The causes of 9/11

Semper Fi

VIP Member
Nov 25, 2003
1,772
132
83
Wisconsin
The Causes of 9-11

By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 1, 2004

We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN

The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.

In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops – bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians – who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.

On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."

Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN

In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.
What a surprise.

http://liberalscum.com/911byann.html
 
The dumb cow doesn't realise the attacks of 9/11 were symbolic and aimed at getting the US out of Saudi Arabia, engineered and carried out by nutbar Saudis.
 
Diuretic said:
The dumb cow doesn't realise the attacks of 9/11 were symbolic and aimed at getting the US out of Saudi Arabia, engineered and carried out by nutbar Saudis.

There are a lot of factors as to WHY we were the target of 9/11...some of them possibly even buried in that diatribe. But anyone who talks about Democrats having "hissy fits" as part of the cause isn't really worth responding to. Besides, you know Annie Coulter is lying because her lips are moving.

But one might do well to ask what Bin Laden WANTED (rather than why he wanted it)
1. He wanted us out of the AFB in Saudi Arabia

Check...

2. He wanted us to create the impression (if not the reality) of waging a war against Islam so he could fuel his jihad and use us as the poster child for recruitment.

Check

3. He wanted a training ground for his little terrorist army and a gathering place for them

Check

4. He wanted fundamenalist Islam in moderate Islamic nations.

Yup.


The fact that he hated Saddam Hussein because he was running a secular country for the most part and now Islamists are taking over in Iraq was just a little extra gift.
 
I also think she's running out of material. She's recycling her own garbage. It's End Times for her. The shock is no longer there - it's a bit like porn, it has to be sleazier and sleazier as the viewer/reader comes inured to it. She's a one-trick pony and she's turned her trick.
 
SHe's merely listing the facts of our recent involvements with terrorism and how the various administrations acted and reacted. Dems have a history ranging from doing nothing to making it worse. Why can't you guys get the basic point of anything anymore. Your reality warping partisan mind shield has made you stupid.
 
jillian said:
There are a lot of factors as to WHY we were the target of 9/11...some of them possibly even buried in that diatribe. But anyone who talks about Democrats having "hissy fits" as part of the cause isn't really worth responding to. Besides, you know Annie Coulter is lying because her lips are moving.

But one might do well to ask what Bin Laden WANTED (rather than why he wanted it)
1. He wanted us out of the AFB in Saudi Arabia

Check...

2. He wanted us to create the impression (if not the reality) of waging a war against Islam so he could fuel his jihad and use us as the poster child for recruitment.

Check

3. He wanted a training ground for his little terrorist army and a gathering place for them

Check

4. He wanted fundamenalist Islam in moderate Islamic nations.

Yup.


The fact that he hated Saddam Hussein because he was running a secular country for the most part and now Islamists are taking over in Iraq was just a little extra gift.

So when Bin laden said he wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia, the US should have heeded his warnings and ran? Are you saying that this would have led to peace and stability throughout the region?
 
dilloduck said:
So when Bin laden said he wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia, the US should have heeded his warnings and ran? Are you saying that this would have led to peace and stability throughout the region?

I know jillian is perfectly able to answer for herself but since I made that claim first I feel some responsibility to provide an answer.

No and no. There is no way that the US should have got out of Saudi because bin Laden perpetrated a series of atrocities. It's generally accepted that you don't give in to terrorists so getting out of Saudi because of what he did would have been the worst thing to do. The best thing to do was go after him in Afghanistan, hunt him and his gang down and put them on trial in the appropriate jurisdictions.

That would have led to a modicum of peace and stability throughout the region. All the other Islamist radicals would have noted the response and been deterrred by the swift, sure and effective operation to deal with AQ.
 
yes arrest the terrorists, put them on trial and put them in jail and there will be peace.....

yes that will work ...how simple
 
manu1959 said:
yes arrest the terrorists, put them on trial and put them in jail and there will be peace.....

yes that will work ...how simple

It worked with Bader-Meinhoff. It worked with Carlos. It worked with the IRA (remember the IRA? Funded mainly from the US?)

Anyway, what would you suggest?
 
Diuretic said:
All the other Islamist radicals would have noted the response and been deterrred by the swift, sure and effective operation to deal with AQ.

This degree of naivete is why you libs cannot be allowed to sit in the big boy chairs.
 
PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN

PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN

When it comes to Ronald Reagan, so many conservatives have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. What did Reagan do that earned him the tag "Republican" while Bush was deemed "moderate".

Reagan is portrayed as the hardline conservative hero. Look at his career ms. coulter. I know you are stupid mindless piece of shit, but believe it or not Reagan had more of a brain than conservatives like yourself give him credit for.

His presidency was so much was more complicated than "Republican".
 
Diuretic said:
I know jillian is perfectly able to answer for herself but since I made that claim first I feel some responsibility to provide an answer.

No and no. There is no way that the US should have got out of Saudi because bin Laden perpetrated a series of atrocities. It's generally accepted that you don't give in to terrorists so getting out of Saudi because of what he did would have been the worst thing to do. The best thing to do was go after him in Afghanistan, hunt him and his gang down and put them on trial in the appropriate jurisdictions.

That would have led to a modicum of peace and stability throughout the region. All the other Islamist radicals would have noted the response and been deterrred by the swift, sure and effective operation to deal with AQ.

I don't believe you. If and when bin laden is captured I doubt very seriously that terrorism will end.
 
dilloduck said:
So when Bin laden said he wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia, the US should have heeded his warnings and ran? Are you saying that this would have led to peace and stability throughout the region?

No. I'm saying we gave him everything he wanted anyway...including that. I did forget to list one more thing that we gave him that he wanted...he's still alive and not in captivity.

Funny that.

Diuretic said:
I know jillian is perfectly able to answer for herself but since I made that claim first I feel some responsibility to provide an answer.

No and no. There is no way that the US should have got out of Saudi because bin Laden perpetrated a series of atrocities. It's generally accepted that you don't give in to terrorists so getting out of Saudi because of what he did would have been the worst thing to do. The best thing to do was go after him in Afghanistan, hunt him and his gang down and put them on trial in the appropriate jurisdictions.

That would have led to a modicum of peace and stability throughout the region. All the other Islamist radicals would have noted the response and been deterrred by the swift, sure and effective operation to deal with AQ.

No worries. I agree with your assessment.
 
jillian said:
No. I'm saying we gave him everything he wanted anyway...including that. I did forget to list one more thing that we gave him that he wanted...he's still alive and not in captivity.

Funny that.

well maybe he's on our side then. I for one am glad he finally woke up Americans to the seriousness of his threats. He doesn't appear very grateful tho.
 
dilloduck said:
I don't believe you. If and when bin laden is captured I doubt very seriously that terrorism will end.

No it won't end because somewhere there will be someone who has a grievance and sees terror as a viable weapon. I have no doubt that the Chechens would see the demise of AQ, shrug their shoulders and make the RPG sit a little more comfortably. But what the Chechens want isn't what bin Laden wants. Same for the Moro Liberation Front in the Philippines and probably any other non-Islamicist group you can mention. The best any nation can do is to remove the threat of terror to itself.

Now I'm not naieve to believe that terrorist groups can't reinvent themselves, they do, but frequently they're weaker than they were before a successful operation by a government on them. Successful governments remove the terrorists and then treat the conditions that allowed them to sprout, thus weakening the re-emergence.
 
Diuretic said:
No it won't end because somewhere there will be someone who has a grievance and sees terror as a viable weapon. I have no doubt that the Chechens would see the demise of AQ, shrug their shoulders and make the RPG sit a little more comfortably. But what the Chechens want isn't what bin Laden wants. Same for the Moro Liberation Front in the Philippines and probably any other non-Islamicist group you can mention. The best any nation can do is to remove the threat of terror to itself.

Now I'm not naieve to believe that terrorist groups can't reinvent themselves, they do, but frequently they're weaker than they were before a successful operation by a government on them. Successful governments remove the terrorists and then treat the conditions that allowed them to sprout, thus weakening the re-emergence.

