PDA

View Full Version : Was Reagan to blame for 9/11?



TheStripey1
03-02-2008, 01:18 PM
Read an interesting editorial the other day which caused me to stop and say... Was Reagan to blame for 9/11?



Guns in the cockpit
By Tracy Price

(http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080103/EDITORIAL/583177106/1013)

..snip

Consider this: Arming pilots is not a new idea. In fact, airline pilots flew armed in large numbers from the dawn of commercial aviation to 1987 with no record of incident. When the federal government disarmed pilots in 1987, many pilots predicted cockpit takeover attempts including the late Captain Victor Saracini, who, in horrible irony, was the captain of United flight 175 on September 11, 2001 when his Boeing 767 was hijacked and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. It was the disarming of pilots in 1987 that inevitably led to the September 11 cockpit takeovers.

...snip



1987? Reagan was President then and Bush 1 VP... Hmmmm... I wonder why the republicans never seem to recall this tidbit of information when they try to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11... is this more of their selective memory showing?

DragonStryk72
03-02-2008, 03:07 PM
Read an interesting editorial the other day which caused me to stop and say... Was Reagan to blame for 9/11?



1987? Reagan was President then and Bush 1 VP... Hmmmm... I wonder why the republicans never seem to recall this tidbit of information when they try to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11... is this more of their selective memory showing?

See, this is my problem with it, Everyone is reaching for someone to blame for 9/11, be it Bush, Clinton, or, now, apparently, Reagan. It wasn't any of them, not a one. I may not like bush, but nor do I believe him responsible for the WTC, that point goes to the hijackers who jacked a bunch of our jets, and slammed them into buildings, along with the bastards who sent them.

The Reverend
03-02-2008, 03:12 PM
Lets tell the FULL story as to why is happened. Shall we


Most people don't know that for many decades after the dawn of commercial aviation, airline pilots carried firearms in the cockpit without incident. However, in late 1987, after a suicidal attacker broke into the cockpit of an airliner, murdered the pilots and crashed the airplane, the FAA started requiring pilots to pass through screening checkpoints to ensure that they had no weapons.

It was the FAA not the President that did that. The FAA does not have to go through the president for everything.

The Reverend
03-02-2008, 03:13 PM
See, this is my problem with it, Everyone is reaching for someone to blame for 9/11, be it Bush, Clinton, or, now, apparently, Reagan. It wasn't any of them, not a one. I may not like bush, but nor do I believe him responsible for the WTC, that point goes to the hijackers who jacked a bunch of our jets, and slammed them into buildings, along with the bastards who sent them.

Correct

manu1959
03-02-2008, 05:17 PM
Read an interesting editorial the other day which caused me to stop and say... Was Reagan to blame for 9/11?

1987? Reagan was President then and Bush 1 VP... Hmmmm... I wonder why the republicans never seem to recall this tidbit of information when they try to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11... is this more of their selective memory showing?

see gun control doesn't work.....

Psychoblues
03-02-2008, 11:39 PM
Personally, I don't think Reagan can be blamed for anything. His administration, however, has plenty to atone for. Was his administration in any way contributory to the attack on 9/11? Yes, it was. That was your question, wasn't it?

manu1959
03-02-2008, 11:41 PM
Personally, I don't think Reagan can be blamed for anything. His administration, however, has plenty to atone for. Was his administration in any way contributory to the attack on 9/11? Yes, it was. That was your question, wasn't it?

really how .....

Psychoblues
03-02-2008, 11:52 PM
Thank God for the internet!!!!!!!!! Do some goggling on your own, m'59.




really how .....

You might be surprised at what you find. The "liberal" media ain't cutting it, don't you know?

manu1959
03-02-2008, 11:53 PM
Thank God for the internet!!!!!!!!! Do some goggling on your own, m'59.
You might be surprised at what you find. The "liberal" media ain't cutting it, don't you know?

nah you tell me why it is reagans fault i don't trust the internet....

JohnDoe
03-03-2008, 12:13 AM
nah you tell me why it is reagans fault i don't trust the internet....
Lebanon...killing of the Marines with no retribution given back....the largest killing of us marines in a single incident in our History, I believe?

i am just speculating that this is what he refers to, but not certain?

or maybe it was him or Bush 1 arming the Iranians- the Iran-Contra Affair?


jd

Psychoblues
03-03-2008, 01:02 AM
Maybe it was due to the enormous American involvement in the USSR/Afghanistan predicament in which the USA provided so much firepower to the Afghans in return for the dope that so many of our politicians count on?

