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.
Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Let's assume, for the sake of arguement, that the official reports of 9/11 are true.
In that case, then, yes, there would be conflict on some scale.
I honestly believe, that while the current war has turned world sentiment against America, it has served to create focal points in Iraq & Afghanistan. Many of those wishing to engage in terror attacks against America, have been drawn away from The States and toward these nations where they can engage the US military with others of like mind.
Without the US military intervention abroad, I sincerely think that there would have been 2, maybe 3, large scale attacks within the continental United States, and several smaller ones.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The United States would have made some response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. If the Democrats had been in office, the response would probably have been in the same vein as the response to the previous attack on the WTC, which as we all know was about as effective as trying to eradicate cockroaches with a flyswatter.
www.fas.org...
[edit on 2006/9/9 by GradyPhilpott]
Ramzi was caught with a democratic president. Osama is at large with a republican, two years longer than it took ramzi to be apprehended. Where is your point?
On February 7, 1995, Pakistani Intelligence and U.S. Bureau of Diplomatic Security agents raided the Su-Casa Guest House in Islamabad, Pakistan, and capture Yousef before he could rebase himself in Peshawar. He was betrayed by Istaique Parker, a man Yousef had tried to recruit. Parker was paid $2 million for the information leading to Yousef's capture. [3] When he was discovered, Yousef had chemical burns on his fingers.
Yousef was flown back to the United States and helicoptered into Manhattan. He was sent to a prison in New York, New York, United States, and held there until his trial. On September 5, 1996, Yousef, Murad, and Shah were convicted for planning Bojinka. They were sentenced to life in prison without parole. In court, Yousef said, "I am a terrorist, and I am proud of it." U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Duffy referred to Yousef as "an apostle of evil" before recommending that the entire sentence be served in solitary confinement.[4]
In 1997, Osama bin Laden said during an interview that he did not know Yousef. Yousef's uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed allegedly took part in launching the September 11 Terrorist Attacks.
On November 12, 1997 Yousef was found guilty of masterminding the 1993 bombing and in 1998 he was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers.
He is currently held in the high-security Supermax prison ADX Florence in Florence, Colorado.
[edit on 9-9-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]
Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Where is your point?
Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Iraq and Afhganastan are focus points because we made them that. Do you really believe terrorist hate freedom? What they hate is an aggressive regime that promises freedom, but really expoits their natural resources leaving them in chaos. Now if this was happening in the states by an outside aggressive regime, would you not fight for your land back?
If so, you would be called a terrorist by the aggressive regime and their home country. Let's be fair about the issue, we are in the wrong. Please tell me how we're not.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Where is your point?
I get tired of people who are too lazy to think asking what my point is, but since I'm such a kind and gentle sort, I'll make it easy for you. Using the legal system to fight terrorists is no more effective than trying to eliminate a cockroach infestation with a flyswatter.
Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Additionally, I'm suggesting that, as focal points, they have served to act as magnets to those who wish to fight against the US. Some who might have acted inside the US, decided to fight directly in Iraq & A'stan.
Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I see your point, I just don't believe that they would come here if not there. I think they fight there because they don't want us there. Remember Ben Ladden was upset with Saudi because they allowed US soldiers to protect their oil. It is a holy thing there, they don't want us on their shoulder, they see us as the enemy. And who wouldn't if they constantly saw American contractors get rich, their natural resources squandered, etc... I am trying to see both sides, and they do not hate freedom, they hate that we are taking their away.
AAC
Originally posted by ferretman2
Then why has Iran 'decided' to remove liberal professors for their universities and shut down the free press?
Originally posted by ferretman2
He had stated that the islamofacists were not against freedom.
Then why did the taliban destroy the ancient budda stautes?
Then why has Iran 'decided' to remove liberal professors for their universities and shut down the free press?