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.

 

US had plan for al-Qaida before the war

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Hahahah now this is stupid IF the USA had a Plan for
Al Qaida before the war they would of said something about it after sept 11 but as always the public belives what the gouverment is saying except us.

cnn.netscape.cnn.com.../ff/story/0001%2F20040323%2F1238887414.htm&sc=1110

[Edited on 23-3-2004 by Chronic7]




posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Umm yeah, that is pretty sound reasoning there Chronic7.
Did you bother to read the article at all?
Like this:

The commission said that three years before the attacks, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden, but Afghan leaders later reneged.

Maybe this will help:
The Taliban File
Usama Bin Laden / Osama Bin Laden
Osama bin Laden

Then this from your article:

From the spring of 1997 to September 2001, the U.S. government tried to persuade the Taliban to expel bin Laden to a country where he could face justice, the report said. The efforts employed inducements, warnings and sanctions. All these efforts failed.

Maybe this will help:
Myth: Clinton Did Nothing To Fight Terrorism
Origins and Doctrines
Al-Qaida 'game plan' on Bush's desk Sept. 9

Your point Chronic7?



seekerof



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
No! Really?! They had a plan before the war?!?!
You mean just like those missiles that were launched during the Clinton Administration that was suppose to kill Osama?!?! Wow! I didn't know that!



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Ok, there were two comments especially at the commission that took my interest very much.

This one for humour:

"Second, even if Bin Laden had been captured or killed in the weeks before 9/11, no-one I know believes it would have prevented 9/11," - Donald Rumsfeld

So I guess all those people that get on Clinton's back about not taking out Bin Laden, and effectively being responsible for 9/11, can be quiet now.

Not that I care either way, politicians are all corrupt and rotten to the core no matter what party you support so it doesn't bother me what you say about any politician, but I thought I'd point that out for the people that do care.

and here's another from "um...errrr...bu...yerrr....errmmm" Rummy:

"Mr Rumsfeld also said that before the 11 September attacks, it would have been impossible to get support from Congress or the American public for a full-fledged invasion of Afghanistan."(can someone find the actual quote for me please?)
bbc.co.uk

Well, I'd say this quote speaks for itself really, I'm sure you know what I'm getting at. I would've like to have read his facial expressions when he made that point.

I happen to think that this Clarke is doing more good for the Bush Admin than harm. He's making them look more incompetent than the lying, murdering, money/power hungry bastards they are.
People are now more inclined to think "Oh well...they're a bit slow sometimes but that's no reason to blame them" when in fact this couldn't be further from the truth.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Perhaps John, but what the public doesn't know or has forgotten, won't hurt them right?

US, Uzbek had secret alliance before Sept 11
U.S. Operated Secret Alliance With Uzbekistan
Clinton's War on Terror--The Covert Hunt for bin Laden
The Tragedy of Abdul Haq--How the CIA betrayed an Afghan freedom-fighter.
India joins anti-Taliban coalition

Need more...can find.

All the above proves is that the US, regardless of administration's, the US had full attention on the Taliban and in like, eyes on Bin Laden, all prior to the tragic events of 9/11.

In truth, the logic that is used in saying this:

Second, even if Bin Laden had been captured or killed in the weeks before 9/11, no-one I know believes it would have prevented 9/11," - Donald Rumsfeld

Works both ways doesn't it? How many have claimed and spouted here that it's this current administration's fault and yet will easily accept the argument that Rumsfield stated above in the reasoning against those who have asked why Clinton didn't take Bin Laden out?

IMHO, Rumsfield is making a justified assertion that neither the Clinton administration nor the current administration knows whether 9/11 could have been prevented, correct? Here's my next question to that: How does one know that with 100% certainty?
If the chance was there prior to 9/11 to take Bin Laden out or capture him, shouldn't it have been taken despite what Rumsfield is indicating or saying?
Again, the prior administration missed or did not take those opportunities how many times? Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it?




seekerof

[Edited on 23-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
You know with all sides spinning like crazy right now it is hard to figure out who or what to believe.

It is like a tennis match between two people with split personalities...

Let's face it. It happened and whether or not we could have stopped it, is at this point irrelivant.

It does appear both side focused on it, maybe just not enough. I still believe that none of them could have anticipated the attack, at least not to the magnitude.

I believe it was a lucky shot, I also don't believe the terrorist knew the towers would fall (burn maybe but not collapse) which is what killed most of the people. Let's consider the fact that since then they have done nothing to us, except when we are in their backyard. It is so easy to get into this country and they have not.

Bush may be doing some good things, Clinton did some and for the most part, it has been our turn to be lucky.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Works both ways doesn't it? How many have claimed and spouted here that it's this current administration's fault and yet will easily accept the argument that Rumsfield stated above in the reasoning against those who have asked why Clinton didn't take Bin Laden out?

I'm not one of the ones that easily accepts it, as far as I'm concerned they're all to blame and they've all got to go. The WHOLE sewer pit you call a government.

IMHO, Rumsfield is making a justified assertion that neither the Clinton administration nor the current administration knows whether 9/11 could have been prevented, correct? Here's my next question to that: How does one know that with 100% certainty?

Mr "errr...ahem...bu...ermm...ahhh..umm" Rumsfeld seems to, maybe you better take it up with him.


If the chance was there prior to 9/11 to take Bin Laden out or capture him, shouldn't it have been taken despite what Rumsfield is indicating or saying?

As you have said above, it works both ways. You're preaching to the converted.

Again, the prior administration missed or did not take those opportunities how many times? Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it?


...and I'm sure if the prior administration was the Republicans, with the Democrats being the current one, you'd most likely be making the exact same point I made earlier. Hindsite is 20/20 indeed.

[Edited on 23-3-2004 by Seekerof]


Again I have to say that you a preaching to the converted, I am not disputing anything that you have said. My point was that the Republican spin machine here has basically been implying that Clinton was responsible for 9/11 because he had many opportunities to take out Bin Laden and didn't. However, Rumsfeld's statement has basically blown that spinned point of view out of the water.
Now you see what I'm getting at right? I am not a Democrat or Republican and have no agenda, I am just speaking the truth.

It's all spin, that's all it is and you have chosen a side and do a good job for them. Keep it up though.


P.S. Thanks for the links.


[Edited on 23-3-2004 by John Nada]



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   
You know, the funny thing about this is that NOW the liberal freaks in America are backpeddling and saying that this Clarke guy handed over all kinds of sensitive info to the Bush administration. And this info allegedly contained proof that al-Qaeda was already lurking in America. So IF this is true, why the hell didn't they do something about it?

Either the former Clinton administration's cabinet is lying, or they are responsible of not moving on al-Qaeda before Bush came into office.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 12:37 AM
link   
OF COURSE our government/intelligence agencies knew about terrorist threats!!! They better damn well HAVE KNOWN....the biggest problem is political will....both administrations knew that politically it would be a hard sell to do what was really nessisary to combat this threat (meaning use of millitary might), more than just lobbing a few cruise missiles. was clinton going to start a conflict on his way out? would bush start one if he knew it wouldnt float in the public...911 changed the publics mentality (correctly) that we needed to do something serious about this.....The terrorists are counting on our election going like spains...they want us to back off of them....these extremists were betting that we as a country didnt have the guts to put our troops in harms way on this issue...that we were soft willed. Guess they were wrong eh? 911 was the trigger that would have allowed ANY administration here in the us to be able to pull the trigger on a serious mennace like al queda....before it was just another adgenda item on the rest of the administrations list...until they HAD to act on it, why would either of them tried to push this unseen threat into the front ahead of jobs/economy and other things both parties were touting.



new topics




 
0

log in

join