 |
| |
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:23
|
|
Something says to me most people here have very weird concept of security and how it works. First of all, airport security is a joke. Do you think it will prevent any serious criminal, let alone terrorists? And especially in the US?! It's all eye work. Just have a passport, and walk. That's it. Do you think they need to be carrying weapons coming from foreing countries? Of course not.
Do you think they will carry out attacks within the month they arrive? Of course not. Do you think the security is toughter in domestic flights than international flights, especially that comes INTO the US? Of course not. They still aren't. I went through the max security check in Seattle, including me sacks getting a magical david cup-a-feel, and so did the rest of my crew. It wasn't just padding down, it was teh check up. All I can tell you is that you only catch people who carry too much booze, weed or pirated dvd's. I could have been carrying a shotgun for all I care. Of course I wasn't.
SO, how can it be then, aren't they doing OK? Sure they're doing OK. It just isn't possible to check up people on airports properly, except maybe one at a time in some room.
I'm telling you, if terorists are going to attack the US, they are already in the country, or they come in with ease, or they are domestic made. You can only stop high profile dudes coming in,and that's IF you're lucky.
That's just the reality of things. It's LATE to prevent them then. Where the prevention happens, is when the intelligence picks up information in the target location (original location), and see unusually active movement. It doesn't necessarily get to know the plan, but it sure knows who, and against who and why and when. Then it tries to learn how, but if it fails, to goes in to **** them up. You don't arrest them before going into airplane because they have a knife. I mean sure but..yeah.
basically the only viable solution in protecting is to know what's happening all the time, all around the world INCLUDING inside own borders, and react to hightened activities in direct action or passive action. That's it. That's how it's always been and that's how it continues to be.
We could just remove ALL airport security for all I care. THe people who work there are good folks I'm sure and do what their job is, but we don't need it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
It was under Clinton's watch that al Qaeda first attacked America - the WTC bombing in 1993. There were numerous other attacks after that -- all under Clinton. |
This is half true. Yes, it was under Clinton that AQ 1st attacked the United States, in 1996, in Saudi Arabia, the Khobar Towers bombing. AQ didn't exist until that year. The group that attacked us in 1993, was the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
quote:
Now, given this record compared to Rice's record, I'd take Rice's record any day. |
Undre Rice, despite repeated warnings, the worst attack on the United States in our history occured. Under Clinton, at least one major attack was prevented, the Millenium Bombing. It's hard to blame Cltinon for secureity lapses which occur in countries where we don't control the security (Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen).
quote:
If Bill Clinton himself thought that OBL was the most important issue facing America, why didn't he accept his surrender when it was repeatedly offered? |
His surrender was never offered. Perhaps you are ferering to the right-wing lie that Sudan offered bin Laden to the U.S. #1, he was never offered to us, he was offered to the Saudis, at a time before AQ had conducted any attacks against us, and in exchange for the United States taking Sudan off the list of terrorism sponsoring countries. Clinton did the right thing in refusing the offer, not that it mattered since the Saudis refused to take him.
quote:
As Ming said, why didn't they do something to beef up security on planes when Clinton was warned of al Qaeda's intent to hijack airplanes. |
Because the GOP wouldn't let him. They were too busy crippling his presidency over a blowjob (and numerous other irrelevent--and false--accusations) to allow him to do his job, accusing him of wagging the dog when he tried to make terrorism an issue. In addition, Clinton was a complete whore to business, and the airline industry absolutely was opposed to security improvements which would cost them money (like adding air marshals and secure doors).
quote:
Clark made it clear that Bush wanted a whole new direction on al Qaeda. |
Which is why the first thing regarding AQ that the Bush administration did was quash all investigations into the Saudi sources of AQ's money? Which is why they cut anti-terrorism funding?
Man, Neddie, you would have been a great news person for Pravda under Stalin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
It is almost as if you guys never watched the Clark testimony as I did. He said that the reason that Bush did not want to retaliate for the Cole as Clinton had done after previous attacks was that Bush wanted to really go after al Qaeda and not repeat the pinprick responses that Clinton used. He was asked to draft a plan. He did. A lot of what he suggested was actually implemented.
As to the repeated offers of OBL to Clinton, I have actually heard Clinton explaining this to some reporter. The tape was played almost daily on Hannity's radio show. On the tape, Clinton explains that he did not accept the offers because they apparently did not have enough evidence to charge OBL with a crime. He said he asked the Saudi's to take him, but they refused.
As to 1993, the grand jury testimony showed that OBL was part of the conspiracy, if not behind it entirely. Because of this was grand jury testimony, though, it could not be shared with intelligence, nor, apparently, with Bill Clinton, as Bill seems to have been unaware that OBL was an unidicted co-conspirator to the 1993 bombing when the offer of bin Laden was made.
Generally, Che, what you say here is a lot of BS. You accuse me of the very malfeasance of which you are guilty: writing propaganda.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-02-2005 12:38
|