Dreamer Tatum
Did you take Al Qaeda / bin Laden seriously before 9/11?
(poll)
1. Yes. I took the threats very seriously, well before 9/11. (64%)
2. No. I typed "TERRA! TERRA! TERRA!" so many times I lost count, then clammed up after 9/11. (20%)
3. I only take threats seriously ex post, and only if doing so suits my political interests. (4%)
4. Doesn't matter; all wrongdoing in the world is the CIA's doing, even now. Go rent X movie, you'll see. (3%)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025570273#post49
The answers from which the primitives had to choose are great!
CJCRANE
1. What does it say in the full 9/11 report about warnings?
Continue reading. This primitive is Prime "A" conspiracy kook.
reorg
2. Neither before nor after
OK, so the WTC's coming down meant nothing to you, primitive. Got it.
Boom Sound 416
3. It started with USS Cole
Throd
7. And the embassy bombing in Tanzania
Yeah, but did either of you take them seriously, oh self-proclaimed seer of seers?
BKH70041
4. +1
Nice question and choices. I see you most definitely have your finger on the pulse of the members of DU.
Yep, as in they're out of their freakin' minds.
CJCRANE
5. Neither the Bush administration or the media told the public about any threats before 9/11.
The only person talking about Bin Laden before then was Alex Jones. Various FBI field agents also flagged up concerns up the chain but they were ignored.
(Which makes me wonder how old the OP is and other posters in this thread if they can't remember what it was like pre-9/11).
BKH70041
13. And if the media, etc... had said they were a threat there would have been a sizable number who would have claimed they were drumming up fear, using it as a control mechanism, etc... Given what I've observed here over the last year, that would have been the reaction of the majority here.
I suspect choice #3 is the more accurate answer and one to which most should be voting. Like partisans of various persuasions on many issues, it's not as much about what happened as who was in power when it happened.
Can't argue with that. The libs were looking for any reason to hate Bush.
And I agree that 3# would be the correct answer ("I only take threats seriously ex post, and only if doing so suits my political interests.") for the primitives. It had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and everything to do with Bush. Had Gore been in office and said and done the same things Bush said and did, the primitives would have sung his praises. There's no doubt about that being the truth.
CJCRANE
16. In fact they could have stopped it without drumming up fear...but they did nothing at all.
But that's another story.
And the conspiracy theory whacko comes out of this primitive.
But someone else continues to give him some grief.
OilemFirchen
40. You have the audacity to question the age of other posters?
Bill Clinton was well aware of Al Qaeda in 1992, following the Yemen Hotel Bombings. Bin Laden hit his radar soon thereafter, having claimed responsibility for the bombings. At the time, Alex Jones was in high school.
When Clinton ordered missile strikes against Bin Laden in Afghanistan - 1998 - Jones had a pissant radio show on a pissant station in Austin.
(Which makes me wonder what the **** Alex Jones has to do with this. And diapers and shit.)
CJCRANE
41. AFAIK Alex Jones was talking about Bin Laden in the summer of 2001.
No one in the MSM was talking about Al Qaeda or Bin Laden at that time.
Do you remember what the big stories were in summer 2001?
Remember, the primitives LOVED Alex Jones when he was speaking out against Bush. When he did the same to Dear Leader, they called him a RW nut. The primitives would like for us to forget they loved Alex. We conservatives always knew he was a quack. Should Alex start saying things that fit their agenda, they'll love him again.
OilemFirchen
42. Were you sentient in 1998?
Here, just for starters...
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/doc/408422727.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=&type=current&date=&author=&pub=&edition=&startpage=&desc=
CJCRANE
44. I'm aware of the history of Al Qaeda,
But there were *no* public warnings in the lead up to 9/11 even though the system was "flashing red" behind closed doors.
Can you show me any information that the Bush administration made it known to the public that there was a threat from Al Qaeda?
OilemFirchen
46. The Bush Administration?
Were you napping during "Clinton bombed an aspirin factory"?
If you're questioning whether the public was aware of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden prior to 2001, you might refer to the abstract from the 1999 article cited in the... uhm... post to which you are responding.
Clinton DID bomb an aspirin factory. This topic will come up again.
CJCRANE
49. How did you rate the threat of Al Qaeda in summer 2001?
What was your assessment of their operational capacity?
OilemFirchen
50. This has gone far afield.
But, if it helps, quite seriously.
Of course it went off base. When you're getting your tail kicked, change the subject. So the CJCRANE primitive did.
CJCRANE
54. My point is that one can be aware of Al Qaeda's previous attacks, but how would a member of the public be able to judge their ability in the summer of 2001 when there was almost no mention of them in the media?
How can one take a threat seriously when no one is telling you there is an imminent threat?
Ah, but it's already been established that had an imminent threat been mentioned, you kooks would have claimed Bush was just trying to do the Nazi on you. Do try and keep up, CJCRANE primitive.
Back to answers to the OP.
Hatchling
6. I'd never heard of them before.
Then they were all over the news and I wondered why we hadn't taken precautions.
I can say no more or I'll end up in Creative Speculations.
Too late. The CJCRANE primitive beat you to it.
treestar
37. I don't think I'd heard of them
I knew of course of the WTC bombing and the embassy bombings, but didn't follow the news enough in those days to know about who did them.
And now you know enough to be wrong with a major touch of stupid. Congrats!
Autumn
8. Yes I did, So did the Clinton administration and President Gore.
Bush and Cheney didn't and they created this mess because they wanted to invade Iraq for the oil and remove Sadam. Sadam who kept this tiger in a cage.
