Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

The 9/11 Timeline
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 1 08:49:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The Causes of 9-11

By Ann Coulter


We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN

The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.

In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.

On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."

Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN

In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise.




 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Apr 1 09:41:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>The Causes of 9-11
>By Ann Coulter

Oh I read the rest and wasn't quite surpirsed by the "duhhh" dribble Coulter spewed. She has not held any office (other than attorney and Senate Advisory and that was years ago) and is more than a little biased in her speaches, statments and books. Her beliefs stand on the bias that neo-conservative Republicans are unquestioably correct, with the stipulation everyone else and all other opinions are wrong.
To say that is not only egregious, but fails the point of pluralism: that no One is right or wrong. The whole is more than the sum of the parts, and to remove the Democratic Party (who she calls "Traitors" in her newest book; more a novel than non-fiction) as she suggests is, well, stupid.
She's a poor public speaker, bringing her points from a pure hatred of all things liberal, and a poor writer because of the same reason. Her arguments do not hold up, as they are without proof, some made up even.

The Clinton-Somalia problem: It was called off as there was no legitimate reason to there, other than a humanitarian one, which would have led to a global-politcal mudhole. Same with anything involving the Saudis. To piss off the Saudis is to stop American business. Really.

I love how she glosses over current President Bush's involvement in 9-11, as he arranged it get all high powered Arabs out of the States by private jet on 9-1 (including members of the Saudi royal family, Bin Laden's brothers and sisters, many Arab oil business, and the like). Also how in his first 100 days he ordered the FBI to stop building a case against a certain oil company he owned in partnership with members of the Bin Laden family, including 2 of UBL's 'questionable' brothers.

(Coulter pisses me off.)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 1 09:51:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>The Causes of 9-11
>>By Ann Coulter
>
>Oh I read the rest and wasn't quite surpirsed by the "duhhh" dribble Coulter spewed. She has not held any office (other than attorney and Senate Advisory and that was years ago) and is more than a little biased in her speaches, statments and books. Her beliefs stand on the bias that neo-conservative Republicans are unquestioably correct, with the stipulation everyone else and all other opinions are wrong.
>To say that is not only egregious, but fails the point of pluralism: that no One is right or wrong. The whole is more than the sum of the parts, and to remove the Democratic Party (who she calls "Traitors" in her newest book; more a novel than non-fiction) as she suggests is, well, stupid.
>She's a poor public speaker, bringing her points from a pure hatred of all things liberal, and a poor writer because of the same reason. Her arguments do not hold up, as they are without proof, some made up even.
>
>The Clinton-Somalia problem: It was called off as there was no legitimate reason to there, other than a humanitarian one, which would have led to a global-politcal mudhole. Same with anything involving the Saudis. To piss off the Saudis is to stop American business. Really.
>
>I love how she glosses over current President Bush's involvement in 9-11, as he arranged it get all high powered Arabs out of the States by private jet on 9-1 (including members of the Saudi royal family, Bin Laden's brothers and sisters, many Arab oil business, and the like). Also how in his first 100 days he ordered the FBI to stop building a case against a certain oil company he owned in partnership with members of the Bin Laden family, including 2 of UBL's 'questionable' brothers.
>
>(Coulter pisses me off.)

Yeah, she pisses off a lot of liberals because she speaks the truth.

What exactly are you talking about, "bush's involvement in 9/11" ?



 
addi Posted: Thu Apr 1 10:14:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
Ann Coulter
[Town Hall, September 14, 2001

Of all the columnists you choose to post here, she is without a doubt the most ignorant.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Apr 1 15:52:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  holy crap, hif. i can't believe you can read that and call it "the truth".


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 1 16:22:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
>Ann Coulter
>[Town Hall, September 14, 2001
>
>Of all the columnists you choose to post here, she is without a doubt the most ignorant.

Dude, that was written tongue-in-cheek and you know it.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 1 16:22:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>holy crap, hif. i can't believe you can read that and call it "the truth".

Tell me, which part of that post is untrue ?