Ridiculous? I agree.

manu1959
03-03-2008, 01:06 AM
Lebanon...killing of the Marines with no retribution given back....the largest killing of us marines in a single incident in our History, I believe?
i am just speculating that this is what he refers to, but not certain?
or maybe it was him or Bush 1 arming the Iranians- the Iran-Contra Affair?
jd

so your argument is ... we gave them weapons so they attacked us.....

gabosaurus
03-03-2008, 01:06 AM
Why can't we blame Eisenhower?

Psychoblues
03-03-2008, 01:15 AM
That's a good start, gabby, but I'm afraid it goes back a little further than Dwight, don't you know?




Why can't we blame Eisenhower?

Can we discuss the Crusades, only superficially?

gabosaurus
03-03-2008, 01:20 AM
Don't be silly!
Actually, Reagan is a pretty good answer. With his famous "arms for hostages" deal while also making secret agreements with Iraq and Iran.

Psychoblues
03-03-2008, 01:42 AM
Reagan, a truly gifted orator, never truly understood the neocons under his radar and in his administration, gabby.





Don't be silly!
Actually, Reagan is a pretty good answer. With his famous "arms for hostages" deal while also making secret agreements with Iraq and Iran.

We've certainly seen the ugly side of them under the gwb administration, haven't we?

JohnDoe
03-03-2008, 08:10 AM
so your argument is ... we gave them weapons so they attacked us.....

Good Morning Manu,

actually, i personally believe that our mess in the middle east began with the British overreach of colonialism....

Yes, I think that Reagan walking away from what happened in Lebanon, and him arming the Iranians most definately contributed to the situation we are in today, and many other decisions that previous administrations made has contributed to what we face today in the middle east, and to a 9/11 on our soil.

It did not happen in a vacuume.

jd

Classact
03-03-2008, 08:28 AM
Good Morning Manu,

actually, i personally believe that our mess in the middle east began with the British overreach of colonialism....I disagree, the British had little interest in the ME outside of pirates... the ME was tolerated as a dieing superpower with the discovery of the new world.


Yes, I think that Reagan walking away from what happened in Lebanon, and him arming the Iranians most definitely contributed to the situation we are in today, and many other decisions that previous administrations made has contributed to what we face today in the middle east, and to a 9/11 on our soil.

It did not happen in a vacuume.

jd The ME became of interest as of WWI when it was realized that oil was necessary to fight a war in Europe. The ME chose the wrong side in both wars and as a result were spoils of war. The ME was originally managed by France and the British and when the US had to start importing oil it became an interest to the US... the Cold War had a lot to do with it too.

The ME was considered as a bother like dog dick gnats and was ignored... let them fight amongst themselves and stay the hell out of it... install a brutal dictator because that is what they understand ... brutality!

JohnDoe
03-03-2008, 09:20 AM
I disagree, the British had little interest in the ME outside of pirates... the ME was tolerated as a dieing superpower with the discovery of the new world.

The ME became of interest as of WWI when it was realized that oil was necessary to fight a war in Europe. The ME chose the wrong side in both wars and as a result were spoils of war. The ME was originally managed by France and the British and when the US had to start importing oil it became an interest to the US... the Cold War had a lot to do with it too.

The ME was considered as a bother like dog dick gnats and was ignored... let them fight amongst themselves and stay the hell out of it... install a brutal dictator because that is what they understand ... brutality!

SO YOU REALLY DON'T THINK the british and their dealings in the middle east, breaking up countries and tribes in to new countries like Persia in to iraq and iran etc, creating saudi arabia, israel,....sir lawrence of arabia stuff etc....had NOTHING to do with the mess we are in?

jd

Classact
03-03-2008, 09:40 AM
SO YOU REALLY DON'T THINK the british and their dealings in the middle east, breaking up countries and tribes in to new countries like Persia in to iraq and iran etc, creating saudi arabia, israel,....sir lawrence of arabia stuff etc....had NOTHING to do with the mess we are in?

jdThis is where I was going...
Revolts and revival (15661683)
Suleiman's death in 1566 marked the beginning of an era of diminishing territorial gains. The rise of western European nations as naval powers and the development of alternative sea routes from Europe to Asia and the New World damaged the Ottoman economy. The effective military and bureaucratic structures of the previous century also came under strain during a protracted period of misrule by weak Sultans. But in spite of these difficulties, the empire remained a major expansionist power until the Battle of Vienna in 1683, which marked the end of Ottoman expansion into Europe.

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

JohnDoe
03-03-2008, 09:42 AM
This is where I was going...

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


ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh gotcha! thanks for link!

jd

Classact
03-03-2008, 09:56 AM
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh gotcha! thanks for link!

jdCheck out this link on Kuwait and how far back the British link up with Kuwait... http://www.kuwait-info.com/sidepages/nat_history.asp

actsnoblemartin
03-03-2008, 01:03 PM
how about discussing, the after mohammeds death, before the crusades, or would liberals like to conviently forget that muslims started the whole mess by trying to take over the world over 1400 years ago, and havent stopped since.


