The Tape?

Aleldar · Post by **Aleldar** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 12:42 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus:

BUT - I do strongly disagree with the "bailing out" of the airlines, and the whole "economic stimulus package" (whether of democratic or republican flavor), and with the military trubunals, and with holding suspects without charges for extended periods, and with ...

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Lazarus ]

I agree on the bailout. The airlines were already having money problems. I think, that some of the airlines used the 9-11 as an excuse for free money, to do things that they should of done ten years ago. Terriosts or not, the airports are a sad excuse for securty or lack of. Plus the Government has been warned time and time again to beef up security in certain areas.

And who pays for all of this? We the tax payer, what SS benefits.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 1:00 pm

Originally posted by Aleldar:

Act like nothing had happened?? Just like Clinton did, when the ship was bombed in Yamin and the bombings in Kenya.

Um, aren't you forgetting that Clinton authorized the bombing and complete destruction of Al-Qa'ida's two main bases away from Afghanistan, where they did most of their recruiting, chemical and weapons facilities? But hey, killing hundreds of supporters and destroying enough armaments to fund the defense of a medium-sized nation isn't very much, I suppose...

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 1:04 pm

Originally posted by fable:
Um, aren't you forgetting that Clinton authorized the bombing and complete destruction of Al-Qa'ida's two main bases away from Afghanistan, where they did most of their recruiting, chemical and weapons facilities? But hey, killing hundreds of supporters and destroying enough armaments to fund the defense of a medium-sized nation isn't very much, I suppose...

I have never heard that Clinton's missle strike did anything of the sort ... in any event, it certainly didn't prevent 9-11.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 1:07 pm

Originally posted by fable:
Um, aren't you forgetting that Clinton authorized the bombing and complete destruction of Al-Qa'ida's two main bases away from Afghanistan, where they did most of their recruiting, chemical and weapons facilities? But hey, killing hundreds of supporters and destroying enough armaments to fund the defense of a medium-sized nation isn't very much, I suppose...

This seems, to me, to be analogious of cutting off the serpent's arms and legs and leaving the head. (and yes, I know snakes don't have arms and legs, that's the point.)

Aleldar · Post by **Aleldar** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 1:13 pm

I agree with SS and Laz. What good did it do? Nada.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 1:28 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus:
I have never heard that Clinton's missle strike did anything of the sort ... in any event, it certainly didn't prevent 9-11.

It was a big deal several years ago. Republican congressmen claimed that Clinton was attempting to drag us into a MidEastern war, without any evidence of Al-Qa'ida's specific involvement in the attack. The congressmen wanted blood--just not Al-Qai'das'; they had their agenda. They wanted Clinton's.

In addition, Clinton admitted recently (and papers were declassified proving his) that there was a concerted attempt made to assassinate bin Ladan using CIA operatives at the time. Clinton had no evidence linking Al-Qa'ida to the bombings, so he had to act more covertly in a direct strike. He took the maximum amount of room he had, and acted at once upon it. He attempted to both cripple the organization and land a final blow in chopping off its head (to use SS's analogy).

Unfortunately, he just crippled it. Fortunately, he did not invade a sovreign nation with a complete lack of evidence. Had he done so, he might have prevented the September attack, and faced instead a ground war against a united group of hostile Arab nations, with the Europeans offering to negotiate if the US withdrew. (That's one scenario, in any case.) At home, he would have been screamed at by every Republican party hack or press organ that now praises Dubbyah. This is all speculation--but the point is, as someone remarked once, hindsight is always 20/20.

In any case, so much for Clinton "doing nothing."

The man has some glaring flaws, but not here; and you will note that right after the Oklahoma bombing, and despite the possible presence of terrorists, Clinton was directly on the scene. For the first twelve hours after the September attacks, Bush was silent, hiding in Airforce 1 to avoid attacks. Personally, I think that speaks volumes.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 2:42 pm

@fable: My comment was more a questioning of the actual effect of Clinton's missle strike: it has always been my understanding that it did NOT in fact kill any Al Queda personnel, nor did it significantly damage their operational capability. Perhaps I am wrong in this - ?

