The War on Terror

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Obsidian Tides

hah, sure, but it's not as if it's going to hurt anyone to have more on the list. better safe than sorry, eh? although, nothing is likely to come of it either way, making it even less relevant.

It hurts the people on the list if they're acted upon

well, i didn't say immediately after 9/11. that really warrants a "no ****" response, since it was basically the climax of a much larger story. what else could you expect?

I could have expected the United States government to pursue a responsible foreign policy. Of course, with Bush in power it was highly unlikely, but if we'd had someone reasonable in charge, it might've happened. Maybe.

as for Clinton, i don't think it was just the threat that appeared to involve some kind of exaggeration, but rather, instances like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/156747.stm
it really seems as if the impact we had was overstated, as is evident from the statement made in the headline and the fact that it, along with similar instances under the Clinton administration, didn't hurt al-Qaeda much at all (as we'd see in a few years).

It's fair enough that they may have overestimated the effectiveness of some of their policies, but a large portion of their plan had yet to be implemented when Clinton left office. He left it to the Bush administration because he didn't want to hand them a war, trusting they would put national security interests above politics, but as has been mentioned, they seemed to think he was irrationally obsessed with bin Laden. History was to prove that he was not.

as a result, it naturally seemed as if the whole situation looked a bit overblown.
in any case, i see the whole 9/11 thing as a sort of "hot potato" scenario. it's something that was going to occur eventually, whether is was years before or still a ways down the road. it just so happens that Bush was stuck with the problem when the music finally stopped. unfortunately, it's the type of thing that would happen no matter who was in office at the time.

It was probably inevitable that we'd suffer a 9/11-type attack eventually due to the harmful nature of U.S. foreign policy on other countries, but I'm convinced this particular attack could have been predicted and averted. For example, Bush received a memo entitled "Bin Ladin [sic] Determined to Strike in U.S." in August 2001, along with notices that al-Qaeda was training jet pilots who didn't seem concerned with how to takeoff or land a plane. From these two choice pieces of information one can readily deduce that they were planning to use airplane hijackings to commit terrorism, and yet the federal government, as far as I can tell, did absolutely nothing to prevent any such thing from happening.

well, not to say you're wrong or right, but i could easily make generic claims like that about almost anything :P

well, I've presented plenty of evidence for my reasoning, so I think it qualifies as a bit more than just a "generic claim"

[itcouldbesweet]

For anyone who supports the war on terror. Define to me what you think a terrorist is.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Borat

We support your war of terror. May George Bush drink the blood of every man, woman, and child in Iraq!

[Obsidian Tides]

Originally Posted by The Man

It hurts the people on the list if they're acted upon

If. even then, it's not as if their meeting is stormed out of the clear blue by SWAT squads, guns blazing. i think you should be able to agree that while these little quirks are fun to point out, their relevance is mostly negligible.

Originally Posted by The Man

I could have expected the United States government to pursue a responsible foreign policy. Of course, with Bush in power it was highly unlikely, but if we'd had someone reasonable in charge, it might've happened. Maybe.

Maybe. even with someone you deem more favorable, you still would not see a 180 in foreign policy.
however, it still relates back the the inevitability of the big picture, no matter who is in charge, as i went on to say.

Originally Posted by The Man

It's fair enough that they may have overestimated the effectiveness of some of their policies, but a large portion of their plan had yet to be implemented when Clinton left office. He left it to the Bush administration because he didn't want to hand them a war, trusting they would put national security interests above politics, but as has been mentioned, they seemed to think he was irrationally obsessed with bin Laden. History was to prove that he was not.

and why wasn't this mysterious plan being implemented? if that plan involved starting any sort of war, or at least more rigorous offensives, then what would be wrong with allowing it to see an administration change? i suppose it'd actually be smart on Clinton's part, since he'd have to take no responsibility for it if he can just pass it on to the next President. perhaps it was because it was just too close to the end of his term? that seems a little odd though, because if the matter was important and urgent enough, why not just start it yourself?
what's more, if the early stages of the plan, such as the previously mentioned missile strike, were any indication, then the rest of it wasn't likely to fare any better. even at best, it would never play out the way it's intended. after all, nothing does.

by the way, would you mind providing a link to the actual plan? you mention it often enough, but i've never actually read over all of it myself. thanks.

