[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You and BRussel are just using the age old 20/20 hindsight in order to falsely blame Bush (typical), when the truth is, before 9/11 the threat of hijacking a plane meant something completely different than the plot that actually occurred.

What they do with the plane once they hijack it has absolutely no impact on trying to prevent the hijacking in the first place. None. Terrorist chatter was at an all-time high in the summer of 2001. The president saw briefings that "bin Laden was determined to strike inside the US." That "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." But Bush's professional, non-political counter-terrorism specialists universally say that the political appointees ignored the threat, and they universally resigned in protest.

I can count in single digits the things that I think Bush has screwed up. Iraq. The budget. Katrina. 9/11. Probably a few others. This idea that people like me and Helmling blame Bush for teh EVERYTHING!!1! is nonsense. The real truth is that people like you won't admit that Bush has any responsibility for anything. You defend him to the hilt on absolutely everything, no matter how obvious it is to everyone else. These people aren't our Gods that we must bow down to. They are public servants who work for us, and they sometimes screw up. They should be criticized and held accountable when they do.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You simply made that up, right here, on the spot. The report says nothing of the sort. That's how it's not specific enough.

Islamic radicals have ALWAYS had plans to hijack planes, and have pulled off numerous ones since the early 1970's. Just a "warning" that says 'Islamic radicals plan to hijack planes' is kind of like a big, "Well, no freakin' duh." The only information that would have changed anything would have to have been SPECIFIC information on the ACTUAL plot of 9/11. That never happened, and you can stop pretending it did.


Oh please. That's been you lefty kooks over virtually EVERYTHING to do with terrorism SINCE 9/11, let alone before it.

First of all, the Israelis made their planes hijack proof, now didn't they?

Second of all, I made nothing up:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/11/911.memo/index.html

There's the FAA already having considered the possibility.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5131524/

That's some dude the FBI had...never heard of him before.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html

Here's a peach from Fox News. From FOX NEWS, for god's sake!

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/033...4,45990,6.html

Another...oh, I grow tired of this.

This is first page Google stuff. Wish it all away, but the truth is that Bush and everyone down the line should have known. I'm just John Q. Nobody and I've been telling people for years that we need to take this more seriously...of course, I was and still am worried about them getting a nuke.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

What they do with the plane once they hijack it has absolutely no impact on trying to prevent the hijacking in the first place. None.

There is NOTHING that could have prevented the specific hijackings on the morning of 9/11, other than having ACTUAL information about the actual hijackers, their plans, which planes they planned to attack, and when. Despite all your bullcrap, there was absolutely NO precident for the exact combination of events on 9/11.

About the only way that anyone could have prevented the attack without such specific knowledge would have been to PROFILE and deny access to ALL people of Middle Eastern origin for an undetermined period of time. Now, let's get for real for a minute. Had the Bush administration or anyone else done that -were it even remotely possible to begin with- YOU, (as well as every other lefty kook on the planet) would be SCREAMING bloody murder, and saying it was all just a fascist plot and screaming for Bush's head on a platter. You know DAMNED WELL you would have. If the actual terrorists had been sent to a prison before they'd pulled off anything, you'd probably be championing their innocence right now.

All you're doing is Monday morning quarterbacking with 20/20 hindsight, without EVER addressing any of the actual details of how any such preventing of 9/11 was supposed to occur. There are hundreds of airports, thousands of flights, millions of passengers, not to mention it could have taken place at any time. You can sit there on your fat ass and pretend it's possible to know exactly what day, what airline, what flight, what passengers, what plan, etc. etc. out of countless possibilities of each, with no more to go on other than "al Queda MIGHT do this, bin Laden WANTS to do that..." but it's all BULLCRAP.

Terrorist chatter was at an all-time high in the summer of 2001. The president saw briefings that "bin Laden was determined to strike inside the US."

Gee, that really narrows it down. Maybe if you squint at it hard enough, you can glean from that the airline, the airport, the flight number, the time, the passengers involved. This nation clearly needs you, BRussel, Magic Supercop with his incredible powers of 20/20 hindsight on the case. Get on it Sherlock.

That "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

More "narrowing it down". Guess you should carefully watch all the federal buildings in NY- that'll really prevent terrorists from boarding planes in Maine and Boston! Sheer genius, there SuperCop!

