. OBL and the CIA kept a list to keep track of Mujahideen guerilla fighters. al qaeda means... THE LIST. Somehow, some way, the CIA bowed out. and OBL was the only one left with the Mujahideens.The media, who love intrique, named the terrorists al qaeda and it stuck ever since.

ricksfolly
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I guess Clinton was lying here then.
Click to expand...

No, sounds like he was mistaken, and his wife corrects him on the very same clip.

Both note that there was no good legal basis to bring him to the U.S. at the time. All that would do would risk him being released for lack of evidence, and that would be a disaster that would REALLY embolden him and his followers. Again, hindsight is 20/20. It's so easy to criticize from the comfort of your armchair two decades later, isn't it?

What are you talking about? What other evil prevented Bill Clinton from doing anything else?
Click to expand...

Like you said, the U.S. needed to support the Afghan insurgency against the USSR (not specifically Clinton). Nobody knew it would create bin Laden at the time, nor was it as important.

Fact is, according to AQ, bin laden was emboldened by the inactions of CLinton. Do you agree that is what happened as admitted by AQ?
Click to expand...

Do I agree with bin Laden? That's kind of a silly question. He may have said it, and he may even have believed it. Or maybe it was sheer propoganda that you're buying into. But either way, until you explain what actions Clinton could have taken instead, it's a moot point.
 
misterman said:
No, sounds like he was mistaken, and his wife corrects him on the very same clip.

Both note that there was no good legal basis to bring him to the U.S. at the time. All that would do would risk him being released for lack of evidence, and that would be a disaster that would REALLY embolden him and his followers. Again, hindsight is 20/20. It's so easy to criticize from the comfort of your armchair two decades later, isn't it?
Click to expand...


So which was it? Was he lying, or was there no legal basis? You can't have it both ways.


As for the "comfort of my armchair", I've been shot at for my country. When and where did you serve?



Like you said, the U.S. needed to support the Afghan insurgency against the USSR (not specifically Clinton). Nobody knew it would create bin Laden at the time, nor was it as important.
Click to expand...


This is irrellevant to the topic at hand. Clinton did not have to deal with a USSR, he had to deal with the terrorists blowing holes in our ships and setting off bombs at the WTC.



Do I agree with bin Laden? That's kind of a silly question. He may have said it, and he may even have believed it. Or maybe it was sheer propoganda that you're buying into. But either way, until you explain what actions Clinton could have taken instead, it's a moot point.
Click to expand...



as the leader of AQ, if he believes it, then it's true. You want to play the what if game, The Good Reverend is simply keeping it in reality land.... :shrug:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So which was it? Was he lying, or was there no legal basis? You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

People can make mistakes or have differerent memories of events.

As for the "comfort of my armchair", I've been shot at for my country.
Click to expand...

Did you complain to your commanding officers that they didn't do enough, thereby emboldening the enemy?

This is irrellevant to the topic at hand. Clinton did not have to deal with a USSR, he had to deal with the terrorists blowing holes in our ships and setting off bombs at the WTC.
Click to expand...

But the principle applies. You brought it up.

as the leader of AQ, if he believes it, then it's true.
Click to expand...

:doh Now you've talked yourself into taking a position that depends on sticking up for the integrity of Osama bin Laden. Way to go!
 
misterman said:
People can make mistakes or have differerent memories of events.
Click to expand...


I think your making excuses for you partisan hackery. :shrug:


Did you complain to your commanding officers that they didn't do enough, thereby emboldening the enemy?
Click to expand...



What's that have to do with your snotty armchair comment hero.



But the principle applies. You brought it up.
Click to expand...


nonsense.




:doh Now you've talked yourself into taking a position that depends on sticking up for the integrity of Osama bin Laden. Way to go!
Click to expand...



Why would the enemy lie about such a thing, only a fool would close thier ears to what the enemy tells you. :shrug:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
What's that have to do with your snotty armchair comment hero.
Click to expand...

It's easy to judge from the sidelines when you don't have all the info and you have hindsight.

Why would the enemy lie about such a thing, only a fool would close thier ears to what the enemy tells you. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Really? I have to explain why bin Laden might say something to rally his supporters to act?
 
misterman said:
It's easy to judge from the sidelines when you don't have all the info and you have hindsight.
Click to expand...


Right, sorry for critisizing your boy, I know it upsets you to the point of no rational discourse.. :ssst:


Really? I have to explain why bin Laden might say something to rally his supporters to act?
Click to expand...