It was probably inevitable that we'd suffer a 9/11-type attack eventually due to the harmful nature of U.S. foreign policy on other countries, but I'm convinced this particular attack could have been predicted and averted. For example, Bush received a memo entitled "Bin Ladin [sic] Determined to Strike in U.S." in August 2001, along with notices that al-Qaeda was training jet pilots who didn't seem concerned with how to takeoff or land a plane. From these two choice pieces of information one can readily deduce that they were planning to use airplane hijackings to commit terrorism, and yet the federal government, as far as I can tell, did absolutely nothing to prevent any such thing from happening.

well, the Osama memo is really just another "no ****", because let's be honest, that wasn't exactly news. as for the training, there was actually little to no indication of the intent; the hijackers were simply completing the training like any other person would. since a few of the pilots were eventually associated with San Antonio, as mentioned here:http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_knew...t_schools.html , i saw quite a bit of local coverage in addition to the rest when it came to this subject. still, this was hardly enough to act upon, especially since the vague nature of such a tip would leave far too many possibilities to try to accommodate, even more so when you consider that this would be only one of countless "leads" that the FBI may have at any given time.
besides, it's not hard to look back and connect the dots; hindsight is 20/20 after all. there's really no telling if anyone could have truly prevented it though, and if we could, it would almost certainly have required more time than whoever would have taken office in 2001 would have had.

well, I've presented plenty of evidence for my reasoning, so I think it qualifies as a bit more than just a "generic claim"

just saying, it strikes me as a sort of "just you wait, you'll see!"
it certainly gave me a smirk as i read it.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Obsidian Tides

If. even then, it's not as if their meeting is stormed out of the clear blue by SWAT squads, guns blazing. i think you should be able to agree that while these little quirks are fun to point out, their relevance is mostly negligible.

Nah, given that people are being locked away without trial now I think they're pretty damn relevant

Maybe. even with someone you deem more favorable, you still would not see a 180 in foreign policy.
however, it still relates back the the inevitability of the big picture, no matter who is in charge, as i went on to say.

I'm not saying there'd be a complete 180-degree, but it'd have been a hell of a lot better what Bush has done.

and why wasn't this mysterious plan being implemented? if that plan involved starting any sort of war, or at least more rigorous offensives, then what would be wrong with allowing it to see an administration change? i suppose it'd actually be smart on Clinton's part, since he'd have to take no responsibility for it if he can just pass it on to the next President. perhaps it was because it was just too close to the end of his term? that seems a little odd though, because if the matter was important and urgent enough, why not just start it yourself?

I guess he just felt he'd be a jerk to start a war and leave office in the middle of it.

what's more, if the early stages of the plan, such as the previously mentioned missile strike, were any indication, then the rest of it wasn't likely to fare any better. even at best, it would never play out the way it's intended. after all, nothing does.

Of course not. But at least they'd have been doing something. Which is more than the Bush administration did.

by the way, would you mind providing a link to the actual plan? you mention it often enough, but i've never actually read over all of it myself. thanks.

I honestly don't have a link to it, or even much info about it, onhand right now. I'll try to find a copy of it later.

well, the Osama memo is really just another "no ****", because let's be honest, that wasn't exactly news. as for the training, there was actually little to no indication of the intent; the hijackers were simply completing the training like any other person would. since a few of the pilots were eventually associated with San Antonio, as mentioned here:http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_knew...t_schools.html , i saw quite a bit of local coverage in addition to the rest when it came to this subject. still, this was hardly enough to act upon, especially since the vague nature of such a tip would leave far too many possibilities to try to accommodate, even more so when you consider that this would be only one of countless "leads" that the FBI may have at any given time.
besides, it's not hard to look back and connect the dots; hindsight is 20/20 after all. there's really no telling if anyone could have truly prevented it though, and if we could, it would almost certainly have required more time than whoever would have taken office in 2001 would have had.

Of course hindsight is 20/20, but when the memo specifically indicates that the people training don't give a **** about landing and taking off the planes, I think it's pretty easy to deduce that they're planning to use hijacked planes (and fly them into targets). I certainly can't think of any other reason why pilots wouldn't want to know how to land and take off.

just saying, it strikes me as a sort of "just you wait, you'll see!"
it certainly gave me a smirk as i read it.

Well, I do find it rather irritating when people don't connect the dots.

[Obsidian Tides]

Originally Posted by The Man

Nah, given that people are being locked away without trial now I think they're pretty damn relevant

you know very well that it was only a recent development, and even then, the chances of a member of Food Not Bombs being detained in some obscure island torture camp are too slim to be considered.

Originally Posted by The Man

I'm not saying there'd be a complete 180-degree, but it'd have been a hell of a lot better what Bush has done.

this is the sort of unprovable, opinionated statement that embodies the attitude that almost put someone like Kerry in office.

Originally Posted by The Man

I guess he just felt he'd be a jerk to start a war and leave office in the middle of it.

oh, well that's good then; as long as he can sleep at night.

Originally Posted by The Man

Of course not. But at least they'd have been doing something. Which is more than the Bush administration did.

Kerry 08'!

Originally Posted by The Man

I honestly don't have a link to it, or even much info about it, onhand right now. I'll try to find a copy of it later.

that's alright, i didn't really expect you to. just illustrating a point.

Originally Posted by The Man

Of course hindsight is 20/20, but when the memo specifically indicates that the people training don't give a **** about landing and taking off the planes, I think it's pretty easy to deduce that they're planning to use hijacked planes (and fly them into targets). I certainly can't think of any other reason why pilots wouldn't want to know how to land and take off.

well, the most i can find that indicates anything close to that is how it seemed odd that Middle Eastern men were involved in aviation, or a couple of simple questions about airports. while the answer seems obvious to us now, i could also deduce that they were planning on getting a few simple pesticide spreaders in an attempt to spray some kind of chemical around. it really doesn't get much more specific than the suspicions of a few flight teachers, from what i can find.