Clinton's missle strike (and attempts to assassinate bin Laden), however, were too little, too late. We had appeased terrorists (and their sponsor states) for years and years and years prior to that, and this (inaction) could only act as incentive for further actions against us.

GWB's "war" (with all its faults) has been the only positive action against terrorism since terrorism came into vogue, IMO.

Aleldar · Post by **Aleldar** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 4:40 pm

Originally posted by fable:


In any case, so much for Clinton "doing nothing." The man has some glaring flaws, but not here; and you will note that right after the Oklahoma bombing, and despite the possible presence of terrorists, Clinton was directly on the scene. For the first twelve hours after the September attacks, Bush was silent, hiding in Airforce 1 to avoid attacks. Personally, I think that speaks volumes.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Edit

Clinton was there after everything was secure. What kind of crap you trying to pull??
As for Bush, there were three jumbo jets that hit three buildings, one of them being the pentagon. Where was Bush suppose to go? When stuff happens like that, the Secret Service tells the President where to go.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Aleldar ]

FudD · Post by **FudD** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 6:42 pm

LOL

still argueing (disscussing) i see....can somebody awnser my question?

How do you fix this big arse mess!? (refering to the state of the world disscussed in this thread)

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 7:16 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus:
@fable: My comment was more a questioning of the actual effect of Clinton's missle strike: it has always been my understanding that it did NOT in fact kill any Al Queda personnel, nor did it significantly damage their operational capability. Perhaps I am wrong in this - ?

I see. Yes, it has been hard to determine how many Al-Qa'ida members were actually killed in the attacks, though everything that I've heard from both federal sources and elsewhere indicates that they felt the organization would have actually engaged in major chemical warfare before now if Clinton hadn't taken out that particular base (I believe it was the one in Sudan). These things are imponderables. If we didn't have Northern Alliance troops on the ground in Afghanistan, you have to wonder how many troops of Al-Qa'ida would actually be destroyed. What Clinton did, effectively, was blast to hell the technical infrastructure of the group. And I admit to being damn glad he did.

Clinton's missle strike (and attempts to assassinate bin Laden), however, were too little, too late. We had appeased terrorists (and their sponsor states) for years and years and years prior to that, and this (inaction) could only act as incentive for further actions against us.

No arguments from me, there. I think the elder Bush in particular bears an onus for allowing this kind of thing to develop. He had a wonderful window of opportunity to draw much of the MidEast Arab bloc into a series of client relationships and treaties, as well as (more importantly) affecting the image of the US down on the ground, among the populace. He didn't. The moment passed, after Kuwait was liberated. The ridiculous policy of destroying Iraq's people under the appearance of hitting back at Hussain, plus unconditional support for sucessive Israeli regimes, has created the atmosphere needed to foster terrorism in that region. And any movement is at its strongest when it receives popular support, which this one regrettably does. I can't see Dubbyah doing anything to change the image of the US in that area; instead, the governments that do incline in our direction are only moving further away from their people, thus creating a tension that again results in more terrorist cells.

We're finally treating the symptoms of terrorism (well, some: offshore bank accounts still flourish). But we're not dealing with the conditions that allow it to exist, IMO.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Dec 17, 2001 7:38 pm

LMAO I think, SS is right you are full of BS. Man, I didn't know there were farms in New Jersey.

Clinton was there after everything was secure. What kind of crap you trying to pull??

@Aledar, first of all, I suggest you read the forum rules. Flaming simply isn't permitted: period. People have permanantly or temporarily lost their rights of access to the board and posting with commments like yours. Much as your general remarks are valued here, so is the ability for everybody to carry on a pleasant conversation. That means that if you have a problem with the content of somebody else's comments, the way to deal with it is--wait for it--polite discussion. Try it. The alternative is no fun for anybody.

As regards your question: I'm not trying to pull anything. HighLord Dave made the excellent point several weeks ago that Clinton appeared immediately after the Oklahoma bombings, in his persona of president, officially reassuring the victims' families, smoothing the flow of federal funding to the area--in short, doing what a leader of a nation is expected to do at the moment of such a crisis. Of course he was protected!

