SD on 23/9/2007 at 14:02
I don't think it's that they were "too stupid", but rather that there was no political capital in preventing something like 9/11 from happening. President Bush was warned numerous times that Al Qaeda were planning to fly planes into buildings within the continental USA. An attack on the USA allowed hawkish factions within the US administration to pursue a foreign policy agenda that would not ordinarily have been open to them.
Kaleid on 23/9/2007 at 14:21
Quote Posted by SD
I don't think it's that they were "too stupid", but rather that there was no political capital in preventing something like 9/11 from happening. President Bush was warned numerous times that Al Qaeda were planning to fly planes into buildings within the continental USA. An attack on the USA allowed hawkish factions wthin the US administration to pursue a foreign policy agenda that would not ordinarily have been open to them.
Indeed it was a golden opportunity. One neocon even called it "godsend".
demagogue on 23/9/2007 at 16:19
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Why? It's not his birthday or nuffin.
No, but it was his 'village' that got hit, so to speak.
Actually, it was my birthday. ;)
But I caught your point ...
There is some truth to thinking about it like that, at least from my perspective.
I even lived in the Village.
The Village Voice by far had the most apt headline I saw the next day, too.
A picture with just one word in huge letters: BASTARDS!
catbarf on 23/9/2007 at 21:41
Quote Posted by SD
I don't think it's that they were "too stupid", but rather that there was no political capital in preventing something like 9/11 from happening. President Bush was warned numerous times that Al Qaeda were planning to fly planes into buildings within the continental USA. An attack on the USA allowed hawkish factions wthin the US administration to pursue a foreign policy agenda that would not ordinarily have been open to them.
There
was plenty of time before the attack for some kind of change. If they suspected a terrorist attack, why not bump up security at the airport?
SD on 23/9/2007 at 21:55
Quote Posted by catbarf
If they suspected a terrorist attack, why not bump up security at the airport?
Umm. Because "there was no political capital in preventing something like 9/11 from happening" and an "attack on the USA allowed hawkish factions wthin the US administration to pursue a foreign policy agenda that would not ordinarily have been open to them".
ie I answered that already
catbarf on 23/9/2007 at 22:16
Exactly. As a whole, the government did not recognize the threat of Al-Quaeda.
demagogue on 23/9/2007 at 23:49
Just to keep the p's and q's in order.
The "government" (at least, relevant agencies in the gov't) much knew all about Al Quaeda all along, and had already stopped a number of other high-profile terrorist plots by them.
As for things like bumping up airport security, or integrating intelligence flow, that takes political capital to make structural sort of changes. Just to say there's a difference between knowing what's going on and being able to do something about it (and, for that matter, being able to hold back from trying to do "too much" about it).
But even the changes that have taken place since 9/11, even then I'm not sure it would have been much better at stopping the plot finding a crack in the system somewhere. (I could give examples, but don't want to bother now), with a few exceptions like the mechanisms targeting terrorist financing, the direct raids on AQ cells (that ended up being overkill making other problems, but anyway....), etc.
SD on 23/9/2007 at 23:54
Quote Posted by catbarf
Exactly. As a whole, the government did not recognize the threat of Al-Quaeda.
Are you actually reading what I'm writing? The government definitely
did recognise the threat of Al Qaeda; they could hardly not do after the attack on the USS Cole, the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center, and a specific threat in early 2001 warning that Al Qaeda was planning to fly planes into skyscrapers.
The point is that they did nothing, not because they were useless, but because doing nothing allowed them to take advantage of an attack to launch a war against Iraq. They knew exactly what was coming.
Thief13x on 24/9/2007 at 00:01
Quote Posted by SD
The point is that they did nothing, not because they were useless, but because doing nothing allowed them to take advantage of an attack to launch a war against Iraq. They knew exactly what was coming.
somehow I doubt it was as deliberate as you're making it out to be. And it's not like Bush (or the republicans for that matter) would've been the only ones aware of the threat. So if what you're saying is true, every person aware of the situation is just as guilty as GB. Furthermore, I'm sure some guy on TTLG comchat isn't the first to figure it out if it is true, and in that case, why arn't they trying to impeach Bush over
it ?
I really doubt it was quite that deliberate, sure they might have gotten 1 threat 1 day, but do you have any idea how many threats they actually get every day? it's just a matter of which ones to take seriously
it's just like Americas Most Wanted - they air a murderer's profile and get floods of tips and leads. Most of the time, they turn up nothing.
SD on 24/9/2007 at 00:34
Quote Posted by Thief13x
I really doubt it was quite that deliberate, sure they might have gotten 1 threat 1 day, but do you have any idea how many threats they actually get every day? it's just a matter of which ones to take seriously
You should read more.
Try (
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html) this article by British MP Michael Meacher for starters:
Quote:
It is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
Open your eyes.
