Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #1  
    < < Edited by Septimus > > (Sorry)<NRG>

    The purpose of this thread is to discuss the American Broadcasting Company's(ABC) new Mini-Series, "The Path to 9/11". Quite a few have ruffled feathers over this film/flick/documentary/doc-u-drama/mini-series. To get yourself up to speed here is a link for the previous thread for some actual facts and distortions based mainly on, though not limited to, the "9/11 Commission Report", just as this film claims to be.

    Now that said, this is a beautiful film, just not factually correct. I for life of me can not figure out why they just would not use the real facts! Why? Some would say for dramatic purposes but, I would argue that the real life actions would be dramatic enough, given the weight of the whole situation.
    Last edited by NRG; 09/11/2006 at 12:12 PM.
  2. #2  
    Still haven't had a chance to see it yet.....man I LOVE Tivo!

    Here is a another old thread from around this time last year that I think might have some relevance with the topic of this thread:

    Documents Show State Department Warned Clinton About Bin Laden
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    ...
    Here is a another old thread from around this time last year that I think might have some relevance with the topic of this thread:

    Documents Show State Department Warned Clinton About Bin Laden
    sorry, I'm new here Mr. Hobbes -- was that the Clinton who grabbed junior by the lapels to warn him that Bin Laden and terrorism would be the salient focus of his (illegitimate) administration ???
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    sorry, I'm new here Mr. Hobbes -- was that the Clinton who grabbed junior by the lapels to warn him that Bin Laden and terrorism would be the salient focus of his (illegitimate) administration ???
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    sorry, I'm new here Mr. Hobbes -- was that the Clinton who grabbed junior by the lapels to warn him that Bin Laden and terrorism would be the salient focus of his (illegitimate) administration ???
    No.
  6. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    sorry, I'm new here Mr. Hobbes -- was that the Clinton who grabbed junior by the lapels to warn him that Bin Laden and terrorism would be the salient focus of his (illegitimate) administration ???
    Hi, I'm also new here.

    Is this the same Clinton that went up to Bush and said please take care of this guy, he has been a big bully for the last 8 years and I could/would not do anything about him. Please go beat him up for us, I used to know where he lived, but he moved and I was scared to go look for him.

    I see nothing has changed here, guess I have not missed anything.

    The path to 9-11 and Farenheit 9-11 are movies. One side wants Farenheit 9-11 to be real and the other the Path to 9-11,
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio View Post
    Hi, I'm also new here.

    Is this the same Clinton that went up to Bush and said please take care of this guy, he has been a big bully for the last 8 years and I could/would not do anything about him. Please go beat him up for us, I used to know where he lived, but he moved and I was scared to go look for him.

    I see nothing has changed here, guess I have not missed anything.

    The path to 9-11 and Farenheit 9-11 are movies. One side wants Farenheit 9-11 to be real and the other the Path to 9-11,
    nice to meet you Mr. Cardio -- I'm so glad I'm not the only nooby here -- (I hope they'll be gentle with us ...)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG in other thread
    The cole happened 1-2 months before the end of Clintons presidency. But when did the US learn of who was responsible for the attack? Kinda hard to strike at when you have no target don't you think?
    No. You're making stuff up again.

    The Cole bombing happened on October 12, 2000 - more than 3 months before the end of Clinton's term.

    According to the 9/11 Commission Report, "the Yemenis provided strong evidence connecting the Cole attack to al Qaeda during the second half of November, identifying individual operatives whom the United States knew were part of al Qaeda. During December the United States was able to corroborate the evidence."

    Read the Report for details on the utter confusion within the Clinton Administration over terminology and standards of evidence.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    the Yemenis provided strong evidence connecting the Cole attack to al Qaeda during the second half of November, identifying individual operatives whom the United States knew were part of al Qaeda. During December the United States was able to corroborate the evidence."
    As late as Dec 15 we could not confirm the Cole suspects whereabouts only that they fled somewhere inside Afganistan.
    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/12/15/cole.suspect/

    The next month someone did give a strong warning to the Bush administration, in January 2001, 5 days after Bush took office:

    Quote Originally Posted by Reuters
    A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush administration that Al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President George W Bush until the September 11, 2001, attacks.

    The memo dated January 25, 2001 - five days after Bush took office - was an essential feature of last year's hearings into intelligence failures before the attacks on New York and Washington.

    A copy of the document was posted on the National Security Archive website on Thursday.

    The memo, from former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clark to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, had been described during the hearings but its full contents had not been disclosed.