I can count in single digits the things that I think Bush has screwed up. Iraq. The budget. Katrina. 9/11. Probably a few others. This idea that people like me and Helmling blame Bush for teh EVERYTHING!!1! is nonsense.

You do blame Bush for everything. Even blaming him for Katrina is freakin' IDIOTIC, and just more leftwing insanity. You've never actually placed what blame there is for that where it actually belongs, with the local authorities (gee, all Democrats) who were on the scene and directly responsible, not the President riding in on his magic white horse from 1,000 miles away.

It's amazing how you blame Bush for things he's not really to blame for, while trying to make some point that you don't blame him for everything!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

First of all, the Israelis made their planes hijack proof, now didn't they?

Since the F when are you in favor of doing virtually anything because the Israelis do it? Last I checked, the Israelis have a threat level of terrorist attacks at about 1,000x our own.

Second of all, I made nothing up

You've made everything up that places the blame for 9/11 on anyone other than the hijackers, because there's not a shred of SPECIFIC information that you nor anyone else has pointed to that would have prevented it.

There's the FAA already having considered the possibility.

Geeeeze, you've seen WAY too many episodes of 24 and think that's really how things are. "considered the possibility?" Heck, skyscrapers, even the WTC, was designed with the "possibility" of an aircraft slamming into it taken into consideration. Of course people, and certainly law enforcement "considers the possibility" of ALL sorts of stuff, including worst-case-scenarios for just about everything. But what you in your Monday Morning Quarterback chair fail to recognize, is that's there's a HUGE difference between "considering the possibility" of something, and preventing an actual plot from occurring. People need SPECIFIC details to do the later. Everything else is just that, a possibility, not a concrete fact. It's amazing this even has to be pointed out to anyone other than the raised on TV and video games generation. In real life, everything ISN'T summed up neatly like the plot of an hour long TV show.

I was and still am worried about them getting a nuke.

Well heck, since you've probably gleaned ALL the needed details out of merely "considered the possibility", why don't you do use your incredible powers of 20/20 hindsight to tell everyone exactly how, where, and when terrorists will use a nuke? You can be SuperWatson to BRussel's SuperSherlock.

Heck, I'm even thinking we need to put both of you precogs in a tub of goo somewhere and have ourselves a real life Minority Report.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Since the F when are you in favor of doing virtually anything because the Israelis do it? Last I checked, the Israelis have a threat level of terrorist attacks at about 1,000x our own.


You've made everything up that places the blame for 9/11 on anyone other than the hijackers, because there's not a shred of SPECIFIC information that you nor anyone else has pointed to that would have prevented it.




Geeeeze, you've seen WAY too many episodes of 24 and think that's really how things are. "considered the possibility?" Heck, skyscrapers, even the WTC, was designed with the "possibility" of an aircraft slamming into it taken into consideration. Of course people, and certainly law enforcement "considers the possibility" of ALL sorts of stuff, including worst-case-scenarios for just about everything. But what you in your Monday Morning Quarterback chair fail to recognize, is that's there's a HUGE difference between "considering the possibility" of something, and preventing an actual plot from occurring. People need SPECIFIC details to do the later. Everything else is just that, a possibility, not a concrete fact. It's amazing this even has to be pointed out to anyone other than the raised on TV and video games generation. In real life, everything ISN'T summed up neatly like the plot of an hour long TV show.


Well heck, since you've probably gleaned ALL the needed details out of merely "considered the possibility", why don't you do use your incredible powers of 20/20 hindsight to tell everyone exactly how, where, and when terrorists will use a nuke? You can be SuperWatson to BRussel's SuperSherlock.

Heck, I'm even thinking we need to put both of you precogs in a tub of goo somewhere and have ourselves a real life Minority Report.

You know, you are flailing around so desperately that you've ceased to make any sense.

Why wouldn't we want to learn from the Israelis, since they have--as you noted--endured a much more persistent and intense terrorist threat?

Placing blame anywhere other than on the terrorists? What the hell are you talking about? Of course THEY're responsible. Duh. Were you really doubting that? But to absolve our government of responsibility for failing to protect us simply because there are evil, backward motherf***ers out there? Give me a break--that's why we have government and when they fail us, then those responsible for that failure must be held accountable.

And for the record, I've never seen 24. Hear it's good, but who's got the time?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You know, you are flailing around so desperately that you've ceased to make any sense.

