Equating JFK with Muhammad Atta "would be an insult to Muhammad Atta"?!

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3382

    May 24, 2015 3:55 PM GMT
    "Defensive Measures" the US could have taken to prevent 9/11

    AyaTrolLiar pouncer saidThey ["'defensive measures' the US could have taken to avoid 9/11. Or the British to avoid the bombing of London"] may not have worked, but at least these countries wouldn't be in the moral wasteland that they inhabit today.

    Do tell: What "defensive measures" should the US have taken to avoid 9/11?

    AyaTrolLiar pouncer saidWhat could the US have done? It could have ceased its support for the tyrants who rule the Arab World virtually without exception from Marrakech to Manama. It could have withheld its historic support for Islamic fundamentalism as a counter to secular Arab nationalism (the US policy followed consistently through the entire Cold War period). ...It is the same story as in Latin America, Southeast Asia, much of Africa, etc.
    Where does one stop?

    We all know the pathological one just can't stop.
    Look at his glee over the event:

    AyaTrolLiar pouncer saidBin Laden... used his expert CIA training one day to unexpected effect. And so a relatively small-time massacre (with which the traditional imperial societies are not historically accustomed)

    Still no condemnation:

    AyaTrolLiar pouncer saidOkay. I refuse to "condemn" it, I just prefer to refer to it as a "massacre".

    Some of the groups he embraces boast of their "massacres".
    They lionize the perpetrators, name streets after them, provide benefits to heirs and encourage future "martyrs".

    But let's revisit his phrasing:

    AyaTrolLiar pouncer's glee over 9/11> a relatively small-time massacre (with which the traditional imperial societies are not historically accustomed)

    What, it wasn't a sufficiently large enough massacre for him to boast of it?

    In lieu of condemnation, only discussion of the "defensive measures" the US could have instituted to avoid this "blowback".
    (And his term "defensive measures" means changing policy.)

    AyaTrolLiar pouncer saidso does the US. ...The Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center (a hospital!), or JFK Airport?

    The pervert equates JFK with Muhammad Atta?

    AyaTrolLiar pouncer saidThat would be an insult to Muhammad Atta.

    Where did this start?

    Me> This demented clown is on record saying that America had 9/11 coming, and deserved it, too.

    AyaTrolLiar> quote me

    I think he proved the point, and more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2015 4:01 PM GMT
    less is more here
    and
    your were saying?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14335

    May 24, 2015 4:34 PM GMT
    The U.S. needs to stop sticking its nose into other countries affairs and start minding its own damn business. We have more than enough serious domestic issues to focus on here in our own backyard.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2015 5:22 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidThe U.S. needs to stop sticking its nose into other countries affairs and start minding its own damn business. We have more than enough serious domestic issues to focus on here in our own backyard.


    Yep, that worked real well in the lead up to Dec 7, 1941
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2015 5:42 PM GMT
    Ans why we stay involved around the world:

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/isis-nuclear-bomb-smuggle/2015/05/23/id/646474/
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 24, 2015 6:11 PM GMT
    I figured by the title of this thread it was going to be about blaming blaming blaming people for anything everything and something by utilizing a simplified, biased and cherry picked version of history facts and reason by people who aren't concerned about seeking solutions for problems as long as they can use their warped perceptions of reality to villianize and demonize their own preferred imaginary boogey men.

    It accomplishes nothing except giving the people involved in it a sense of smug self righteousness as they point at a problem they barely comprehend and yell, "SEE!!!! They did it! It's their fault! THEY'RE EVIL!!!"

    Then they sit back, fold their arms and do nothing to solve problems after they've invented someone else to blame for the problem.

    Everyone does it to some degree and it's not restricted to one political party, religion, sports team or philosophy more than the other.