    Mr Clark, a holdover from the Clinton administration, had requested an immediate meeting of top national security officials as soon as possible after Bush took office to discuss combating Al Qaeda.

    He described the network as a threat with broad reach.

    "Al Qaeda affects centrally our policies on Pakistan, Afghanistan, central Asia, North Africa and the GCC [Gulf Arab states]. Leaders in Jordan and Saudi Arabia see Al Qaeda as a direct threat to them," Mr Clark wrote.

    "The strength of the network of organisations limits the scope of support friendly Arab regimes can give to a range of US policies, including Iraq policy and the [Israeli-Palestinian] Peace Process. We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge Al Qaeda poses."

    The memo also warned of overestimating the stability of moderate regional allies threatened by Al Qaeda.

    It recommended that the new administration urgently discuss the Al Qaeda network, including the magnitude of the threat it posed and strategy for dealing with it.

    The document was declassified on April 7, 2004, one day before Dr Rice's testimony before the September 11 commission.

    It was released recently by the National Security Council to the National Security Archive - a private library of declassified US documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...2/s1301264.htm

    What did George Bush do in the eight months after this memo, before 911?????????
    Tell me please, I'd like to know.

    George Bush was given another memo this time by George Tenant on August 6 2005, one month before 911 entitled "Al Queda determined to strike in the US".

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

    What did George Bush do then? He took the longest vacation that any president has ever taken.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2098861/

    its pretty obvious to me who dropped the ball in following up the Cole bombing.
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    No. You're making stuff up again.

    The Cole bombing happened on October 12, 2000 - more than 3 months before the end of Clinton's term.

    According to the 9/11 Commission Report, "the Yemenis provided strong evidence connecting the Cole attack to al Qaeda during the second half of November, identifying individual operatives whom the United States knew were part of al Qaeda. During December the United States was able to corroborate the evidence."

    Read the Report for details on the utter confusion within the Clinton Administration over terminology and standards of evidence.
    Sorry, I was off by a month. How long did it take to catch them?
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    As late as Dec 15 we could not confirm the Cole suspects whereabouts only that they fled somewhere inside Afganistan.
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    Sorry, I was off by a month. How long did it take to catch them?
    NRG, stop following cell's lead. Catching them was completely unrelated to the matter of striking back at al Qaeda after we knew they were behind the Cole attack.

    And you were off by 1 to 2 months, or 100% of your original claim.


    Cell,
    As for Bush, he should have hit back after Clinton dropped the ball, but unfortunately he followed Clinton's lead.

    You imply that Bush missed an opportunity to prevent 9/11, but you provide zero evidence. Have you even read the 9/11 Commission Report?
  12. #12  
    I'll repeat a question from another post:

    Has this administration's response to 9-11 increased or decreased the number of 'terrorist' attacks/attenpts/activities?

    How is Afghanistan doing?
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I'll repeat a question from another post:

    Has this administration's response to 9-11 increased or decreased the number of 'terrorist' attacks/attenpts/activities?

    How is Afghanistan doing?
    What kind of question is that? Who could ever know the answer to that, it's a what if If the Dems stayed in power I would say we might all be dead now, but how do I know. With Bush in charge we probably are safer, but how do I know?????? Afghanistan gave a home to the people responsible for 3,000 American deaths and more, it's kinda hard to care how they are doing.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I'll repeat a question from another post:

    Has this administration's response to 9-11 increased or decreased the number of 'terrorist' attacks/attenpts/activities?

    How is Afghanistan doing?
    Not so bad. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar Reported Captured The commander of Hezb-i-Islami and al-Qaeda ally detained during a raid in eastern Afghanistan.

    Afghanistan is just another front in the long war.

    Do you think the guys we're fighting now would be leaving quiet lives somewhere, or would they have rallied to the Jihad and bin Laden to take advantage (again) of another demonstration of weakness?
  15. #15  
    If you were appointed President today, and given the support of Congress to act, how would you proceed?

    Please avoid the "I wouldn't do what W is doing" responses. I'm not asking what you would not do. I'm asking how you would lead the nation in addressing those who have declared--and are actively waging--war on the US and the "Western World" in general.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Not so bad. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar Reported Captured The commander of Hezb-i-Islami and al-Qaeda ally detained during a raid in eastern Afghanistan.

    Afghanistan is just another front in the long war.

    Do you think the guys we're fighting now would be leaving quiet lives somewhere, or would they have rallied to the Jihad and bin Laden to take advantage (again) of another demonstration of weakness?
    1911sforever -- had they maintained a decent focus of energy, intelligence, money, soldiers, and assistance to Afghanistan after the successful overthrow of the Taliban, there would have been no resurgence.

    After their defeat (and even before) many of the Taliban themselves were demoralized by their own dastardly deeds -- many were ready to accept a more moderate life as long as it meant some form of prosperity for themselves, their families, and their communities.

    50% of Afghans remain jobless. Vast numbers of them still scratch shelter from shanty shacks and hovels. There is no economy except for opium cultivation -- which ironically brings in Billions and distorts the economy and everything else.

    The only other source of money -- aid that gets distributed -- seems to be wasted both in Kabul and in the pockets of corrupt intermediaries.

    Specific performance tasks paid for as they would be completed would have been incredibly doable early on in that adventure -- if only security could have been ensured when it was doable to ensure security.
    Because the war was won by the northern (tribal) alliance aligned w/US special forces, the Pashtun south in particular needed to be assuaged as aggressively as imaginable

    aid aid aid needed to have flooded that country -- roads constructed -- by hand in an Afghan way that employed thousands. Rebuilding schools, towns, houses. No Haliburtons. Using the local's manual labor. (influence and benefit could have been further enhanced through the usage of loan forgiveness payments to people who would gotten money to rebuild their homes in return for work -- or even if they constructed their homes in a earthquake appropriate way, or if they raised non-opium crops.

    Afghanistan was in its early days a dirt poor place where a little cash could been leveraged to have bought incredible effects.

    There should have been enough troops to provide credible security along the Pakistan border -- deploying in a sufficient quantity and intelligence to control trade and infiltration, and to provide security.

    An emboldened Musharraf -- confident that we'd be staying and investing what was needed for success, might have himself succeeded in forcing the Taliban out of his tribal areas -- instead of giving them a safe haven.

    Now with the south awash in Opium Billions, the price of land has grown NY levels of silliness in Kandahar -- and the Taliban are flush with cash to bribe and kill.

    There was a window open to us for saving Afghanistan from Bin Laden's and the Mullah's black ages. Instead junior's arrogant dishonest junta couldn't wait for an excuse to plunge onto Sadamm. So great was their blood lust for him that the fires at the Pentagon still raged while they sought an excuse to blame him for that nightmare.

    Off the news radar, the myth of a prosperous democratic peaceful Afghanistan freed by our benevolence was allowed to lie unchallenged because of the umbra of Iraq.

    Money, soldiers, and attention was instead transfered to Iraq, and Afghanistan became a neglected step sister to our Iraqi castastrophe.

    The last month or so has finally begun to lift the Burqa from the festering rot that has been this junta's actual "success" there.


    September 3, 2006
    Opium Harvest at Record Level in Afghanistan
    By CARLOTTA GALL
    KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 2 — Afghanistan’s opium harvest this year has reached the highest levels ever recorded, showing an increase of almost 50 percent from last year...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I'll repeat a question from another post:

    Has this administration's response to 9-11 increased or decreased the number of 'terrorist' attacks/attenpts/activities?

    How is Afghanistan doing?
    You've made it clear that you don't believe these terrorist attacks are a threat to national security, yet you cite the question of their number as meaningful in evaluating our strategy.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You've made it clear that you don't believe these terrorist attacks are a threat to national security, yet you cite the question of their number as meaningful in evaluating our strategy.
    What? When did I make it clear that terrorist attacks are not a threat?
  19. #19  
    Barye,
    I note that you don't post the articles detailing the violent deaths of hundreds of Taliban in the past week.

    Bottom line is that we've been trying to do this war on the cheap. We don't have the military we need to maintain troops in theater, rest/refit and maintain for other contingencies. I'd like to add another division of Marines and three divisions of US Army to the rolls.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by ttrundle View Post
    Afghanistan gave a home to the people responsible for 3,000 American deaths and more, it's kinda hard to care how they are doing.
    Jeebus do you have any idea of the immediate history of what you speak?

    It was a, "we don't care about you now" attitude after training and arming the mujahadeen that lead to the Taliban state which was friendly to fundamentalist islam groups like Al-Queda.

    In case you forgot, we were all unified from the 9-11 tragedy about going into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power, with the goal of creating a democratic state. The Bush administration (as well as several European countries) claimed they would not leave this new gov't without poitical and financial and military support. Well, everyone freaking did.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions