It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Clinton did to disrupt terrorism....

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Kosmo Yagkoto

Originally posted by Valhall


www.terroranalysis.com...


Nice article, I haven't heard of the Clinton patriot act before. He refused to go after the terrorists which meant he did basically nothing.


Sorry Charlie, but

1. You don't come off as a speed reader to me, so
2. you haven't read the article,
3. I don't like Clinton either, but the facts are the facts, and maybe you just should take a minute to LEARN THEM.

shame shame


I read the things that mattered, I skimmed over the things that Clinton did that were struck from the law, but that still isn't enough. You know what they say, the best defense is a good offense.




posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I hate this pass the buck nonsense.

If we are going to pass the buck why stop at clinton?
Why not to George Herbert Walker Bush or Reagan?

Passing the buck is pointless the fact of the matter is this is all blowback from our Cold War years you cant put this all on the door step of a president you dont like. The fact of the matter is no one did enough to stop 911 every one dropped the ball. Our country has had the wrong priorities for awhile now and some (like me) argue that we still have them now.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
I hate this pass the buck nonsense.

If we are going to pass the buck why stop at clinton?
Why not to George Herbert Walker Bush or Reagan?

Passing the buck is pointless the fact of the matter is this is all blowback from our Cold War years you cant put this all on the door step of a president you dont like. The fact of the matter is no one did enough to stop 911 every one dropped the ball. Our country has had the wrong priorities for awhile now and some (like me) argue that we still have them now.



Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and he started and did a lot of his terrorists activity during Clinton's reign, and that is why the buck stops at Clinton. He let the small little puppy grow into a large horse sized dog....and let me tell you, that is one big dog.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I would say that we are safe. Do we have any clue to how many terrorist sleeper cells are in the us right now. How many friends has the the US made since the war and how many enemies?



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriskaos
I would say that we are safe. Do we have any clue to how many terrorist sleeper cells are in the us right now. How many friends has the the US made since the war and how many enemies?


i think there are sleeper cells but you have to think that what Bush has done, has kept them to sleep. Friends since the Iraq war...well we haven't made any new ones. Enemies since the way....we've made a lot of those but most of those people hated the US anyway and are just looking for a reason to.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

as posted by Kristaos
Isnt Hamas an Islamic Resistence movement.


Don't matter how you may want to class or identify this group/organization, they are on termed, labeled, and identified as a terrorist organization, period. Saddam's connection to them is real, fact, and has been documented by a number of intelligence (foreign and domestic) services.

Valhall, is the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995 the same as the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act?

Personally, despite my serious dislike of Clinton, there were attempts made to prevent or disrupt terrorism, though I feel they were somewhat inadequate and lame. The intelligence services were hampered, restricted, and basically nutured. The military was downsized, etc. Then there is the rhetoric over how many times Clinton had the opportunity to nabb or take out Bin Laden.

Nonetheless, despite whose fault some of us may wish to lay the blame, 9/11 occurred. Terrorism went from the back burner to being the foremost topic of interest and national concern. As has been stated before, Clinton laid the foundations for the Patriot Act, but as par, it is the administration that actually implemented it that is taking the heat.

Check this, from an article written in 1997:


Questions to Consider
1. How should the federal government handle the climate of fear and the threat of terrorism? Should Congress and the president enact tougher laws to fight terrorism?

2. Do you think Americans would be willing to limit habeas corpus appeals to discourage terrorists?

3. Should airlines have access to people’s credit and traveling records? Is this a violation of your civil rights? Do you think people should accept this heightened security system in order to ensure everybody’s safety?

4. Would you be willing to experience long delays and pay more money for flights to help ensure safer air travel?

Domestic Terrorism


Deja vu'?




seekerof

[edit on 11-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Maybe so but that little puppy was bred during the Cold War as a by product of Anti-Soviet activities you could argue that the puppy would never have been born if we hadnt supported the Mujahadeen back during the Reagan years.

All this is neither here nor there though .
It doesnt matter how it started or who started it all that matters is that we finish it and finish it right and I'm sorry but in my opinion we are not currently operating in a fashion that will result in a favorable outcome for us.