    At my business employees who do this this are the ones who get fired or quit the most often. They disrupt any sense of teamwork and cooperation to solve problems by creating false issues about who to blame for anything that goes wrong rather than pitching in to find solutions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 2:06 PM GMT
    I will tell you 14 later what the problem was !


    hindsight1.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 5:39 PM GMT
    Prevent 911? I doubt you could have since it was a planned and executed event years in the making. Our role in Middle East has been stability. Ever since the Arab spring, our role has decreased and instability has reigned. Thats what happens when your president is a arab himself with the doctrine of deconstructing Americas imperialism.

    911 was an orchestrated 'inside job'
    The arab caliphate is going to be created

    Stopping those two things are not possible.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    May 25, 2015 6:33 PM GMT
    Well, reading the CIA security report entitled: "Bin Laden Determined To Attack U.S." and then on page three talks about hijacking planes. But GWB was too busy golfing and Condi was, by her own admission, not worried about Bin Laden.

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    But realistically, would a non-negligent administration (and Bush's administration was negligent on this issue) have prevented the 9/11 attacks? Probably not. We simply couldn't fathom a large scale hijacking of commercial airliners by suicidal thugs with weapons (box cutters). It wasn't on our national radar. It is now, but that's after the fact.

    To answer your question, I doubt it. The chances of us adopting our current airline screening procedures in response to a couple CIA reports is unlikely (since it costs hundreds of millions to implement current security, it's literally so expensive that some airport workers aren't screened).

  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3382

    May 25, 2015 9:09 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidTo answer your question, I doubt it. The chances of us adopting our current airline screening procedures in response to a couple CIA reports is unlikely (since it costs hundreds of millions to implement current security, it's literally so expensive that some airport workers aren't screened).

    I thought they now are going to be screened, too.

    Regardless, you're saying that US policy shouldn't be retroactively changed going back to FDR or Wilson?
    (See OP, lol)
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14335

    May 26, 2015 1:30 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    roadbikeRob saidThe U.S. needs to stop sticking its nose into other countries affairs and start minding its own damn business. We have more than enough serious domestic issues to focus on here in our own backyard.


    Yep, that worked real well in the lead up to Dec 7, 1941
    That was back than when there was a serious threat to the rest of the world. Times have changed, the Nazis were crushed, the Cold War ended in 1990 and communism has been pretty much eradicated with the exception of China, Vietnam, and Cuba. Our continued involvement in other countries affairs is now having an opposite effect and it is making us more vulnerable as a result. It is time for the U.S. to start minding its own damn business and quit expecting the rest of the world to be exactly like it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2015 4:57 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidWell, reading the CIA security report entitled: "Bin Laden Determined To Attack U.S." and then on page three talks about hijacking planes. But GWB was too busy golfing and Condi was, by her own admission, not worried about Bin Laden.

    icon_rolleyes.gif

    But realistically, would a non-negligent administration (and Bush's administration was negligent on this issue) have prevented the 9/11 attacks? Probably not. We simply couldn't fathom a large scale hijacking of commercial airliners by suicidal thugs with weapons (box cutters). It wasn't on our national radar. It is now, but that's after the fact.

    To answer your question, I doubt it. The chances of us adopting our current airline screening procedures in response to a couple CIA reports is unlikely (since it costs hundreds of millions to implement current security, it's literally so expensive that some airport workers aren't screened).



    I agree. There were a lot of organizational and procedural failures that made 9/11 easier to execute, but preventing it was probably not possible. AQ always have been (and still are) fixated on bringing down commercial airliners, because it is always a 'spectacular' mass casualty event that strikes fear into anyone who flies or knows someone who does (i.e. pretty much the entire population of the Western world).

    I think it is a testament to the professionalism and dedication of the security services in the US and the UK that no major terrorist attacks have occurred in those countries since 2001 and 2005 respectively.

    Meanwhile, for anyone who needs an insight into how and why 9/11 occurred, I can highly recommend the very readable 9/11 Commission Report (particularly this illustrated version):
    http://www.slate.com/features/911report/default.htm