Gore gave the bush administration every thing they had on Al Qaeda which was a considerable amount, they ignored it.
Well done. This one knows the talking points provided to her directly from the DNC. Such a loyal little soldier she is.
leftstreet
11. After 9/11 why take the 17+ Intel agencie$ seriously?
It's all bullshit. Our wealthy ruling elite Overlords don't give a shit about anything but the uninterrupted flow of their profits
These dumbass 'wars' are EXXON vs GAZPROM vs SINOPAC vs BOEING vs SIEMENS vs CITIBANK vs TYSON FOODS vs RENAULT vs KFC vs blah, blah, blah..
And we the people all over the globe sacrifice our money and blood for their profits
(wiping away a tear)
It's like traveling back in time.
geek tragedy
18. The embassy bombings were a huge deal and in turn the US bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan. Anyone who was paying attention knew of them.
geek googled that, you just know it.
BKH70041
26. How about those from this site?
Those who have the ability to look into the archives at this site could check back and see how often Al Qaeda was mentioned prior to 9/11 and document via links. To me, that would be an indicator of just how much they were on like minded individuals radar screens at the time. If it wasn't a hot topic of discussion at this site, then I'd have to question those who now claim they had heard of them and knew them to be a concern back then.
Yeah, good question. Was Al Qaeda even part of the primitives knowledge back in 2001? There would certainly be some threads on the topic if they were.
reorg
34. Why would some terrorists carrying out an attack every two years or so in far-away countries be a "hot topic" and on anybody's mind constantly?
However, I remember discussing the irrational response to the embassy bombings by Clinton at the time, who decided that shooting missiles at an Aspirin factory in Sudan might achieve something.
BKH70041
36. Because of what it would indicate.
"Did you take Al Qaeda / bin Laden seriously before 9/11?"
"Yes. I took the threats very seriously, well before 9/11" is an option from which to choose, and one that over half are picking at this point.
If it was something that a sizable number were taking seriously at the time, I think at least someone would have brought it up in a "Hey, this Al Qaeda group has been saying and doing things and I take their threats very seriously. Let's talk about it" fashion.
Let's see if anyone can document it happening here prior to 9/11.
Can't argue with that.
CJCRANE
39. Did you take the color-coded terror alerts in Bush's first term seriously?
How did you feel when they just stopped suddenly after the '04 election?
But you can try and change the subject.
BKH70041
45. Those who have the ability to look into the archives at this site could check back and see
"Those who have the ability to look into the archives at this site could check back and see how often Al Qaeda was mentioned prior to 9/11 and document via links."
At this point, answering this would be telling. There are a sizable number claiming they knew of Al Qaeda and thought of them as a serious threat. Not just any old threat, but a serious threat. While members and board dynamics change over time, if it was known at the time it seems at least one person would have brought up the topic of Al Qaeda.
You've been here since 2002 which means you missed the first year this site was open for business. Also, like me, you do not have a star which means (as I understand it) we do not have advanced search capabilities. Maybe a star member will read what I'm asking and be willing to accommodate my request. If you have a friend here with a star who would be willing to take the time, that would be nice and appreciated.
I vaguely recall the color-coded alerts, but that's about it. If I looked it up it might trigger some things I have since forgotten.
Very nice! Don't let them control the conversation. Stay on topic.
Oh, and no one is going to answer your question. That would mean admitting they really didn't view them as a serious threat because how could they explain not talking about them?
CJCRANE
47. I mention the color-coded terror alerts because they were a running joke on DU in Bush's first term.
Since then we have learned that they were often timed for political effect and the justifications for the alerts were based on unreliable information gained by torturing detainees.
The terror alerts stopped after the '04 election. Attorney General John Ashcroft stepped down after the election, claiming that crime and terror had been defeated.
When you don't have an answer, go conspiracy theory kook.
hrmjustin
28. No i didn't take them seriously but after they attacked NYC I take them and the fact we are a target seriously.
At least Tinkerbelle is honest.
SomethingFishy
38. Oh yeah right after I saw the classified documents, the daily briefings and after I was briefed by Richard Clarke I certainly did take Al Qaeda seriously!!
Completely loaded and unfair question. No I didn't take Al Qaeda seriously. Because I wasn't allowed enough information. See I am just a peon. I don't get briefings, I am not told the truth, and there is no ****ing way anyone who didn't have access to classified intelligence, daily briefings and all the information available could make a sound judgement. (sic)
You don't like the question because it paints a picture that's not the narrative you want others to believe, which is "Bushs' fault!"
Your answer is #3; you take threats ex post because it suits your political interest.
Uncle Joe
48. I took them as a threat in the 90s beginning with the embassy bombings, and then the Cole
I remember viewing this Frontline episode which aired in 1998 when they interviewed Osama Bin Laden.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html
I remember the Republicans accusing the Clinton Administration of being the "tail wagging the dog" when he tried to raise the issue of Al Qaeda and take Bin Laden out with cruise missiles.
The Republicans also said that Clinton was just doing it to take attention away from the Lewinsky Scandal, I remember that as well.
Thanks for the thread, Dreamer Tatum.
Yes, Clinton did the tail wagging the dog and try to divert attention from Lewinsky by raising the issue of Al Qaeda and bin Laden by BOMBING AN ASPIRIN FACTORY!! You forgot, Uncle Joe primitive, that fact has already been documented upthread.
And we're suppose to believe Clinton took Al Qaeda seriously after all the times he could have taken him out but didn't? Selling your nonsense on the island is one thing. Out in the real world; not so much.
Interesting thread. Very revealing.
.