I personally think AQ has taken a huge hit to its leadership even though bin laden has not been captured. What do you recommend be done to prevent re-emergence of anti-American terrorism?
 
dilloduck said:
I personally think AQ has taken a huge hit to its leadership even though bin laden has not been captured. What do you recommend be done to prevent re-emergence of anti-American terrorism?

I think AQ did an "oh shit!" when the West invaded Afghanistan to grab them. I suspect that was the last thing they thought would actually happen, thinking that the US would be stunned into inaction. It was a brilliant move.

What do I recommend to prevent re-emergence of anti-American terrorism? Jeez if I tried to answer that I'd come across as being really up myself. I'll pass on it.

Except to make one point. As the Dixie Chicks said, it's not yet time for making nice. It was exactly the right thing to do to go into Afghanistan and to enlist the assistance of Pakistan (hey no-one's allies are perfect) to root out AQ. It's just a shame it hasn't worked yet.

You see when America (I can still say "America" can't I?) went into Afghanistan it showed the military power she has. The intensely focused, some would say "surgical" operation to get AQ. But sadly it was stuffed up by the overarching politics. Instead of "get bin Laden" it turned into "get bin Laden and while we're at it let's do some nation-building because of all those natural resources we can get at in Khazakhstan". Do you see what I mean?

The military could have got bin Laden if it hadn't been sidetracked by its political masters who sniffed the air and saw economic opportunities. Segue to Iraq.
 
dilloduck said:
I personally think AQ has taken a huge hit to its leadership even though bin laden has not been captured. What do you recommend be done to prevent re-emergence of anti-American terrorism?

You speak as if AQ were some hierarchial organization with a clear leadership chart. It isn't...though at one time, was probably closer. Instead, it's an amorphous concept now...a brand name, really. It conjures certain images in the mind of those inclined to those beliefs and incites certain action. And for every AQ, there's another group that has it's own terrorist agenda and has no affiliation with AQ whatsoever.

You also ask about the re-emergence of anti-American terrorism as if such terrorism has ceased to exist. I'm not quite sure why people forget there were about 7 years between the two WTC attacks. These people are patient, they plan and they don't fear death. All they need to operate is money and cells.

But in answer to your question, intel, intel, intel...prosecution, prosection, prosecution... AND DRY UP THEIR MONEY! The U.S. can't bomb countries because there are terrorist cells within that country. Otherwise, there are places here in which terrorist cells operate and bide their time. Can't very well bomb Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, NY can we?
 
Diuretic said:
I think AQ did an "oh shit!" when the West invaded Afghanistan to grab them. I suspect that was the last thing they thought would actually happen, thinking that the US would be stunned into inaction. It was a brilliant move.

What do I recommend to prevent re-emergence of anti-American terrorism? Jeez if I tried to answer that I'd come across as being really up myself. I'll pass on it.

Except to make one point. As the Dixie Chicks said, it's not yet time for making nice. It was exactly the right thing to do to go into Afghanistan and to enlist the assistance of Pakistan (hey no-one's allies are perfect) to root out AQ. It's just a shame it hasn't worked yet.

You see when America (I can still say "America" can't I?) went into Afghanistan it showed the military power she has. The intensely focused, some would say "surgical" operation to get AQ. But sadly it was stuffed up by the overarching politics. Instead of "get bin Laden" it turned into "get bin Laden and while we're at it let's do some nation-building because of all those natural resources we can get at in Khazakhstan". Do you see what I mean?

The military could have got bin Laden if it hadn't been sidetracked by its political masters who sniffed the air and saw economic opportunities. Segue to Iraq.

No, I don't see what you mean, since you seem to have your ahem "facts" twisted.

The Government of Afghanistan, the Taliban, was harboring bin Laden and refused to turn him over the US, even upon the threat of invasion. Poor judgement on their part earned them an ass-kicking.

Your allegations are nothing but supposition on your part.

And quoting the Dixie Chicks wouldn't get you a cup of coffee around here. Their CDs are covered with cobwebs and they get played on the radio about once-a-year. Typical "Einstein" liberals, attacking their target audience and looking like deer in the headlights when the cash cow dries up.
 

Forum List

Back
Top