PDA

View Full Version : Post 9-11 politics


G-CPTN
8th Sep 2011, 19:25
There is much discussion in the media about the aftermath of the 9-11 Twin Towers event (and the Pentagon and the crash of the hi-jacked airliner into the field in Shanksville Pennsylvania).

The general concensus (of those that I have heard) seems to be that it was a carefully constructed plan to draw the US into a lengthy, expensive and resource-draining war that would reduce the Western World's standing - just as the Soviet Union had been reduced by their involvement in Afghanistan.

In retrospect, and with the benefit of hindsight, what alternative might there have been other than the War on Terror? Would inaction have brought about a different solution?

Did the US 'fail' when they allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora?

Would things have been easier without him?

What about Guantanamo Bay? Has it just been a training and recruiting ground for terrorists?

Why has POTUS Obama not closed it down yet?

What to do next?

Solid Rust Twotter
8th Sep 2011, 19:52
Tinfoil hat mob should be along soon...

stuckgear
8th Sep 2011, 20:05
Tinfoil hat mob should be along soon...

The Peanut butter is causing a delay...

11Fan
8th Sep 2011, 20:07
Another doomed thread. :hmm:

The Peanut butter is causing a delay...

I've found that if you microwave it, it is easier to spread. Problem is, most of those folks won't get near a microwave either.

stuckgear
8th Sep 2011, 20:13
maybe the internet kill switch got them !:E

11Fan
8th Sep 2011, 20:35
Were it that selective.....

Solid Rust Twotter
8th Sep 2011, 20:37
...Problem is, most of those folks won't get near a microwave either. ...

May be safer if they put the doors back and removed the toothpick from the microswitch. Probably the reason they wear tinfoil in the first place...

11Fan
8th Sep 2011, 20:44
That would explain some of the behavior then.....

Flypuppy
8th Sep 2011, 21:40
Well, what happend to the Iraq connection to 9/11 and those fantasy WMDs?

We were told so many lies to justify an unnecessary war it is odd that there are not more demands to hold people to account. it is a shame that the conspiracy nutters have diverted attention from this.

corsair
8th Sep 2011, 22:18
The general concensus (of those that I have heard) seems to be that it was a carefully constructed plan to draw the US into a lengthy, expensive....... No it was revenge, ill thought out revenge for some perceived insult.

In retrospect, and with the benefit of hindsight, what alternative ...Doing nothing was not an option. It's arguable whether the right option was selected. But Afghanistan was always going to be in the firing line.

Did the US 'fail' when they allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora?Was he ever really there?

What about Guantanamo Bay? Has it just been a training and recruiting ground for terrorists?
Why has POTUS Obama not closed it down yet?
Hardly, it's not exactly a POW camp. Obama hasn't closed it down because it's full of irredimable fanatics. Let them go and they will kill and kill again. Several former inmates have already done so. It can never be closed in reality.

What to do next? No one knows!

Well, what happend to the Iraq connection to 9/11 and those fantasy WMDs?

We were told so many lies to justify an unnecessary war it is odd that there are not more demands to hold people to account. it is a shame that the conspiracy nutters have diverted attention from this. There never was a connection. Iraq was nothing to do with 9/11. It was just convenient for Bush.

Flypuppy
8th Sep 2011, 23:33
9/11 was used as a justification for war with Iraq

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2003
Text Of A Letter From The President To The Speaker Of The House Of Representatives And The President Pro Tempore Of The Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

*

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
*

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush

Craggenmore
9th Sep 2011, 00:21
The general concensus (of those that I have heard) seems to be that it was a carefully constructed plan to draw the US into a lengthy, expensive and resource-draining war that would reduce the Western World's standing

Well the USA is broke and Europe is broke...

corsair
9th Sep 2011, 01:10
Exactly flypuppy it was convenient for Bush. But we all believed Saddam was a threat. Even Saddam, even as he went to the gallows.

But none of it's relevant to 9/11.

This thread is not about Bush's illusions.

Flypuppy, your comments and your attempt to derail this thread inspired me to check the video of Saddam being hanged for the first time. It was too quick, he deserved to suffer more. I enjoyed it despite being sickened by violence generally.

Nothing to do with 9/11.

Think more about the innocents who went to work that glorious September Tuesday. Think more about the people who have died since. Think more about the number of Muslims murdered by Al Qaeda and those who died because of their actions.

Think more of those, alive now who will die, slaughtered needlessly because of a perverted view of Islam sponsored by a man now dead whose legacy is that of mass murder.

Heliport
9th Sep 2011, 01:24
Eliza Manningham-Buller, 33 years in MI5, Director General 2002 - 2007:Saddam Hussein certainly allowed no freedom. His human rights record was atrocious, his prisons torture chambers. He was a ruthless dictator and the world is better off without him. But neither he nor his regime had anything to do with 9/11 and despite an extensive search for links, none but the most trivial and insignificant was found.
Indeed, for the secular Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda represented a challenge to his authority.

I understand why we went into Iraq. There was a view that it was no longer tolerable to put up with people who might at some stage threaten us through their acquisition of weapons in the light of what had happened. What I objected to was the suggestion that this had anything to do with 9/11, and actually that it distracted us from the focus on the perpetrators of 9/11.


Transcript of a (very informative) lecture she gave earlier this week in which she talks about 9/11: Terror (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/radio4/transcripts/2011_reith3.pdf)

Podcast (http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/reith#playepisode1)

H.

Heliport
9th Sep 2011, 01:43
BandAide

It's always good to read a well-balanced opinion. :ok:

As an aside, I hope also for a renewal and reaffirmation of total US support for Israel as it struggles to survive the onslaught of the hateful, relentless and enduring Islamic and European hatred and bigotry directed against it.