Did you ever make any sense? As was pointed out a few posts ago, all you've done is speculate and string together things that only add up to 9/11 in HINDSIGHT, and only when the actual relevant details are filled in by actually happening. Arguing that weak position, is about as senseless as it gets.

Why wouldn't we want to learn from the Israelis, since they have--as you noted--endured a much more persistent and intense terrorist threat?

Okay, so what's the next thing the Israelis are doing that we need to adopt in this country? Hey, maybe there are things they do that we could also do, but how does anyone know exactly what? All anyone can do is speculate.

Heck, some other terror plot is probably in the works right now, and there are probably people saying "this, that and the other MIGHT happen." Some of those things might actually just dovetail with what's actually being planned- but how, if you don't know what's being planned, do you know which things those are?

You brought up the old terrorist with a nuke threat. There's virtually NO ONE that hasn't talked about or "considered the possibility" that terrorists might get their hands on and set off a nuke or other WMD.

Using your own "they should have known" assertion that just suspecting something could happen is all anyone needs to extrapolate exactly how to prepare for it, perhaps you can tell us all who, how, where and when the nuke threat is going to come from, and exactly what needs to be done to stop it. I'm talking specifics, of course. Have at it.

Placing blame anywhere other than on the terrorists? What the hell are you talking about?

Yes, placing blame anywhere other than the terrorists. Don't play dumb. Trying to say that 9/11 is Bush's fault, is in fact placing blame other than on the terrorists.

But to absolve our government of responsibility for failing to protect us simply because there are evil, backward motherf***ers out there?

You're merely laboring under the illusion that the government can protect you from every possible threat, and that they can somehow summon up super-human powers to do so. And when everyone (because lets face it, 9/11 was actually a sucker-punch to EVERYONE, not just the government) fails at being superhuman enough to satisfy you, you want to feign indignation.

There were plenty of mistakes the government made prior to 9/11 (the most severe being that agencies don't share information freely, and don't communicate very well with each other) but none of these things adds up to placing the blame on Bush or anyone else. Those are things that have been in the making for years, and can't be shuffled off conveniently to blame one specific person.

It's just in the nature of some people to scapegoat everything tragic that happens. I believe it helps you to demonize those you disagree with (like Bush) while at the same time cope with the fact that you have virtually no capacity to understand the real dangers and threats of the world, nor deal with the fact that you can't be magically protected from all of them. So out comes the conspiracies, and the 20/20 hindsight and everything else, seeking to pawn off blame.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You do blame Bush for everything. Even blaming him for Katrina is freakin' IDIOTIC, and just more leftwing insanity. You've never actually placed what blame there is for that where it actually belongs, with the local authorities (gee, all Democrats) who were on the scene and directly responsible, not the President riding in on his magic white horse from 1,000 miles away.

You're absolutely right CH. The only way to have stopped the 9/11 plot was to have profiled and tapped. The issue would not have occurred and those posting in opposition to you would've had fodder of another kind to rail against. It never ends. Political paralysis. Katrina? We could've solved Katrina. Bush could've subverted the governorship, dispatched the guard sooner and had placed martial law down swiftly and we'd all be railing against him for thrusting us into a police state. It never ends.

I blame Bush for a great many things. Katrina and 9/11 aren't those things.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Okay, so what's the next thing the Israelis are doing that we need to adopt in this country?

Profile. They've mastered it. I'd sooner fly on El Al and feel 100% comfortable than any domestic flight here.

Heck, some other terror plot is probably in the works right now, and there are probably people saying "this, that and the other MIGHT happen." Some of those things might actually just dovetail with what's actually being planned- but how, if you don't know what's being planned, do you know which things those are?

Someone mentioned that terrorist chatter was at an all-time high prior to 9/11. Interestingly, terrorist chatter reached that same height in March 2006. Nothing happened. People complained in august because they wanted to take their shampoo from home on board. It never ends... They're damned if they act (and the thwarted plot is not acknowledged, only complaints of the restrictions) and they're damned if they don't. (political correctness run amuck discouraging us from ever taking a common-sense approach to terrorism.)

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

There is NOTHING that could have prevented the specific hijackings on the morning of 9/11, other than having ACTUAL information about the actual hijackers, their plans, which planes they planned to attack, and when. Despite all your bullcrap, there was absolutely NO precident for the exact combination of events on 9/11.

