Logo

**Cristiano** · 06-19-2012, 05:16 PM

Damaging new declassified CIA documents shine a new light on 9/11 and its aftermath:

New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims - 9/11 - Salon.com

Quote:

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

**Cindy Claveau** · 06-19-2012, 05:28 PM

It boggles my mind in retrospect that the Bush people didn't see fit to really go after al Qaeda. They probably thought since most of the attacks (except the USS Cole, the African embassies and the failed '93 bombing of WTC) were on foreign territory, there weren't any domestic votes to win by being more aggressive.

But damn, the list of attacks should have awakened somebody!

Quote:

February 1993 World Trade Center

1994 Bojinka, Philippine Airlines Flight 434

1998 U.S.-embassy bombings

In August 1998, Al-Qaeda operatives carried out the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing more than 200 people and injuring more than 5,000 others. [9]

2000 USS Cole bombing

In December 1999 and into 2000, al-Qaeda planned attacks against U.S. and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations; however, Jordanian authorities thwarted the planned attacks and put 28 suspects on trial. Part of this plot included the planned bombing of LAX, but this plot was foiled when bomber Ahmed Ressam was caught at the US-Canadian border with explosives in the trunk of his car. Al-Qaeda also planned to attack the USS The Sullivans on January 3, 2000, but the effort failed due to too much weight being put on the small boat meant to bomb the ship.

German police foiled Strasbourg cathedral bombing plotters a plot to bomb the Christmas market near the Strasbourg Cathedral in Strasbourg, France in December 2000.

Rizal Day Bombings in the Philippines (2000)

Hello? Is anybody home in there?!

**Void** · 06-19-2012, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy Claveau

[...]
But damn, the list of attacks should have awakened somebody!
[...]

I'm actually going to go out on a bit of a limb here...

the attacks were being thwarted, so security was working as intended... given that, targeting their leadership would have been a waste since it's only likely result would have been a martyr effect, that may have encouraged more effective people to join the ranks...

regardless they still should have been monitored, because they were a direct threat and likely to succeed sooner or later. That they weren't is a huge fucking failure on so many levels that it's almost unbelievable to the point of thinking it was purposeful.

**Cindy Claveau** · 06-19-2012, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Void

I'm actually going to go out on a bit of a limb here...

the attacks were being thwarted, so security was working as intended... given that, targeting their leadership would have been a waste since it's only likely result would have been a martyr effect, that may have encouraged more effective people to join the ranks...

regardless they still should have been monitored, because they were a direct threat and likely to succeed sooner or later. That they weren't is a huge fucking failure on so many levels that it's almost unbelievable to the point of thinking it was purposeful.

The Clinton administration's solution was to launch remote cruise missile attacks, which obviously didn't do any good at all. Considering the litany of successful attacks, I question how "effective" the thwarting was.

And I've never bought into the martyr idea - the most effective way to stop a terrorist from killing us is to kill him first. It might piss some people off, but then killing Americans pisses off Americans, too. And I do not like what we have become as a nation since 9/11.

Innula Zenovka · 06-19-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy Claveau

And I've never bought into the martyr idea - the most effective way to stop a terrorist from killing us is to kill him first. It might piss some people off, but then killing Americans pisses off Americans, too. And I do not like what we have become as a nation since 9/11.

I dunno, Cindy. While I can understand why, for a time, there would appear to have been a shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland, I don't think it was particularly proud moment in my country's recent history, despite the fact that killing British soldiers and setting off bombs pisses off most Brits. And I'm pretty sure that Mrs Thatcher was as concerned about the possible public reaction in the USA, if not more so, as they were about public reaction closer to home if it got out that our security forces were shooting suspected PIRA terrorists on sight in Northern Ireland.

**Void** · 06-19-2012, 06:07 PM

depends on the pool of people involved.... if most of the surrounding public is close to the views of the target, but views them as being too extreme, taking out the leadership can push them towards the extreme... especially if there is fallout for the community involved.

without popular support you end up generating more enemies than you eliminate, even if they don't become literal martyrs.

**Cindy Claveau** · 06-19-2012, 06:35 PM

I will agree that it's a delicate ethical problem. But consider an alternate history here: if Clinton had taken out al Qaeda before Bush took office, there would have been no 9/11. 3,000 -some American lives would have been saved. The Taliban would not have given al Qaeda asylum in Afghanistan, saving another 4,000 plus American lives an thousands of Afghan civilians.

Bush would still invade Iraq no doubt, but he wouldn't have had the 9/11 excuse. The whole world would be different, all at the cost of few terrorists.

Chip Midnight · 06-19-2012, 06:42 PM

This isn't fair. George Bush cleared away enormous amount of brush that Bin Laden could have been hiding in.

Tracer Graves · 06-19-2012, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy Claveau

I will agree that it's a delicate ethical problem. But consider an alternate history here: if Clinton had taken out al Qaeda before Bush took office, there would have been no 9/11. 3,000 -some American lives would have been saved. The Taliban would not have given al Qaeda asylum in Afghanistan, saving another 4,000 plus American lives an thousands of Afghan civilians.

Bush would still invade Iraq no doubt, but he wouldn't have had the 9/11 excuse. The whole world would be different, all at the coat of few terrorists.

I'm not so sure he would have been able to muster up the popular support for the Iraq invasion, but you never know.

**Void** · 06-19-2012, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy Claveau

I will agree that it's a delicate ethical problem. But consider an alternate history here: if Clinton had taken out al Qaeda before Bush took office, there would have been no 9/11. 3,000 -some American lives would have been saved. The Taliban would not have given al Qaeda asylum in Afghanistan, saving another 4,000 plus American lives an thousands of Afghan civilians.

Bush would still invade Iraq no doubt, but he wouldn't have had the 9/11 excuse. The whole world would be different, all at the coat of few terrorists.

eh maybe.... or maybe 9/11 would've happened on 2/13 under a different persons direction....

I think if they had been monitored instead of written off though the odds of any such event would have been infinitely lower.

**Cindy Claveau** · 06-19-2012, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Void

eh maybe.... or maybe 9/11 would've happened on 2/13 under a different persons direction....

I think if they had been monitored instead of written off though the odds of any such event would have been infinitely lower.

It boils down to the fact that 2 different administrations didn't take bin Laden and Wahhabism seriously enough. This wasn't just on Bush. Everything after 9/11 *IS* on Bush, though.

But anyway, hindsight and all that ...

Ramen Jedburgh · 06-19-2012, 11:41 PM

This feels relevant.

http://www.familyofsecrets.com/

\tinfoil

06-19-2012, 06:35 PM	#7 (permalink)
Cindy Claveau E=mc^(OMG)/wtf *SLU Supporter* Free's Sister Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Brownbackistan Posts: 27,444 My Mood: SL Join Date: May, 2005 Client: Firestorm Blog Entries: 16 Awards: 2	I will agree that it's a delicate ethical problem. But consider an alternate history here: if Clinton had taken out al Qaeda before Bush took office, there would have been no 9/11. 3,000 -some American lives would have been saved. The Taliban would not have given al Qaeda asylum in Afghanistan, saving another 4,000 plus American lives an thousands of Afghan civilians. Bush would still invade Iraq no doubt, but he wouldn't have had the 9/11 excuse. The whole world would be different, all at the cost of few terrorists. Last edited by Cindy Claveau; 06-19-2012 at 11:39 PM.

06-19-2012, 11:41 PM	#12 (permalink)
Ramen Jedburgh Ginger Supremacist Heya ^_^ Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Illinois, USA Posts: 1,849 My Mood: SL Join Date: 3/9/2006	This feels relevant. http://www.familyofsecrets.com/ \tinfoil __________________ -- Ramen Jedburgh Abusively Cute ^_^

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-19-2012, 06:07 PM	#6 (permalink)
Void That Bitch *SLU Supporter* Innocent as far as you know Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Online Posts: 6,204 My Mood: SL Join Date: late 04... that account is deleted now	depends on the pool of people involved.... if most of the surrounding public is close to the views of the target, but views them as being too extreme, taking out the leadership can push them towards the extreme... especially if there is fallout for the community involved. without popular support you end up generating more enemies than you eliminate, even if they don't become literal martyrs.

06-19-2012, 06:42 PM	#8 (permalink)
Chip Midnight That template guy Meshing Around Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 9,242 My Mood: Business: CMFF	This isn't fair. George Bush cleared away enormous amount of brush that Bin Laden could have been hiding in.

Logo

Site Navigation