Bin Laden Transcript - Page 4

awall19 · 11-02-2004, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Um, that's not going to happen.

what is not going to happen?

http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblo...08.html#001687

**G10** · 11-02-2004, 02:11 AM

What do think was going on in the background in the time the President sat there in the Class?

I would guess that U.S. security and Inteligence Agencies were madly scrambling around trying to gather as much info as possible as to what the hell was going on.

The President leaving the class the moment this happened wouldn't have speeded things up one bit.

Agreed, on a public front, it would have looked a lot better if he apologised to the class for having to leave early and left but he didn't.

I can't imagine Security and Intelligence Agencies all sitting there on the edge of their seats for 10 - 15 mins doing absolutely nothing and waiting for the President to open his mouth.

**John Scott** · 11-02-2004, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivux

Before any of the planes crashed, they were aware that 3 planes had been hijacked, as I mentioned above, the president is the only person who can order a civilian plane shot down. There was 15 minutes between the first plane hitting and the second plane hitting the towers, enough time to atleast make an attempt at stopping the second plane, which never happened because he was in the school.

They didn't shoot the plane down because they don't shoot planes down. The sugestion that they should have shot it down is rediculous.

Rivux · 11-02-2004, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Sitting there and looking presidentail was the right thing to do. Jumping up and running about every time some plane crashes is not confidence-instilling.

No, it was NOT the right thing to do, he could have made decisions that would have saved LIVES, but he didn't. They knew the planes were hijacked, the government knew the moment the first plane hit that it was a terrorist act and that 2 other planes had been hijacked. But yet, the forces on the ground were acting as if it was an isolated incident.

The people that surround Bush should have made these calls, but they weren't made, that doesn't excuse him of not making them either. He is the commander in chief, the top guy in the country, when **** goes bad he has to take control and make sure things are being done. He doesnt have to do them himself, but he needs to be in command and making sure it is being handled. He didn't do that, it was a colossal failure on his part.

Atom · 11-02-2004, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivux

Well he could have possibly stopped the second plane from crashing into the towers, and absolutely could have stopped the plane from hitting the pentagon.

He'd probably sh!t if he ate right, too!

**John Scott** · 11-02-2004, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivux

No, it was NOT the right thing to do, he could have made decisions that would have saved LIVES, but he didn't. They knew the planes were hijacked, the government knew the moment the first plane hit that it was a terrorist act and that 2 other planes had been hijacked. But yet, the forces on the ground were acting as if it was an isolated incident.

The people that surround Bush should have made these calls, but they weren't made, that doesn't excuse him of not making them either. He is the commander in chief, the top guy in the country, when **** goes bad he has to take control and make sure things are being done. He doesnt have to do them himself, but he needs to be in command and making sure it is being handled. He didn't do that, it was a colossal failure on his part.

Again, I'll ask you, how could they have saved lives? Your only answer so far is a crackhead one - that they should have shot the planes down.

awall19 · 11-02-2004, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Your only answer so far is a crackhead one - that they should have shot the planes down.

lets try to keep it civil John

http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblo...08.html#001694

awall19 · 11-02-2004, 02:22 AM

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/09/bush-vs-jesus.html

**John Scott** · 11-02-2004, 02:23 AM

Aaron, even you must admit that the suggestion that we should shoot down hijacked aircraft, is an insanely rediculous one.

awall19 · 11-02-2004, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Aaron, even you must admit that the suggestion that we should shoot down hijacked aircraft, is an insanely rediculous one.

not as rediculous as letting it smash into the pentagon or wtc

Atom · 11-02-2004, 02:30 AM

Geez ... I think you guys are onto something..

.. silly, aren't I?

Atom · 11-02-2004, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awall19

not as rediculous as letting it smash into the pentagon or wtc

k then... I guess you've proved a point...

... er ..

Rivux · 11-02-2004, 02:32 AM

Exactly, they knew that 3 planes had been hijacked, that 2 had crashed into the wtc, but yet you find the idea of shooting down the 3rd one as 'crackpot'?

As for what Bush could have done. Well anything would have been nice. In the time between the 1st and 3rd crashes, there isn't one account of Bush making even a single decision (other then to not making any decisions). He didn't order airports to be shut down, he didn't ask for further information or clarification, he didn't do anything. And thats the point, the country is under attack, he knows this, but yet he does nothing.

Atom · 11-02-2004, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivux

Exactly, they knew that 3 planes had been hijacked, that 2 had crashed into the wtc, but yet you find the idea of shooting down the 3rd one as 'crackpot'?

As for what Bush could have done. Well anything would have been nice. In the time between the 1st and 3rd crashes, there isn't one account of Bush making even a single decision (other then to not making any decisions). He didn't order airports to be shut down, he didn't ask for further information or clarification, he didn't do anything. And thats the point, the country is under attack, he knows this, but yet he does nothing.

I personally would have chosen acidhead over crackhead.

Much more appropriate.

Atom · 11-02-2004, 02:38 AM

If all this speculation and conjecture wasn't so entertaining, it would be quite boring indeed.

Keep up the good work, fellas.

If you guys actually conducted a proper debate to get to the bottom of anything with the "facts" you've presented and apparently expect us to believe because you know there's no time for researching them, there'd be nothing to debate.

This is just plain silly... but entertaining, none the less.

Atom · 11-02-2004, 02:56 AM

The problem with properly conducted debates is, they take forever.

ferret77 · 11-02-2004, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

They do not believe in giving people the right to choose whether or not to sin - they legislate morality.

Just like republicans

ferret77 · 11-02-2004, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Aaron, even you must admit that the suggestion that we should shoot down hijacked aircraft, is an insanely rediculous one.

I think they most likely shot down that one plane, they had to. Otherwise it could have been driven into a city killed 10 times as many people

They knew that they were going to crash it, regardless

It just happen to do down in area where there were no houses, or people seems sort of lucky doesn't it

awall19 · 11-02-2004, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by big JS

Aaron, even you must admit that the suggestion that we should shoot down hijacked aircraft, is an insanely rediculous one.

we think its no big deal to shoot down commercial airliners elsewhere in the world...

According to US government accounts, the American ship mistakingly identified the Iranian airplane as an attacking military jet. According to the same reports the American ship tried more than once to contact Flight 655, but there was no acknowledgement. At 9:54am, with the civilian jet about 10 miles away, the Americans fired SM-2 antiaircraft missiles. One broke the plane into two halves and also damaged the plane's tail and right wing sections. Only afterwards it w