They had specific information. Zaccharias Moussaoui. They didn't take it seriously. All the rest of your spittle-marked rantings about how we need to be clairvoyant or have a police state kinda falls a little flat, doesn't it? If they had simply been on the high threat alert that their experts told them they should have been on, they would have investigated Moussaoui like the local FBI there was screaming for them to do, and they most likely would have busted the whole thing wide open. Bush's non-political career counter-terrorism people all said that the political people like Rice and Bush didn't take them seriously. Terrorism was something Clinton was obsessed with. Bush was going to take on the real issues, like missile defense and Iraq.

You do blame Bush for everything. Even blaming him for Katrina is freakin' IDIOTIC, and just more leftwing insanity. You've never actually placed what blame there is for that where it actually belongs, with the local authorities (gee, all Democrats) who were on the scene and directly responsible, not the President riding in on his magic white horse from 1,000 miles away.

It's amazing how you blame Bush for things he's not really to blame for, while trying to make some point that you don't blame him for everything!

Every serious person, regardless of political party, acknowledges that the Bush administration dropped the ball in their response to Katrina. Even Michael Brown has repeatedly acknowledged it, and he was the person in the administration responsible for it. But not Crashharddrive, he knows better even than the central person involved, because to him no Republican can ever be accountable for anything ever.

For you to use Katrina as an example of how people mistakenly blame Bush for things is quite revealing. I have no problem whatsoever criticizing local authorities, Democrat or Republican, and that's a perfect illustration of the difference between you and me; you can only blame Democrats and never place even the slightest blame on Republicans. And that's, once again, exactly what you're doing re: 9/11.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

They had specific information. Zaccharias Moussaoui. They didn't take it seriously.

Ahh, the eeevil THEY strikes again. Damn, THEY sure are treacherous! And how is it whatever THEY do, is all just Bush's fault?

First off, please show where anyone got any specific information about when/where and exactly what people were involved from Moussaoui. He was captured less than a month before 9/11. Is there even any concrete proof he even knew about the entire plot, and was he supposed to just fess up even if he did?

Actually, it's highly ironic, because the FISA regulations your ilk so love to whine about must be followed, were the main barriers to "THEY" being able to fully search Moussaoui's possessions and actually glean any useful info from him. So had FISA been shoved aside and information obtained that might have been helpful, you'd be here whining and blaming Bush for breaking FISA laws! Again, all part of how you've constructed EVERYTHING to set up blame for Bush, no matter WHAT happens.

If they had simply been ...blah blah... they would have investigated ...blah blah... and they most likely would have busted the whole thing wide open.

Man, what a blather of IF's BUTS, and THEYS!

Terrorism was something Clinton was obsessed with.

By your logic, we can blame the 93 WTC attacks on Clinton. It simply MUST be his fault, because THEY were at it again. And I guess every other terrorist attack that happened on Clinton's watch must surely be his fault too.

If Clinton was so "obsessed with fighting terror", perhaps not letting bin Laden go the chances he had would have helped prevent 9/11? Oh wait, that's right. Somehow you've convinced yourself that events that transpired in the 90's were all Bush's fault too.

Bush was going to take on the real issues, like missile defense and Iraq.

So Clinton didn't consider Iraq a real issue? I guess we all must have imagined his strong statements against Iraq, and his missile attack against Iraq in 1998!

Every serious person, regardless of political party, acknowledges that the Bush administration dropped the ball in their response to Katrina.

And every serious person (I would say regardless of political party, but it amazes me how dense Democrats are when it comes to their own party) acknowledge that it was local officials who screwed up and got most people killed by failing to take action on their own turf. Anyone with any sense knows that localities and state governments need to be first responders, not pawn everything off on the feds from 1,000 miles away. Well, the "with any sense" part of that lets out a lot of blind partisan Democrat nimrods, and thus we have the Katrina is all Bush's fault crowd.

Like ebuddy pointed out, had Bush usurped local authority, and rushed in, you'd be whining and making hay over that, and claiming it was all just Bush abusing his authority.

Again, by your "logic", we can blame hurricane Andrew on Clinton.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Did you ever make any sense? As was pointed out a few posts ago, all you've done is speculate and string together things that only add up to 9/11 in HINDSIGHT, and only when the actual relevant details are filled in by actually happening. Arguing that weak position, is about as senseless as it gets.


