Re: Mountains Rush and Moore

From: John Doe (jdoe_at_doe.org)
Date: 07/30/04 

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:19:45 -0400

Eric Chomko wrote:
> : > : How would Clinton's "terrorism policies" have prevented 911? How did
> : > : the so-called "communications gap" cause it?
> : >
> : > Because the indicators of an attack would not have been ignored. It was
> : > negligence on the part of W's adminstration. Pure and simple.

In fairness, nobody knows if under a different government, 911 would have been
stopeed or at least thwarted.

> W's arrogance that it can't happen here caused it.

Then again, there are conspiracies that say that Bush (or rather his handlers)
wanted a terrorist event to happen in the USA so that they could unleash their
long planned policies/plans. The mistake in such a case was that they had
vastly underestimated the magnitude of the attack.

Remember that the previous attack on US soil by foreigners didn't do that much
damage (WTC in 1993). Although that Oklahoma City bomb did show how much
damage a terrorist could inflict.

Also, back in the original WTC bomb context, Al Queda wasn't a well known
organisation back then and wasn't as well organised. So while one can , in
hindsight, criticise whoever was in power at the time for not taking strong
immediate action, it may not have been so obvious at the time, and probably
politically impossible to attack a country (eithert diplomatically or
militarily) because a few of its citizens planted a bomb.

It is the attacks that followed that clearly drew a big target on Al Queda as
a guilty party, and on the Taliban as a government that hosted Al Queda and
exchanged services (training, facilities) to train the Taliban's army.

Prior to 9-11, the Taliban (which had been put in power by the USA, which was
happy to see the soviets leave) had done nothing warranting a military action
against itself. Plenty of rogue regimes and abused human rights. And plenty of
countries, including the USA, are hosts to organisations which are criminal in
nature. It doesn't necessarily mean that the host country supports or condones
those organisations.

After 9-11, the taliban became "guilty" when it refused to cooperate with the
international community to catch the bad guys.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mountains Rush and Moore
    ... In fairness, nobody knows if under a different government, 911 would have been ... Remember that the previous attack on US soil by foreigners didn't do that much ... Prior to 9-11, the Taliban (which had been put in power by the USA, which was ... It doesn't necessarily mean that the host country supports or condones ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Mountains Rush and Moore
    ... In fairness, nobody knows if under a different government, 911 would have been ... Remember that the previous attack on US soil by foreigners didn't do that much ... Prior to 9-11, the Taliban (which had been put in power by the USA, which was ... It doesn't necessarily mean that the host country supports or condones ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: why do countries become democracies?
    ... one place where law is practiced are Courts. ... because no one used them to declare that the taliban SHOULD be ... government, you would have a much better argument. ... attacked and it's always right to attack the US. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mountains Rush and Moore
    ... : Eric Chomko wrote: ... In fairness, nobody knows if under a different government, 911 would have been ... vastly underestimated the magnitude of the attack. ... It doesn't necessarily mean that the host country supports or condones ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Mountains Rush and Moore
    ... : Eric Chomko wrote: ... In fairness, nobody knows if under a different government, 911 would have been ... vastly underestimated the magnitude of the attack. ... It doesn't necessarily mean that the host country supports or condones ...
    (sci.space.history)