:rolleyes:

Blacksheep
9th Sep 2011, 08:28
You want a link? Here goes.
Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and its allies placed massive military forces in Saudi Arabia where there was already an existing anti-government dissident movement led by, among others, OBL. The Saudi dissidents took objection to non-muslim soldiers, fighting a nominally muslim nation in support of a corrupt government, being present on the "holy ground" of Saudi Arabia. They planned an attack on the USA designed to entice the USA and its western allies into an over-reaction that would unite the muslim "Ummah" against their pro-western corrupt governments. The objective being to re-unite all muslim nations and recreate the single, powerful Caliphate as a unified state - as it once was.

Thats the Iraq connection and as far as I can see, the plan is working very well. The Arab Spring is well established and in case you haven't noticed, the Muslim Brotherhood are deeply involved in all the new transitional councils that will eventually establish new governments in the "freed" countries.

As one of the Taliban said on a C4 interview "Time is on our side"

rh200
9th Sep 2011, 08:33
Thats the Iraq connection and as far as I can see, the plan is working very well. The Arab Spring is well established and in case you haven't noticed, the Muslim Brotherhood are deeply involved in all the new transitional councils that will eventually establish new governments in the "freed" countries.

Good, then hopefully they can have one big unified defence force that we can give a good smatting too, instead of playing tiddely winks running after ghosts.

Flypuppy
9th Sep 2011, 08:57
Corsair

But none of it's relevant to 9/11.

It is highly relevant. Only the most naive or politically illiterate would separate 9/11 from the invasion of Iraq. I regard the political abuses that followed 9/11 the biggest insults to those who died that day.

I agree wholeheartedly with the operations in Afghanistan, and the level of international support is evidence that most right minded people did.

The invasion of Iraq, based on the fantasy that it was involved in the 9/11 attacks cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Why don't you reflect upon that corsair? It provoked the terrorist attacks in Spain and London. So you may consider it a derailing, but I see it as highly relevant.

stuckgear
9th Sep 2011, 09:29
Another situation was that following GW1 the UN security Council mandated that Iraq was only allowed defensive military equipment of which the specifications were clearly defined. Saddam's weaponry exceeded those specifications.

While NOT 'WMD's' the specification of this equipment enabled iraq an offensive capability, which was outside the specifics of the UN mandate. The UN kept drawing lines in the sand and Saddam kept stepping over them. Although this was sideshow to the real issue and subject to political perversion (Ref: Blair).

G-CPTN
9th Sep 2011, 17:09
It seems that the terrorists are still terrorising 'us' - as the high level of defensive security in New York and surrounding the Twin Towers site is said to be considerable - and it's not even the 10th of September yet.

BBC News - 9/11: New York security raised amid 'credible threat' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14857416)

baggersup
9th Sep 2011, 17:37
One thing fancy conspiracy theories never take into account are the masses of everybody people who see things happen. Anyone familiar with the roads around the Pentagon will know that it's an M-25 type parking lot at 9 a.m. in the morning. A plane going into the Pentagon, even at high speed would have been in full view of thousands of motorists in stopped traffic, the 14th street bridge egress being higher than the ground level Pentagon.

I was put off the metro at Pentagon City (the stop before the Pentagon) after minutes after the plane went in and they closed the Metro in case tracks had been compromised.

Needing to get to work (a newsroom where obviously every hand was needed) i climbed up the grass hillside up to the 14th street bridge, needing to walk over it to get to the District (road was closed of traffic at that point). The gaping burning hole in the Pentagon was spewing the stench of fuel, aviation fuel, a smell that is umistakable.

Also, friends of mine sadly were attending a funeral at on the hillside of Arlington Cemetary down low on the Pentagon side, which is directly across a four-lane road from the entry site of the crash. In their horror they heard a loud sound and all saw a plane gliding toward the Pentagon where it went in. They were close enough to see the windows with people inside.

I have no idea about any other conspiracies that may have or not occurred around 9/11.

But oftentimes people tend to forget that the general public often see these things themselves and it is hard deny something happened when hundreds or more of the public viewed it--even though it's hard to make sense of something that horrific as there is sense of denial about the horror.

Whatever "security" may be in effect on the 10th anniversary....I'm not going to judge. The question would be why WOULDN'T a terrorist organization want to do something on the 10th anniversary? It's hard to imagine why people would mock security in effect to guard against the great coup that it would be for those who wish to do mischief on such a key anniversary.

Jane-DoH
9th Sep 2011, 18:24
baggersup

Whatever "security" may be in effect on the 10th anniversary....I'm not going to judge. The question would be why WOULDN'T a terrorist organization want to do something on the 10th anniversary?

Actually, I could understand why they would want to hit us, and I'm not opposed to common sense, and reasonable increases in security for the days leading up to, and a week or two after 9/11.

That's not my worry. The worry is that the security measures will probably not be temporary, they probably won't be all that reasonable, probably overly intrusive, and possibly not even all that practical for stopping a terrorist attack.

fitliker
9th Sep 2011, 18:41
You cannot hear the roar of a beast that does not exist.
That is why we have never heard from the moderates of this war against the west.As there are no moderates in the enemies camp.

Bronx
9th Sep 2011, 20:17
fitliker

Location: cowtown

I guess that explains the bovine excrement. :rolleyes:

Lonewolf_50
9th Sep 2011, 20:21
G-CPTN, what further use of 9-11 do you expect politicians to try and make?

That ought to be the discussion in re Post 9-11 politics, not the rehashing of the same talking points we've been listening to for the past eight years.

Y'all paying attention?

Are you?

Stop looking backwards. You'll hit a wall right in front of you.