This is dumb, but expected. Did you even read the article?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Right, sorry for critisizing your boy, I know it upsets you to the point of no rational discourse.. :ssst:
Click to expand...

You are the one who threw a hissy fit when I asked you a perfectly reasonable question, and you still haven't answered it.

This is dumb, but expected. Did you even read the article?
Click to expand...

Yes. Do you really think OBL wouldn't lie, or exaggerate?
 
jallman said:
Yes he has.
Click to expand...

Nope. He whined about it a while, then brought it up himself, but never answered it.

Speculation. How about we deal in facts, hmm?
Click to expand...

That's what I want to do. The fact is that we CAN'T speculate that OBL really believes what he said. It's possible he was saying it to rally his base.
 
misterman said:
Nope. He whined about it a while, then brought it up himself, but never answered it.
Click to expand...

Totally untrue on your part.

That's what I want to do. The fact is that we CAN'T speculate that OBL really believes what he said. It's possible he was saying it to rally his base.
Click to expand...

Then why were you asking him to speculate?
 
misterman said:
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.
Click to expand...

AQ had already hit us a few times. They hit our embassies in Africa, a military barracks in Saudi Arabia, and the USS Cole. It was also known that OBL was the head of AQ. We had intelligence that pin pointed his location. He was at an AQ training camp and we sent in a bunch of cruise missiles to blow up the camp. We missed him because Clinton waited a few hours and he was gone by then. Clinton waited because he wanted to do a simultaneous strike on a suspected biological weapons plant and he wanted to hit it in the middle of the night when there were no workers there. It turned out to be a harmless medicine factory. The hit on the training camp got delayed because the two hits were done simultaneously, but by then OBL was gone. All of this had plenty of coverage in the MSM.



misterman said:
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.
Click to expand...

AQ was based in Afghanistan. That was no secret.

misterman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming no such thing. If there were other ways to hit AQ then that makes Clinton's inaction that much worse.

misterman said:
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.
Click to expand...

This thread is about the Clinton years and AQ. Please don't derail it.

misterman said:
Thanks for having a rational response by the way.
Click to expand...
You're welcome, now please address the Sandy Berger issue.
 
Last edited:
mpg said:
This thread is about the Clinton years and AQ. Please don't derail it.
Click to expand...

But the point is made.

You're welcome, now please address the Sandy Berger issue.
Click to expand...

This thread is about the Clinton years and AQ. Please don't derail it. :mrgreen:
 
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...

This has got to be your dumbest, and most factually incorrect, post ever. Bin Laden told his family he'd be gone for a long while. His pals were all prepared for what the U.S. would do.

Why don't you talk about that dumb cluck Reagan and how ignorant and cowardly he looked when he first, ignored his military leaders advice to not put Marines in Lebanon and then ran away after their baracks were bombed and NEVER retaliated!

241 American servicemen were killed and YOUR hero Ronnie Reagon, the God of the right, did NOTHING!

THAT is when Bin Laden accused us of being a paper tiger. Not Clinton. Reagan!

We get it that you and your kind hate Clinton. But, do you have to act so ignorant about it? :doh
 
I think the idea that the only strong leaders you guys can have, is the one that bombs and kills people all over the world, is so idiotic it's unbelievable. You can't possibly eliminate all your threats across the globe. And you turn your military spending into a political point system instead of whats required and nessecary to defend your nation. If a president dared cut any defense spending, he'd be labelled as weak, even if alot of it was unnesecary.
 
ADK_Forever said:
This has got to be your dumbest, and most factually incorrect, post ever. Bin Laden told his family he'd be gone for a long while. His pals were all prepared for what the U.S. would do.

Why don't you talk about that dumb cluck Reagan and how ignorant and cowardly he looked when he first, ignored his military leaders advice to not put Marines in Lebanon and then ran away after their baracks were bombed and NEVER retaliated!

241 American servicemen were killed and YOUR hero Ronnie Reagon, the God of the right, did NOTHING!

THAT is when Bin Laden accused us of being a paper tiger. Not Clinton. Reagan!

We get it that you and your kind hate Clinton. But, do you have to act so ignorant about it? :doh
Click to expand...




Reagan too, you partisan hack you. :shrug:



Now my partisan hack friend, any commentary on the article, seems AQ disagrees with your partisan hack dishonest spin. They said clinton, i see no mention of Reagan, though Reagan made the same mistakes Clinton did in beruit.


FAIL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom