Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Strangely, I remember considerable conservative whining about diverting
attention from a BJ. NOYB wrote: I remember that too. Really? Do you remember that the claims about "targeting aspirin & baby food factories" made by various pro-terrorist organizations right after the cruise missile reprisals... claims that are repeated now by Bush/Cheney supporters? ... And being the wonderful politician (but terrible President) that he was, he read the polls, put his tail between his legs, and quit pursuing the guy. You're talking about Bush, right? When he decided to pull troops away from pursuing Osama Bin Laden in order to invade Iraq? DSK |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:27:52 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
John H wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:02:09 -0500, thunder wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote: How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston? As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes? Only if we had a policy of allowing stewardesses to be killed to prevent a hijacking. Did we have such a policy? At the time it wold have been an airline policy, subject to interpretation of the Captain. I'd like to think that if I were captain, I would not sacrifice my plane and passengers for a stewardess. (yes i would feel guilty about the decision, and it would bother me for quite a while, but as with a ship captain, the safety of the vessel and passengers comes before one of the crew. At the time it was *not* the policy to allow the throat-slitting of stewardesses to prevent a hijacking. At the time, you would have had no reason to think your aircraft was about to be used as a missile. John H |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote: How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston? As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes? You can do that to all of the airplanes in just 8 months? And at the time, the cockpit bulkheadds would NOT have prevented it. The mindset and training in dealing with hijackings prior to 9-11 was to cooperate, fly them where they wanted to go, and negotiate a peaceful resolution. The rules changed on 9-11. But then the liebrals have always been revisionist historians. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:54:21 +0000, NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote: How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston? As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes? You can do that to all of the airplanes in just 8 months? Don't be so defensive. I was just answering a question. FWIW, I don't hold Bush *or* Clinton responsible for 9/11, neither had a crystal ball nor did they have the benefit of our terrific hindsight. I do hold bin Laden responsible and the last I heard he is still roaming free. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:51:50 +0000, NOYB wrote:
"Mr. Clinton took the politically safe path by treating the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center as a criminal matter rather than the terrorist attack that it really was. As a result, he shut the CIA out of the investigation. Administration blundering enabled Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a top bin Laden aide who coordinated the September 11 attacks, to escape capture in Qatar. Your hindsight is quite remarkable, but I believe it's been four years since 9/11 and bin Laden is still free. Perhaps, if this CIC was distracted by Iraq, the most powerful country on earth would have captured the SOB. As for the CIA, it seems you have more faith in it than the present administration. They are eviscerating it as we speak. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:39:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Somalia had happened. The 1993 WTC attack had happened. Soon after the proclamation of war, the Khobar towers attack occurred...followed shortly by the USS Cole. After the Cole, Clinton didn't react even though all indications were that it was directed by bin Laden. The Cole was attacked Oct. 12, 2000. You say Clinton didn't react in the three months left of his Presidency. Now, just what did Bush do about bin Laden in the *8* months of his Presidency? You know, the 8 months he had to track down bin Laden, before 9/11. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Congratulations to John in his new job. Will he be earning 'union rates' for his services? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
NOYB wrote:
Somalia had happened. The 1993 WTC attack had happened. And the perpetrators were, for the most part, in jail... and still are. ... Soon after the proclamation of war, the Khobar towers attack occurred...followed shortly by the USS Cole. After the Cole, Clinton didn't react even though all indications were that it was directed by bin Laden. thunder wrote: The Cole was attacked Oct. 12, 2000. You say Clinton didn't react in the three months left of his Presidency. Now, just what did Bush do about bin Laden in the *8* months of his Presidency? You know, the 8 months he had to track down bin Laden, before 9/11. He was practicing reading "My Pet Goat." DSK |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"DSK" wrote in message . .. NOYB wrote: .... bin Laden should have been captured or killed the minute that he declared war on the US. So why hasn't Bush captured him yet? Different circumstances. bin Laden was operating in public soon after his declaration of war. The Sudanese had him and offered him to us. Fact: Approx four years after Bin Laden had "declared war" on the US, his organization was unable to carry out an attack on US soil. But he was targeting Americans with attacks that came approximately once every 6 months...while he was training terrorists to carry out the 9/11 attack. Fact: The President of the U.S. cannot simply order any person on earth killed. That's not a fact. That's an opinion. Fact: Bush has *still* not managed to capture of kill Bin Laden Could be another opinion. Where is he? Fact: there is no proven link between Iraq and anti-US terrorism There are dozens of proven links...but you've chosen not to believe them. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Just when the neo-cons think they're making progress in converting
America to a nation that will be more easily controlled (by neo-cons, of course), some "activist judge" steps forward with the Constitution and some quaint, old-fashioned, idea that political expediency doesn't usurp legal principles about due process, (including the right to a fair and speedy trial). Whatever Padilla might have done, it could not possibly damage the country any more than adopting a policy under which the government locks people up simply because the government thinks they might be guilty and if the government decides it can't find or manufacture enough evidence to prevail in court the "suspect" is then left to rot in jail, without trial, for the rest of his life. Gulag justice has no place in a free society. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists | General | |||
OT Bush is certainly no Reagan | General | |||
A truly great man! | ASA | |||
Can We STOP IT??? | ASA |