That's a good start, gabby, but I'm afraid it goes back a little further than Dwight, don't you know?





Can we discuss the Crusades, only superficially?

actsnoblemartin
03-03-2008, 01:06 PM
they didnt create israel, israel was around thousands of years ago, before the romans stole it.

but im with on ya on, its possible :laugh2: that creating dictaters in what became those other countries was a bad idea.

infact, look up judea and sumaria if you dont believe me


SO YOU REALLY DON'T THINK the british and their dealings in the middle east, breaking up countries and tribes in to new countries like Persia in to iraq and iran etc, creating saudi arabia, israel,....sir lawrence of arabia stuff etc....had NOTHING to do with the mess we are in?

jd

TheStripey1
03-03-2008, 02:00 PM
Read an interesting editorial the other day which caused me to stop and say... Was Reagan to blame for 9/11?



1987? Reagan was President then and Bush 1 VP... Hmmmm... I wonder why the republicans never seem to recall this tidbit of information when they try to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11... is this more of their selective memory showing?

obtw, the second link in my sigline has been fixed... sorry bout that misplaced space...

:laugh2:

and obtw, this topic is REALLY about GUN CONTROL! specifically aimed at how PILOTS used to be able to carry weapons IN the cockpit and just marginally about WHO disarmed them.

Though, all but the most rabid partisan should be able to agree that Ronnie is partially to blame. He WAS the President in 1987, right? He disarmed the pilots which ultimately led to those nefarious cockpit takeovers during 2001, now :dev2: didn't he?

TheStripey1
03-03-2008, 02:01 PM
See, this is my problem with it, Everyone is reaching for someone to blame for 9/11, be it Bush, Clinton, or, now, apparently, Reagan. It wasn't any of them, not a one. I may not like bush, but nor do I believe him responsible for the WTC, that point goes to the hijackers who jacked a bunch of our jets, and slammed them into buildings, along with the bastards who sent them.

That would be Osama Been Forgotten... right? what ever happened to bringing him in Dead or Alive?

TheStripey1
03-03-2008, 02:02 PM
see gun control doesn't work.....

Correct... for once we agree...

TheStripey1
03-03-2008, 02:03 PM
Personally, I don't think Reagan can be blamed for anything. His administration, however, has plenty to atone for. Was his administration in any way contributory to the attack on 9/11? Yes, it was. That was your question, wasn't it?


Yes... Are you saying he wasn't a participant in his own policies? Why then who was???

TheStripey1
03-03-2008, 02:05 PM
Thank God for the internet!!!!!!!!! Do some goggling on your own, m'59.





You might be surprised at what you find. The "liberal" media ain't cutting it, don't you know?


The original editorial wasn't IN a liberal source. It was in the Washington TIMES... not at all liberal... and I read it in my NRA monthly and they aren't considered liberal either, at least not in my opinion.

gabosaurus
03-04-2008, 02:15 PM
The original editorial wasn't IN a liberal source. It was in the Washington TIMES... not at all liberal... and I read it in my NRA monthly and they aren't considered liberal either, at least not in my opinion.

PWNED....again.

emmett
03-04-2008, 02:56 PM
Read an interesting editorial the other day which caused me to stop and say... Was Reagan to blame for 9/11?



1987? Reagan was President then and Bush 1 VP... Hmmmm... I wonder why the republicans never seem to recall this tidbit of information when they try to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11... is this more of their selective memory showing?

First of all I would dare call it "interesting". Secondly it was the FAA, get your details straight that called for disarming of all commercial airline pilots. I guess that pretty much lays waste to your new "conspiracy theory". Now on the other hand, let's examine beneath the ink. Maybe Ron Reagan was really a Muslim cleric, I mean anything is possible. Let's say he was trying to lay the goundwork for a successful attack on the trade center even as far back as 87. That would explain his directing attention to communism. He wasn't trying to bring down the wall at all, he was covering for his true intentions. He was planning to attack the WTC. That explains it all. (Well, it makes more sense than most conspiracy theories).

Makail Gorbechev was IN ON IT. By making it look like he had come up through the USSR system to dismantle it he as well took attention off of his true intention which was to attack the WTC. That's it!!!

Also, young 10 year Jason Stubbard, 2nd baseman for the Meadowbrook Middle School Baseball team was in on it too. I can't provide any proof of my claim but he looks like a minature Republican so I'm sure he intends to blow something up. Then again he may just be out to destroy the world, I remind you, he LOOKS like he will grow up to be a republican.