We're like a nitro car racing against a Mig 15. We may keep up for a while but its only a matter of time before we blow out the engine and lose.
I'm not trying to be defeatist I'm just saying that why race a Mig 15 in a funny car when you could blow it out of the sky (both literally and figuratively) in a F22.


[edit on 11-1-2005 by boogyman]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I personally blame both Clinton and Bush.

Both knew about Al-qaeda before 9/11, both knew that periodically they attacked the US. They knew the attacks were growing in boldness. They both knew that Al-qaeda operated out of Afghanistan. At that time though we were more worried about what nuclear pakistan could do then what the Taliban and their little friend Osama could. Funny how the tides turn.

Clinton's answer over 8 years was bombing/missling a target here and there. Also a few limited sanctions and small law changes.

Bush's answer before 9/11 was pretty much the same if not less. After 9/11 I do beleive any President would have acted as swiftly if not more.

I still beleive its sad that we attacked Iraq before finishing with Al-qaeda or at least its currently leadership. In my opinion we should have forced Pakistan to accept our troops on their ground. We had to many unused avenues for me to support the way Bush handled and is handling that war.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Yeah right, Clinton is Bush's bud. And here you all are arguing over which one is to blame, while they laugh there arses off over a beer at the ranch.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Until a time comes where the "War on Terrorism" doesn't actually mean lying to the western world regarding foreign threats and then blowing up a huge majority of people who had nothing to do with the issue of terrorism for the sake of money and oil, I will continue to realize this is all a fraud no matter who is in charge.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
Maybe so but that little puppy was bred during the Cold War as a by product of Anti-Soviet activities you could argue that the puppy would never have been born if we hadnt supported the Mujahadeen back during the Reagan years.

All this is neither here nor there though .
It doesnt matter how it started or who started it all that matters is that we finish it and finish it right and I'm sorry but in my opinion we are not currently operating in a fashion that will result in a favorable outcome for us.

We're like a nitro car racing against a Mig 15. We may keep up for a while but its only a matter of time before we blow out the engine and lose.
I'm not trying to be defeatist I'm just saying that why race a Mig 15 in a funny car when you could blow it out of the sky (both literally and figuratively) in a F22.


[edit on 11-1-2005 by boogyman]


The puppy didn't do anything wrong during the cold war though did he? Maybe he did, but that i don't know...



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Firth hit it right on. What war on terror is in Iraq. We went there on suspision of WMD( we found none) We went there to find Al Queda ( found none) To fight terriosim is all about covert ops. Paying good informants defectors about the location. Taking out there money, and infrastucture. Not about bombing towns to secure Oil rigs.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriskaos
Firth hit it right on. What war on terror is in Iraq. We went there on suspision of WMD( we found none) We went there to find Al Queda ( found none) To fight terriosim is all about covert ops. Paying good informants defectors about the location. Taking out there money, and infrastucture. Not about bombing towns to secure Oil rigs.


Found no al queda? They have their number two man there.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
which is who ?? can you give a name to support this?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
He turned down repeated offers to have the worlds' most notorious terrorist turned over to us. He bombed an aspirin factory (that's right, destroy their painkillers!) and some tents and camels. He killed the Libyan dictator's children and some other civilians. [sarcasm]Yep, he sure did a lot to fight terrorists.[/sarcasm]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriskaos
which is who ?? can you give a name to support this?


Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Well Kosmo I read your whole, rambling, nausiating diatribe thinking something intelectual would pop out at any second, but no. I will compliment you on your diligence, it has to be tough, this nonsensical repitition of yours. Still blaming Clinton after all these years.

What about the marine barracks in Lebanon under President Regan, and the American barracks in Saudi Arabia under Bush 1. We didn't even launch missles at their aspirin factories. Hell, to this day, the Saudis haven't allowed any suspects to be interviewed by our FBI.

The truth is, real diplomats use the cost-profit analysis, befor going to war. Bush 2 could only see himself landing on a carrier or sitting atop a tank being idolized by everyone on the planet.

Forget about how unbelieveably impossible it was for clinton to get Republicans to allow him free reign, like Bush was allowed.

Sorry that Clinton didn't appease your hunger for blood, but maybe Bush will. He's killedover 100,000 innocents so far.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
What did Clinton do about terrorism? Good question, but the answer is just one word, NOTHING. Much like he did on everything else.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join