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.

 

Why We Haven't Had More Attacks Before Bush!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
state the entire history of this country and tell us when Middle Eastern Muslim extremists came into existence

Radical islamist movements and arab nationalist movements only start working together sometime after the colonial and mandate era. For a long while the focus there was, after the euros were gone, attacking and disrupting their own governments, so we see a series of coups upon coups, just like with Baathism in Iraq. Then the focus seems to really be on Israel and westernism.


So relatively recently, depending on your outlook.


Why didn't the US accept the principles of George Bush from the start of this country after it won its liberties?

Well, right after the revolution the United States went to war with a foreign muslim power over the issue of piracy because it was interfereing with trade in one part of the world. So attacking foreign muslim powers over terrorism because of an actual devastating attack within the US borders isn't exactly a stretch. Hell, when America was still limited to the eastern seaboard it decided that european powers weren't allowed to interfere with politics on the entire North and South American continents. So give the Monroe Doctrine, the 'Bush Doctrine' ain't all that arrogant or globalist.


Why didn't President George Washington claim the right to pre-emptive war without the approval of anybody?

He did. He specifically stated that the US shouldn't get invovled in interational agreements that cut down on its sovreignty. Washington would've never checked with the sheiks in arabia or the dukes in italy before attacking what he perceived to be a clear threat.


Where were the Muslim extremists back then during the days of President George Washington? THEY WERE RIGHT THERE STILL!

We weren't concerned with arab terrorists, we were concerned with terrible Natives.


You mean the Constitution was "outdated" and we needed the Patriot Act back then just as the Constitution was born??

Huh? No, it wasn't necessary back then, because there weren't suicide squads of barbary pirates raiding NYC. Hell, the US was still using militias in the Civil War, but I don't think it would make sense to disband the army today. We didn't have an Air Force back then either.


it is amazing how an unprecendented war

What's unprecedented about the Iraq War??? The Japanese bombed the US and we declared war on Germany. We attacked the Kaiser in wwi, and then only when the tide had turned. What's unprecedented about attacking a country that is openly hostile to you, armed, dangerous, and funding international terrorism?


Go back to the history of this country then. State when Muslim extremists attacked us then. ATTACKED US and not other countries.

Since you have ignored the multiple instances of attacks, what would be the point of having everyone repeat themselves? Fanatical muslims attacked the US in the Tripolitan War. They attacked the US in the Phillipines. They attacked the US in Lebanon. They attacked Twin Embassies. They attacked US warships. They attacked the Twin Towers. And then, after practically no response, they finally destroyed the Twin Towers, attacked the Pentagon, and had another attack that was only prevented at the last minute. The US has been directly attacked, overseas AND domestically by islamist terrorists for a very long time now. What, precisely, are you confused about?


State when, back then, we must empower any president with the power to arrest, detain and kill anyone without charge and due process

The US has allways had the ability to take people and do this, its called war. As far as citizens, you're probably right, the, what, two, US citizens that have been detained from all this, who were caught domestically, yeah, they're probably going to have to go to a civil court. The Patriot Act doesn't give the president the ability to snatch a citizen up off the street, flay him in a basement, and then put a bullet in his head.


how my bubble would burst if I don't listen to the Bush propaganda team.

*high fives baastetNoir* Gooooooo TEAM! Now lets go Police the World!


When Middle Eastern pirates kidnapped American soldiers, when was the Patriot Act needed then?

Please explain why laws giving the president more ability to deal with terrorists within the US would've been needed to deal with Pirates in north africa in the 18th Century??? How many 'cells' of barbary pirates were planting bombs in boston back then?? The president back then dealt with the problem by sending men with guns to go and kill anyone that supported the piracy. They suceeded, and there's no more babary pirates, or they're at least not raiding US shipping lines. Today, the equivalent to the babrary pirates are spread out throughout the world and within the US, so OF COURSE there's going to be an increased ability of the government to monitor, track, and detain people. Hell, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpsus in the Civil War. And if you think that the Patriot Act is bad, then you'd probably not have liked the Alien and Sedition Act, which the Founders created.


BaastetNoir
and that was exactly during the 8 years of Bill CLinton. Lets put the blame on whom deserves it.

Honestly though, 911 was just so out of left field that no one was prepared for it, and we'd've never really been able to stop it, by having all these invasive measures at the airports, etc, back then. Heck, 911 happened and people still complain about having to take their shoes off. Clinton could've done something, Bush the elder could've done something, and Bush the Younger could've done something. Blame is pretty well spread out. I don't recall too many people in the public clamouring for an invasion of the Sudan when bin laden was there, or even when the Taliban was taking over Afghanistan, or even after bin laden attacked the cole and went to afghanistan. So even the public was asleep at the wheel on that one.




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
You are good at what you do: ignoring the questions, filtering around them and then accusing of your own talent.

I ask again:

Since Middle Eastern Muslim extremists were always around since the beginningo f this country, as you claim where was the need for going back to the Inquisitions then? Where was the need for the Patriot Act. I happen to know that if anyone even suggested reverting this country to the principles of the Patriot Act in 1950, he would have been condemned and maybe even executed.

During WWII, Adolf Hitler expressed his desire for a New World Order too much for America and the world to not know it was an evil concept. This agenda is being carried forward under the War on Terror. Even Prescott Bush, aiding the Nazis while living over here, should have alerted Americans to the fact that routinely enemies are over here also, as is confirmed with the Presidential Oath of office.

From the first time that the Muslim Extremists became sucide bombers, how long did it take for them to realize that they should attack America which created the long period that existed in my lifetime where America was regarded as impenetrable to terrorism even after the Clinton Administration?

You may deny this is true naturally, but even under the Clinton Administration, those terrorists were caught.

When then did we need the Patriot Act and the Constitution was outdated since you guys insist we were always plagued with terror that made the word be in our textbooks and everything since this nation was born.

I'm not fooled by this. I lived here too long in my lifetime in the late history to know that these concerns came proportionately to the presidents and politicians who kept telling us they wanted a regime change: New World Order in our faces.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Can we collect statistics on how often the word or concern for TERROR surfaced in our literature?

In the Google Newsgroup Archives, how proportionately was the concern rising?

In our textbooks even in elementary school. How much was this concern the Bush propaganda team struggles to tell us was always here, seen in our writings?

Any person over 40? 30? 20? How has the word and concern been to you? Rising? Falling? Did you see a time when the concern was not even mentioned?

Did you even know a time could come when politicians and members of a propaganda team would see and know that President Bush has had family ties to the Bin Laden for years and would then fight anyone who doesn't want to empower Bush with the power to arrest and detain anyone without justice merely on a charge of having ties to terrorists??

[edit on 1-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The man was saying we had no way of knowing that terrorists would use airplanes as missiles against buildings. In the process the government is telling us about all the things terrorists can do that WE DID KNOW ABOUT. One such is Tommy Thompson telling us he doesn't know why the terrorists don't poison the American food supply when it is such an easy thing to do!

So easy...

They never did it before! They apparently need something to be able to do it for once...

BEING REMINDED BY TOMMY!

So the terrorists outsmarted Bush. What should we do? What does the Bush propaganda team tell us we must do?

They tell us WE MUST MAKE BUSH KING!! We keep reminding them that he has had family ties to the Bin Ladens for years and that he should not be able to destroy anyone merely on an accusation of having ties to terrorists. They can't hear us. All they know is that everybody else cannot substantiate their ideas.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
We did have terror attacks before Bush. The two biggest in U.S. history before 9/11. OKC and the first WTC bombing. Plus all sorts of smaller attacks committed by fringe groups through the years.

And Clinton was attacking U.S. citizens and stirring up more anti-U.S. sentiment within our borders. Waco comes to mind. Then the Montana Freemen. various milita standoffs.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Acknowledged! The further back we go is the more laxed we were on policy against terrorism AND THE LESS TERRORISTS ATTACKED.

Clinton also wanted a New World Order, hence the concern rising during his regime. That is why he pushed for the 1995 Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act which was strikingly JUST LIKE THE PATRIOT ACT.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Is there anyone yet who noticed even on the Google Newsgroup Archive, holding records since 1981, how the usage of the word TERRORISM erupted only since the Bush Administration? Anyone notice how it was rising during the Clinton Administration?

Anyone notice that these concerns progressively were less and less the further back we go as past presidents made us not worry about these issues, never asking for Inquisition Patriot Acts, and made us believed to be impervious to terror attacks??

If we reward President Bush for failing to protect us, why don't we give honorable note of the other presidents who made these issues non-existent for us? Why, when Bush pushes the Patriot Act, no one clamps down on him for stealing these ideas from the Inquisitions, the Communists and the Nazis? Why do we let him get away with claiming the principles contained in the Patriot Act are his "tough decisions??"

[edit on 7-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
The main thrust of this thread is exactly right.

Mainland Britain was attacked by the IRA for 30 odd years, but there were no concrete walls built around downing street and pariliament. There were no tanks at Heathrow. Normal life continued despite terrorism. People did not allow the threat to become blown out of proportion in their minds. The Govt. advocated that strongly. It was their policy.

Now we have a much less actual threat (compare # of IRA bombs to Islamo-facist-whatever bombs). But the govt. has inflated the threat and massively over-reacted. Why? Is it solely to curb civil rights? To control the populace? If so, why? What's changed?



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


Where were the Muslim extremists back then during the days of President George Washington? THEY WERE RIGHT THERE STILL!


We weren't concerned with arab terrorists, we were concerned with terrible Natives.



The natives weren't that terrible. They were comparatively peaceful. Washington and the mythic founding fathers were concerned with enslaving/killing/feeding-them-to-dogs and stealing their sovereign land.

Benjamin Franklin mourned that the popular past-time of hunting natives with dogs could not be used more because of a lack of dogs.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
Amazing how a Presidnet spends 8 years knowing an attack is beeing planned, but won't say a word to the new adminstration. and let all the balm e fall on the guy that was just there for a couple of months.



BERRRRRR...
]link
In clintons on book, he explaines he told bush while he was running, but bush quickly changed subjects.

2ndly
Link
Clinton advised the bush clan of alqaeda, even placed some idea's.
But as the article points out, it wasnt reviewed for some time, and wasnt acted on, until sept4... one week before sept11.


3rdly,
bush's COUNTER TERRORISM CHEIF advised they didnt tackle alqaeda hard enough, even though they had REPEATED WARNINGS.
www.cnn.com...

I dont like using michael moore as a source, but surley he had it on the ball when bush was out fishing huh?

for people to BLAME Clinton is STUPID!...
seriously..

if bush has a month left in office, would you be pleased for him to send troops and tackle ANOTHER ISSUE?

Clinton saw alqaeda as a threat, not an immediate 4 week t hreat but a growing threat, and he tried making it bush's TOP PRIORITY.


Compared to BUSH, Clinton was the best president the us has ever seen.
Then again an infant could do better than bush.

I mean how much has the government of the USA changed,
when a man can be put in trail for lying about a sexual affair..
yet another man can illegially INVADE and occupy a country,
ignore constitutional rules
spy on his own citizens
allow a threat to turn into a major catastrophy (9/11)
and even have LINKS, to the origin of the threat.

Yeah your right, clinton, booo
bush ' cheers '



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   
The question should be changed to "What had been done by Bush lead to 9/11"?



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
YO PINHEAD...

WHERE WERE YOU IN THE 70'S AND EARLY 80'S WHEN THE THEME OF THE DAY FOR RAGHEADS WAS TO KIDNAP AMERICANS AND HOLD THEM HOSTAGE...DEMANDING THE RELEASE OF ALREADY IMPRISONED TERRORISTS...

WE SPEND A DECADE PUTTING UP WITH THAT CRAP BECAUSE THAT WORTHLESS WEENIE JIMMY CARTER COULDNT FIND THE BALLS TO KICK THEIR ASS... WHEN REGAN FINALY TOOK OFFICE THAT CRAP STOPPED REAL QUICK...
HE TOLD ALL OF THEM TO THEIR FACES.... ON NATIONAL TV ... :
GO AHEAD..MAKE MY DAY "

ITS AMAZING THAT YOU ACUTALLY KNOW SO VERY LITTLE FACTUAL INFORMATION AND ALL YOU CAN SPEW IS RUMORS OF WHO KNOW WHO...

YEA THE BIN LADENS KNEW ALOT OF PEOPLE HERE BACK THEN... THEIR ENTIRE FAMLY HAD MOVED HERE.. LIVED HERE...WENT TO COLLEGE HERE.. EVEN BIN HIMSELF... THEIR FAMILY WAS RICH AND INFLUENTIAL....AND BIN WASNT A TERRORIST THEN... SO OF COURSE THE RICH AND INFLUENTIAL OF AMERICAN SOCIETY MIGHT KNOW THEM.... WHO WOULD YOU EXPECT THE AMERICN RICH TO SPEAK WITH ? THE LIKES OF YOU ???? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: WOT Posting Conduct – Please Review Link.

Mod Note: All Caps – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 8/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Still remember those days of Afganistan, when mister Reagan used the term "FREEDOM FIGHTERS" for the ISLAMIC Mujahideen which fought against the Soviet invasion?

Guess not.

And you spell PROVOCATEUR - not Provactuer.



PS: Oh, and Cut the CAPSLOCK, because this is going to be a Very short visit for you then...

[edit on 8/6/06 by Souljah]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
whoever it was that wanted to know why there weren't terror attacks against the US before Bush took office:

1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.
1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.


to name a few

the 70's and 80's saw a ton of attacks in France. Then the french made their deal with the terror organizations and the attacks stopped.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by emile
The question should be changed to "What had been done by Bush lead to 9/11"?


Short answer: nothing.

Bush takes office Jan 20, 2001.

Osama attends son's wedding February 26 in Saudi Arabia

Richard Clarke -- the key 'terrorism czar' carried over from the Clinton administration repeatedly begs for a meeting with GWB and is refused.

The white house contemplates giving $43 million to the Taliban

Attempts to kill Osama bin Laden before 9/11: zero

Vacations taken before 9/11: 5 weeks

Clinton attempts to kill Osama bin Laden: 1998 60 or so Cruise missles dropped on OBL's Afghanistan camp. Republicans scoff.

Only recently has the CIA revealed it was given the directive to "take out" al Quaeda in 1995.

The rush to revisionism about who was responsible for 9/11 may be due to the perspective of history reflecting poorly on GWB.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Crakeur wrote, as the deception continues...

whoever it was that wanted to know why there weren't terror attacks against the US before Bush took office:

[He then posted acts of war since 1979, even though Middle Eastern Muslim extremists, whom Bush told us hated us because we were free and therefore attacked, WERE AROUND SINCE THE BEGINNING OF AMERICA.

The point was ignored.

Then the point has to be repeated again since they are telling us Bush is doing the real and right thing against terror that makes the Constitution "OUTDATED." If it therefore is outdated SINCE TERRORISM, according to them, THE CONSTITUTION WAS ALWAYS OUTDATED SINCE THE DAY OF ITS CREATION!

Translated: THESE ARE THE ENEMIES OF LIBERTY WHO CONCLUDE THAT!!



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Crakeur's statement is more proving what I had said:

THE MORE BACKWARD WE GO IN TIME IS THE MORE LAXED WE WERE ON TERRORISM, AND CONSEQUENTLY...

THE
LESS
WE
WERE
ATTACKED!

Or had to worry about any such concerns.

We can therefore move on with these findings, but the propaganda team is going to be redundant and bring up the same lies again.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Hey tmac, stop shouting man


You´ve found out the ultimate NWO agenda and the tools they use. Good for you. Unfortunatly (or fortunatly depending on your level of masochism=) there are loads of members who oppose those findings, and will do anything to vindicate the acts of the current administration, including an illegal war. (Opinion:mine).

This is what a good forum is about: different opinions and the liberty to express them. The thing that annoys you is the lack of true discussion. Give it time.

Yes, your liberties are gradually taken away.
Yes, the Police State has arrived
Yes, the Patriot Act is real.

No, I do not believe Al-Qaeda poses a threat in the way presented by the administration
No, I do not believe Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11
No, I cannot do anything about the current reality.

See? We could go round and round and round all night and discuss this until this thread passes 10,000 posts. It would still be pointless.

Don´t worry though, just two more years of George W and then it´s Jebs turn.


Hey, if you really feel this strong, challenge your favourite opponent to a debate.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
You are not on my side: you are on theirs.

Just have them to answer the plain points that I have posted. They are so simple to understand, the propaganda team leeches on to my posts and don't bother with those that are nonsense and do not threaten their agenda.

We didn't merely come on discussion boards to debate: we came to find answers. Just debating for the sake of debating only benefits the propaganda team. You should be far more upset with the propaganda team, and you would be if you were not a part of it. You needed to tell the people who enter to attack my posts to calm down and understand that people will be free to know about their conspiracy and that they need to clearly answer the points that were given and not use their talents to skirt around them.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
We didn't merely come on discussion boards to debate: we came to find answers.


OK, who exactly is we?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join