That wasn't the point: the point was, he was there. If you've ever lost a loved one in such an event, having the head of your country grieve visually along with you, say the right words, and do the right things, I think you would find that greatly strengthening. I know that was the effect it had on many of the families involved at the time, because I know members of several of the said families.

Bush, on the other hand, metaphorically stuck his head in the sand and vanished for twelve hours. Security wasn't the issue. The issue was being seen, being vocal, being "Presidential," if you like, a symbol of a caring, dignified nation. Nixon did this; Carter did this; Reagan did this; the older Bush did this. Dubbyah didn't.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

CM · Post by CM » Tue Dec 18, 2001 2:50 am

Originally posted by Vivien:
Fas,
I dont' really have anything to add to this discussion, as it depresses me... I worry that the U.S. is being unjust and hurting innocents...
You don't care if iraqis die, you don't care if palestinians or kashmiris die
Some of us do care. *hug*

Vivien

I am sorry saything that was unfair of me.
My bad, i should have said the govt instead of you people.
For that my apologises.
I do believe that westerners tend to be more humanitarian orientated than many other people.
People do feel for the plight of these people, but the govt does show it.
I have a wicked temper and it tends to get out when i am discussing politics with people who i believe don't know what they are talking about.
I did and do not want to get into this disucussion so i will stop here.
Again my apologise.

And Darkflame don't attempt to give me hugs!
You get your cooties all over me!

Bah Women!!

*whispers; Thanks for ze hug i feel all warm and fuzzy inside!*

Aleldar · Post by **Aleldar** » Tue Dec 18, 2001 3:17 pm

Edit

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Aleldar ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Dec 18, 2001 3:37 pm

Originally posted by Aleldar:

Sorry old boy, that wasn't a flame. And if you think that Bush stuck his head in the sand, you are wrong. With so many planes in the air. Do you think that maybe one of them, might of been looking for the Presidents plane??? Now I said maybe.

So you think Bush should of went running right to the WTC right after it happened?

Oh by the way, I lost three family members on 9-11.

If you don't think it's a flame, read Buck's rules. Simple, sweet, and to the point, and yes, it fits this board's definition of a flame. If you have any questions concerning them, send them by all means to Buck. (And don't bother sending me any more flames than the one you already did via email. I just trash 'em.)

Did I ever write that Bush should have gone to the WTC site right after the event? Of course not. Everybody was being cleared away from there with the exception of ambulances, firefighters, etc. The important point was that Bush could have expressed his condolenscenes at once, from any tv studio. He could have declared a day of mourning for all those lost, and those family who had lost. He could have found the words that would have started the flow of tears, ultimately leading to the clensing of hearts. This is what a national leader, IMO, should have done--and again, I wasn't the first one who pointed this out; the credit really belongs to HighLord Dave. But I agree with him 100%.

My sympathies to you and your family concerning the events of September 11th. In a certain sense, we all lost somebody on that day.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Tue Dec 18, 2001 4:22 pm

Originally posted by Fas:
*whispers; Thanks for ze hug i feel all warm and fuzzy inside!*

Fas, this statement will come back to haunt you. Never again will you be able to claim you are a nasty ol' chauvinist pig, because we can all see now that you are just a warm little puppy dog hoping for attention from the fairer sex. You like 'em, and you want them to like you too. Face it.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Dec 18, 2001 4:29 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus:
Fas, this statement will come back to haunt you. Never again will you be able to claim you are a nasty ol' chauvinist pig, because we can all see now that you are just a warm little puppy dog hoping for attention from the fairer sex. You like 'em, and you want them to like you too. Face it.

LOL! @Faz, you've been found out. Better trash that Budweiser t-shirt and ditch that I BRAKE FOR NOTHING logo you've got stitched to the seat of your jeans. Your cover is blown!

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Aleldar · Post by **Aleldar** » Tue Dec 18, 2001 4:37 pm

Edit.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Aleldar ]

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Tue Dec 18, 2001 4:57 pm

Psted by Fas -

*whispers; Thanks for ze hug i feel all warm and fuzzy inside!*

Caught you my friend

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Dec 18, 2001 5:06 pm

@Aledar, read Buck's post, directly above your own.