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Apr 1 21:02:51 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  it's not about the validity of her statements, it's about the tone she uses. She sounds like she's very resentful towards the democratic party, and very short-sighted. As DanSRose already told us, "Her beliefs stand on the bias that neo-conservative Republicans are unquestioably correct, with the stipulation everyone else and all other opinions are wrong."

Classifying all terrorists as "muslim fanatics/extremists" makes me want to smack her. how can anyone take this bitch seriously after saying:

"On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory."

I think this lady may be connected to the KKK or some sort of white power group. scary stuff.


 
Malik Posted: Thu Apr 1 21:36:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  How can anyone take her seriously when she believes in "camel factories"?

That's how I read it, not as one camel and one aspirin factory.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 1 23:00:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You guys just don't get it.
Her op-ed pieces are combine conservative politics with humor.
You think no one takes her seriously ?
Everytime she gets published, it automatically goes on the bestseller list.
She is well respected by conservatives and liberals alike. That is not to say that liberals like her, but they do respect her.
Bill Maher counts her as one of his best friends.
If you don't get her humor, consider that conservatives are equally pissed off by Al Franken and see him as a buffoon.


 
JAZER Posted: Fri Apr 2 02:08:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I have to agree with Hif on this one. She does add some humor but it just makes the article that much better seeing as how the statements are true.


 
marsteller Posted: Fri Apr 2 02:59:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  al franken's a clown.


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Apr 2 09:02:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Al Franken's a writer on comedy shows. While he may not be funny in person (a la last night's Conan), he writes the only funny stuff on SNL and other shows.
Ann Coulter is a political too and while she may write 'comedy' into her books and articles, but they're not funny. When humor gets lost, the meaning of it goes out the window as well. Everything I've read/seen her in, she comes across deadpan, without affect, showing that she takes everything she says to the absolute seriousness, without exception.

Oh and there ae holes in her article about Clinton. The White House blocked 3/4 of the 10,800 pages of intelligence reports, actions, and plans that the former President had about UBL, Al Qaeda, terrorism, etc., from going to the 9-11 Commission.
(today's NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/politics/02PANE.html?th )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Apr 2 09:16:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Al Franken's a writer on comedy shows. While he may not be funny in person (a la last night's Conan), he writes the only funny stuff on SNL and other shows.
>
Al Franken is a political pundit in the same vein as Ann Coulter. If you hadn't noticed, check out his last couple of books and his current radio show "The O'Franken Factor."

>Ann Coulter is a political too and while she may write 'comedy' into her books and articles, but they're not funny. When humor gets lost, the meaning of it goes out the window as well. Everything I've read/seen her in, she comes across deadpan, without affect, showing that she takes everything she says to the absolute seriousness, without exception.
>
Yes, she takes her politics very seriously as does Al Franken. She laces it with humor and it is very funny. You may not get her humor, but millions of Americans do.
>
>Oh and there ae holes in her article about Clinton. The White House blocked 3/4 of the 10,800 pages of intelligence reports, actions, and plans that the former President had about UBL, Al Qaeda, terrorism, etc., from going to the 9-11 Commission.
>(today's NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/politics/02PANE.html?th )
>
What holes would those be ?
You may want to check the nytimes for credibility, they have had some problems with inaccurate reporting lately, besides, they are the most liberal publication on the planet, and will never print anything favorable about Bush. Even if he cured cancer or found a clean alternative energy source, they would find fault with it.


 
mat_j Posted: Sun Apr 4 12:33:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>You guys just don't get it.
>Her op-ed pieces are combine conservative politics with humor.
>You think no one takes her seriously ?
>Everytime she gets published, it automatically goes on the bestseller list.
>She is well respected by conservatives and liberals alike. That is not to say that liberals like her, but they do respect her.
>Bill Maher counts her as one of his best friends.
>If you don't get her humor, consider that conservatives are equally pissed off by Al Franken and see him as a buffoon.


Ann Coulter is first against the wall when Britain aided by our secret alien allies retakes America


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Apr 4 17:19:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>Ann Coulter is first against the wall when Britain aided by our secret alien allies retakes America
>
You only want us because of that great American artist, Britney Spears.


 
FN Posted: Sun Apr 4 17:28:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yes, but only because of her exceptional singing skills and intellect.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]