The September 11 That Never Happened

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Apr 13, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Armstrong Williams
    Monday, Apr. 12, 2004

    Members of Al Qaeda had planned to launch additional September 11 style attacks on The Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago, according to transcripts from the interrogation of Khalid Shakh Mohammed, Al Qaeda's Chief Operating Office.

    The transcripts, published by a British newspaper, reveal that Al Qadea had planned a second wave of attacks on the heels of September 11 targeting the west coast. Those plans were aborted, Mohammad said, because of President Bush's decisive crackdown on terrorist threats.

    This suggest two things: 1) Thousands and possibly millions of lives were saved because President Bush took the battle to them; 2) Al Qadea assumed we would offer a small, measured response to September 11 attacks. That is to say, they assumed we were soft.

    They had good reason. For the better part of the 90's, our foreign policy has offered largely symbolic responses to growing terrorist threats. In 1998 Al Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing 224 individuals.

    In 2000 they detonated a bomb alongside the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 servicemen. There is strong evidence that Al Qaeda organized the 1993 bombing of the world Trade center.

    Just as there is strong evidence that Syria and Iran funneled money and personnel into the terrorist organization that had declared war on our way of life. Just as they had backed Hezbollah, the group that bombed a US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, killing 241 individuals.

    So how did the US respond to these brutal terrorist attacks? Mostly with small, measured gestures, like hurling a few missiles at an abandoned Al Qaeda training facility, or trying to indict specific terrorists as criminals, rather than confronting the rogue states that were sponsoring them.

    After the headlines faded, we curled back into the fetal position. Our response told the world that we were soft. It proclaimed that the United States was built on false stilts, that we could be yanked down. It encouraged our attackers.

    This is why Saddam Hussein believed in 1991 that if he tied US Soldiers to the front of his tanks, he could sweep undeterred into Kuwait. It is why Al Qaeda thought our society would crumble if they crashed some planes into our buildings.

    President Bush did something far more reasonable. He offered a disproportionate response. He bombed Afghanistan. He declared his intent to snuff out the terrorist organizations that had declared war on us. And then, perhaps most importantly, he bombed Iraq.

    His bold and decisive response demonstrated in no uncertain terms that America would not willingly stand by and wait for another attack, which was important, because up until recently, that was very much in doubt.

    Now that we have a base of operations in Iraq, we can convincingly offer the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Iran a choice: make peace with us or peace with terrorists. If it is peace with terrorist, they will have to pay a heavy price. If they chose peace with us, they must crack down on the terrorist groups that operate within their sphere of control. They can no longer have it both ways.

    The ripple effect has been plain to see: Libya has voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of its weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. As a result, the world is being made safer.

    I am reminded of when former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took office and promptly set about cracking down on the terrorist organizations that had declared war on Israel. The international media quivered at his response.

    It should however be noted that under Netanyahu's stewardship, suicide bombings were nearly non existent and Israel managed treaties with neighboring Egypt and Jordan.

    This tenuous peace came about not because Arab societies suddenly recognized the inalienable value of basic human rights, but because Netanyahu had made clear that Israel would not be dislodged.

    America has finally done the same. That newfound resolve is paying dividends. Terrorists are being rounded up, regimes that harbor and sponsor them have been defeated, and states pursuing weapons of mass destruction are getting the message. At the same time, America is making it possible for democracy to spread throughout the world.

    Something to think about when you vote this election, because whether you like it or not, you will be sending a message to the rest of the world about the consequences of sponsoring terrorist organizations and developing illegal weapons programs.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/9/112215.shtml
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,163
    While i understand why they didnt expect a large response i just have to question what were they thinking. its not like we wouldnt have noticed planes flying into buildings and wouldnt be quite a bit upset about it.
     
  3. SPIKESMYGOD
    Offline

    SPIKESMYGOD Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    175
    Thanks Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Ratings:
    +46
    JimnyC-

    BRAVO!

    Through your posting those astute observations, you illustrate how there is only one way to peace & protection: STRENGTH!

    It is just that simple. I know liberals love to vacilate, capitulate, & wring their hands, but that is not being intellectually thorough, that is paralysis through analysis. If a bully keeps punkin' you down and taking your lunch money, and all you do is threaten him, occasionally punching him in his arm then running, you are going to be very dizzy from hunger spells for the rest of your days. However, if he hits you in the eye, and you, then, beat him into a coma, that ends the cycle. If a few of his buddies try to pick up where he left off, you beat THEM into comas. After that, the rest of his gang will do EVERYTHING in their power to stay out of your way.

    Liberals will say that this analogy is an oversimplification of the sitch, but it is JUST THAT SIMPLE. When it comes to the war on terrorism, one cannot treat it as either a debate society or a discussion on the finer disagreements on baseline budgeting. THIS IS WAR!

    We can't afford any more distortions & lies when it comes to the protection of this nation, as we had during the Clinton administration. In a total repudiation of testimony and/or PR by the LMM, partisan 9/11 commissioners, Madeleine Albright, & Dick "9/11 was the best thing to ever happen to my portfolio" Clarke, Janet Reno, in a moment of brutal truthfulness which will stun liberals, JUST confirmed that the ONLY thing which prevented the millennium bombings was ONE LONE ALERT SECURITY GUARD. Gee, I guess Condy was right....AGAIN!

    I believe the fact that a recent European poll puts President Bush as the world's most dangerous man is a GREAT sign. You can gauge the fear of terrorists by the fear of their sympathizers & appeasers. When 100% of the Europe's population- except Great Britain & Italy, perhaps- believe that President Bush is the world's most dangerous man, we will then know that we have won the war on terror.

    If liberals deny that Al Qaeda & other terrorists are praying to Allah that Kerry beats Bush, they are lying to themselves.

    Luckily, Bush is going to be leading the war on terror for another four & a half years.
     
  4. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't know if you guys remember this, but on 9/11, I saw the second plane hit seconds after it did on the news. Less than 1 hour later, the news reported another plane was headed for California. Since I live in Sacramento, my ears went up. After that report, it floated like a rumor maybe 5 more times in the next day before it was killed entirely never to be heard about again.

    I can't help but deduce that there is no way they could have nailed that operation, told the press, hidden the documentation, and decide to release it NOW, unless we knew about the attack before it even occurred.

    The point here is that there was a leak to the media that was in advance of when they could have cancelled the operation which shows pre-knowledge of the attack.

    I have contended all along that all signs point to the fact we LET this whole 9/11 operation occur.
     
  5. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    They had no precednet to judge that on. They attacked everything including our battleships and we just sat there and did nothing. so to them this would have been just another bombing.
     
  6. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Yep just like we let Pearl Harbor happen. I love those conspiracy theories too.
     
  7. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    It is not a conspiracy "theory". Did you see that information or are you discarding something blindly?
     

Share This Page