Originally Posted by The Man

Well, I do find it rather irritating when people don't connect the dots.

i always loved connect the dots as a kid, and i hated it when someone would fill them in wrong, too. it'll be alright though.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Obsidian Tides

you know very well that it was only a recent development, and even then, the chances of a member of Food Not Bombs being detained in some obscure island torture camp are too slim to be considered.

Most of the people being detained without trial have been in detainment since 2001. Hardly something I'd classify as a "recent development" in regards to the war on terror.

this is the sort of unprovable, opinionated statement that embodies the attitude that almost put someone like Kerry in office.

Come now, you know as well as the rest of us that most of us only endorsed Kerry because he was the Democratic party’s nominee, and he was only the Democratic party’s nominee because he happened to marry into an exceedingly wealthy family. If I’d had my way the president in ’04 would have been Howard Dean or, failing that, Wesley Clark. However, apart from the fact that he’s an effete intellectual snob, what exactly would have been wrong with John Kerry as president?

Actually, scratch that question. The ’04 election is completely irrelevant to this discussion, since the hypotheticals we’re talking about concern events that happened far before it. The real question is, would Al Gore have launched a war on Iraq because America was attacked on September 11, 2001? I think we can all agree the answer to that question is no. If we can’t, I’d severely have to question our judgment.

oh, well that's good then; as long as he can sleep at night.

Ah, if only your distrust in Democratic politicans were matched by your distrust in Republican politicians.

that's alright, i didn't really expect you to. just illustrating a point.

What, that I can’t remember the specifics of sources I read three years ago off the top of my head? Some point. Like I said, I’ll get back to you on this soon enough; I’m pretty sure the source I’m looking for is at campus in Boca.

well, the most i can find that indicates anything close to that is how it seemed odd that Middle Eastern men were involved in aviation, or a couple of simple questions about airports. while the answer seems obvious to us now, i could also deduce that they were planning on getting a few simple pesticide spreaders in an attempt to spray some kind of chemical around. it really doesn't get much more specific than the suspicions of a few flight teachers, from what i can find.

Fair point on the chemical spreaders, but if they were hijacking them (as indicated by the lack of takeoff and landing) it still amounts to the same thing. Surely, in either case, beefing up airline security wouldn’t have hurt anything.

i always loved connect the dots as a kid, and i hated it when someone would fill them in wrong, too. it'll be alright though.

As long as we don’t end up getting nuked because we’ve pissed off too many arab nations, that is. Better safe than sorry I always say.

[Obsidian Tides]

i'm really only giving you a hard time at this point. we both know Kerry would have made a poor candidate under normal circumstances, that's all.

as for the recent development, it was obvious you were alluding to the Military Commissions Act, since that's the only way we'd have a chance of seeing an organization like the one mentioned from a domestic watch list "acted upon".

on the matter of your distrust comment, whose to say it isn't? i actually like Clinton very much, but you were only arguing a partial story, as if you read that Time article way back then and nothing else. i just wanted to make it clear that the logic of the magical plan (which obviously isn't common knowledge) wasn't really enough by itself. in fact, here:http://www.nationalreview.com/flashb...0403230919.asp
anyway, if you really do get that info, go ahead and PM it to me or something. i meant it when i said i wouldn't mind looking at it.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Obsidian Tides

i'm really only giving you a hard time at this point. we both know Kerry would have made a poor candidate under normal circumstances, that's all.

Yeah fair enough

as for the recent development, it was obvious you were alluding to the Military Commissions Act, since that's the only way we'd have a chance of seeing an organization like the one mentioned from a domestic watch list "acted upon".

I'd say the MCA makes such things far likelier, but let's face it, people were being held without trial long before that, and the Patriot Act even gave the government a fair amount of leeway to spy on people and potentially do other things to them just because they didn't like their political activities.

on the matter of your distrust comment, whose to say it isn't? i actually like Clinton very much, but you were only arguing a partial story, as if you read that Time article way back then and nothing else. i just wanted to make it clear that the logic of the magical plan (which obviously isn't common knowledge) wasn't really enough by itself. in fact, here:http://www.nationalreview.com/flashb...0403230919.asp
anyway, if you really do get that info, go ahead and PM it to me or something. i meant it when i said i wouldn't mind looking at it.

Well, it's not as if the National Review is noted as being a perfectly balanced and accurate source itself, but k

And yeah, when I get more info I'll post it.

[Obsidian Tides]

i honestly wasn't sure about that one, but i can tell it's not the type that is blatantly and/or intentionally biased, like most typical articles that would pop up in a search. if anything, it's the same type that the Washington Post is known for having, but you never mentioned anything about those links :P anyway, it presents valid facts beyond what you'd find in Time, so i think it's suitable.

[The Man]

fair enough. I'll give further investigation into the subject later, when I'm not so busy.