Rose Lake

Twin Towers Alliance

6 posts in this topic

I'm glad you submitted that post, Rose.

Incidentally, I just want to say here that every year now on September 11th, I end up despising Jimmy Carter more and more. I wonder if anyone else feels that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm glad you submitted that post, Rose.

Incidentally, I just want to say here that every year now on September 11th, I end up despising Jimmy Carter more and more. I wonder if anyone else feels that way.

What is the connection between Jimmy Carter and the destruction of the WTC?

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm glad you submitted that post, Rose.

Incidentally, I just want to say here that every year now on September 11th, I end up despising Jimmy Carter more and more. I wonder if anyone else feels that way.

What is the connection between Jimmy Carter and the destruction of the WTC?

Bob Kolker

I guess the Habitat for Humanity hasn't volunteered to rebuild the Twin Towers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Jimmy Carter and 9/11:

Back in 1979 when Americans were taken and held hostage in Teheran, Iran, Jimmy Carter was President but didn't do a damned thing, until many months later, and that was a disastrously failed rescue attempt. What Carter should have done, but refused to do until it was a very, very last resort (and he probably would not have even done it then) was to take swift and powerful military action within a couple of weeks of the takeover of the American Embassy. And the longer things went with Carter not doing anything militarily, the more I thought: "Someday, the U.S. will have to pay for Carter's inaction."

When I saw that plane go into the second Tower on September 11th, 2001, I thought: "Now we're paying for it." Thank you, President Carter, for emboldening all the other terrorists in the world. You, sir, are among the lowest of moral cowards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim A., it is not just the terrorists that worry me, but large states such as Russia and Iran who are well aware that one can act with impunity: when it comes to the United States' backbone, one finds jelly. Hence, Georgia. Hence, Western oilfields being nationalized (both in the Middle-East, and in Russia where this is used as a threat to blackmail Western companies) and their builders demonized (I remember Shell referring to Nigeria fields as their "safest", since there the only thing you need to protect against were brutal, murderous bandits which you could shoot dead with locally hired militia). Hence, rules of engagement that mean the death of American servicemen when their vastly superior firepower and technology should ensure a relatively one-sided conflict (as is already the case in the air).

One example of the way these things should be conducted is the Falklands War. Thatcher was an example to all future political leaders.

Another example, oddly enough, comes from China. When the Somalian pirates started threatening Chinese ships, the Chinese did not, like other Western countries, content themselves with sending a few ships with rules of engagement so toned down that the pirates could continue to occupy ships, but send large numbers of marine commandos and attack ships, announcing very openly that any pirate that came within sight of those ships would be immediately destroyed. In a way, I am glad that China holds so many US bonds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites