Forums | MacLife

Thwarted attacks since 9/11

http://www.heritage.org/research/Homela … bg2085.cfm

Richard Reid, December 2001 (Paris to Miami flight)
Jose Padilla, May 2002
Lackawanna Six, September 2002
Iyman Faris, May 2003
Virginia "Jihad" Network, June 2003
Dhiren Barot, August 2004 (UK, with FBI involvement)
James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj, August 2004
Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain, August 2004
Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat, June 2005
Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson, Hammad Riaz Samana, and Kevin James, August 2005
Michael C. Reynolds, December 5, 2005
Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi, Zand Wassim Mazloum, February 2006
Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, April 2006
Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine, June 2006
Assem Hammoud, July 2006
Liquid Explosives Plot, August 2006 (Brittish)
Fort Dix Plot, May 2007
JFK Plot, June 2007
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, March 2007 (not captured in US)

As you can see - there are plenty of foiled attacks against US soil, plenty of them foiled by US agencies - a couple listed there were foreign agencies with US help.

resedit wrote:

radarman wrote:

The terrorists attack on 9/11 were serious. They showed how our open society could be used against us. Unfortunately, we took all the wrong lessons.

Instead of realizing that open societies present a certain amount of risk, which we used to feel was a worthy price for freedom, we instead turned to create a closed, almost fascist society,

Really?

That Bush is still president, is pretty much Fascist.
Made war based on lies, used torture, made laws for less freedom at home, is making the nation go bankrupt with insane spending on the wrong things (war/military), forcing this 700 bailout bill etc (I'm sure you can make a big list).
Yet, while he was responsible for this stupid spending/more debt, what does he do when the bank account is becoming empty and creating problems? you just loan more money!

That he still got support.... and could do what he did. Anti war protests where seen as anti american!, for those few who joined..., that is about the best example IMO that it's pretty close to fascism. I'm not saying it's just the same as the Hitler days though....

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Did the president submit a declaration of war to Congress for consideration? Did the president want a declaration of war?

I don't believe he did - he should have.
For a short term action defending an ally like GWI I don't think it is necessary.
For regime change - I do think it is necessary, and I do think the President should have asked for it.
Furthermore, I think Congress should not have funded long term military action without it, and declaration of war is their constitutional power, not the Presidents.

Actually there's a legal school of thought that says the president, as commander in chief of the military, doesn't need congressional authorization for many types of actions.

For many types of actions.
I don't believe Ronnie needed approval when he bombed Libya.
I don't believe Bush I needed approval for Desert Shield (protecting Saudi) or Desrt Storm (getting Saddam out of Kuwait)
I don't believe Clinton needed approval for Desert Fox.

However - our invasion of Afghanistan and even moreso our invasion of Iraq under Bush were done with the purpose of regime change and therefore should have had a formal declaration IMHO.

Pariah wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

OKC doesnt even compare. 9/11 was a lot more than just some collapsed buildings and dead people.

Listen up you condescending pussy. I usually ignore your useless posts. Figuring that someone like you who is suckling at the government terror tit is just going to mouth the expected words. Like any other parasite you are going to attempt to maintain the conditions that keep that flow going.
But to dismiss 268 people killed, over 50 of which were children...well. you just went beyond the pale there smurf.
smurf you, smurf your elitism, smurf your smug, comfy endorsement of the neo-con policies that are filling your bank account.
smurf you and everything you stand for.

thank you.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

I don't believe he did - he should have.
For a short term action defending an ally like GWI I don't think it is necessary.
For regime change - I do think it is necessary, and I do think the President should have asked for it.
Furthermore, I think Congress should not have funded long term military action without it, and declaration of war is their constitutional power, not the Presidents.

Actually there's a legal school of thought that says the president, as commander in chief of the military, doesn't need congressional authorization for many types of actions.

For many types of actions.
I don't believe Ronnie needed approval when he bombed Libya.
I don't believe Bush I needed approval for Desert Shield (protecting Saudi) or Desrt Storm (getting Saddam out of Kuwait)
I don't believe Clinton needed approval for Desert Fox.

However - our invasion of Afghanistan and even moreso our invasion of Iraq under Bush were done with the purpose of regime change and therefore should have had a formal declaration IMHO.

That particular analysis -- with the deciding factor being "regime change" -- has zero basis in law that I'm aware of.

Regime change happened when Ronnie invaded Grenada, and when Bush invaded Panama. Furthermore the US has achieved regime change through nonmilitary covert means, such as assassination and sponsoring of coups. Should those have required a declaration of war too?

Pariah wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

OKC doesnt even compare. 9/11 was a lot more than just some collapsed buildings and dead people.

Listen up you condescending pussy. I usually ignore your useless posts. Figuring that someone like you who is suckling at the government terror tit is just going to mouth the expected words. Like any other parasite you are going to attempt to maintain the conditions that keep that flow going.
But to dismiss 268 people killed, over 50 of which were children...well. you just went beyond the pale there smurf.
smurf you, smurf your elitism, smurf your smug, comfy endorsement of the neo-con policies that are filling your bank account.
smurf you and everything you stand for.

No reason to get upset over the facts. 9/11 was on a completely different scale that dwarfs OKC. Among other things, direct costs of over 27 billion$, entire companies vanishing and many other short, medium and long term impacts. No country was invaded after OKC. The two situations are non-comparable.

Removing any "responses" from consideration, the economic effects of 9/11 were so far greater its rediculous to even talk as if they were in the same universe of attacks.

mo' ron wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Listen up you condescending pussy. I usually ignore your useless posts. Figuring that someone like you who is suckling at the government terror tit is just going to mouth the expected words. Like any other parasite you are going to attempt to maintain the conditions that keep that flow going.
But to dismiss 268 people killed, over 50 of which were children...well. you just went beyond the pale there smurf.
smurf you, smurf your elitism, smurf your smug, comfy endorsement of the neo-con policies that are filling your bank account.
smurf you and everything you stand for.

No reason to get upset over the facts. 9/11 was on a completely different scale that dwarfs OKC. Among other things, direct costs of over 27 billion$, entire companies vanishing and many other short, medium and long term impacts. No country was invaded after OKC. The two situations are non-comparable.

Both attacks were just "collapsed buildings and dead people" the only difference was the responses.

We didn't have to respond to the Ok bombing the way we did, we didn't have to respond to 9/11 the way we did.

Dan was right, your post was particularly vacuous, even for you.

9/11 also involved multiple planes being hijacked and driven into buildings which collapsed ontop of firefighters trying to climb the stairs to rescue people and also covered wall street in dust and rubble and asbestos. Plus, it involved a separate attack on the pentagon and a complete shutdown of our airtravel industry not to mention a crippling of our economy. And don't forget it was the first time fire ever caused steel to melt (thanks Rosie for that interesting tidbit).Oh, also 9/11 was carried out by an organization that had attacked us many times befor and now had safe harbor in a foreign country.

This is not to minimize Mcveighs action either, but the two are not comparable.

So this isn't about what he said, it's about who he is.

Ad hominem.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

So, everlong doesn't know what fascism is, either. Go figure.

.tsooJ

resedit wrote:

So this isn't about what he said, it's about who he is.

Ad hominem.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Another witty post from the left coast.