Okay, so what's the next thing the Israelis are doing that we need to adopt in this country? Hey, maybe there are things they do that we could also do, but how does anyone know exactly what? All anyone can do is speculate.

Heck, some other terror plot is probably in the works right now, and there are probably people saying "this, that and the other MIGHT happen." Some of those things might actually just dovetail with what's actually being planned- but how, if you don't know what's being planned, do you know which things those are?

You brought up the old terrorist with a nuke threat. There's virtually NO ONE that hasn't talked about or "considered the possibility" that terrorists might get their hands on and set off a nuke or other WMD.

Using your own "they should have known" assertion that just suspecting something could happen is all anyone needs to extrapolate exactly how to prepare for it, perhaps you can tell us all who, how, where and when the nuke threat is going to come from, and exactly what needs to be done to stop it. I'm talking specifics, of course. Have at it.


Yes, placing blame anywhere other than the terrorists. Don't play dumb. Trying to say that 9/11 is Bush's fault, is in fact placing blame other than on the terrorists.


You're merely laboring under the illusion that the government can protect you from every possible threat, and that they can somehow summon up super-human powers to do so. And when everyone (because lets face it, 9/11 was actually a sucker-punch to EVERYONE, not just the government) fails at being superhuman enough to satisfy you, you want to feign indignation.

There were plenty of mistakes the government made prior to 9/11 (the most severe being that agencies don't share information freely, and don't communicate very well with each other) but none of these things adds up to placing the blame on Bush or anyone else. Those are things that have been in the making for years, and can't be shuffled off conveniently to blame one specific person.

It's just in the nature of some people to scapegoat everything tragic that happens. I believe it helps you to demonize those you disagree with (like Bush) while at the same time cope with the fact that you have virtually no capacity to understand the real dangers and threats of the world, nor deal with the fact that you can't be magically protected from all of them. So out comes the conspiracies, and the 20/20 hindsight and everything else, seeking to pawn off blame.

So...your test is that we needed something specific, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/po...rtner=USERLAND

What, precisely, will it take for you to admit you are wrong? Tell me, so I can find that EXACT thing. Please see my previous analogy so we can continue to go in circles.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Ahh, the eeevil THEY strikes again. Damn, THEY sure are treacherous! And how is it whatever THEY do, is all just Bush's fault?

First off, please show where anyone got any specific information about when/where and exactly what people were involved from Moussaoui. He was captured less than a month before 9/11. Is there even any concrete proof he even knew about the entire plot, and was he supposed to just fess up even if he did?

Actually, it's highly ironic, because the FISA regulations your ilk so love to whine about must be followed, were the main barriers to "THEY" being able to fully search Moussaoui's possessions and actually glean any useful info from him. So had FISA been shoved aside and information obtained that might have been helpful, you'd be here whining and blaming Bush for breaking FISA laws! Again, all part of how you've constructed EVERYTHING to set up blame for Bush, no matter WHAT happens.




Man, what a blather of IF's BUTS, and THEYS!



By your logic, we can blame the 93 WTC attacks on Clinton. It simply MUST be his fault, because THEY were at it again. And I guess every other terrorist attack that happened on Clinton's watch must surely be his fault too.

If Clinton was so "obsessed with fighting terror", perhaps not letting bin Laden go the chances he had would have helped prevent 9/11? Oh wait, that's right. Somehow you've convinced yourself that events that transpired in the 90's were all Bush's fault too.


So Clinton didn't consider Iraq a real issue? I guess we all must have imagined his strong statements against Iraq, and his missile attack against Iraq in 1998!


And every serious person (I would say regardless of political party, but it amazes me how dense Democrats are when it comes to their own party) acknowledge that it was local officials who screwed up and got most people killed by failing to take action on their own turf. Anyone with any sense knows that localities and state governments need to be first responders, not pawn everything off on the feds from 1,000 miles away. Well, the "with any sense" part of that lets out a lot of blind partisan Democrat nimrods, and thus we have the Katrina is all Bush's fault crowd.

Like ebuddy pointed out, had Bush usurped local authority, and rushed in, you'd be whining and making hay over that, and claiming it was all just Bush abusing his authority.

Again, by your "logic", we can blame hurricane Andrew on Clinton.

Nobody here is blaming the attacks on Bush. You know that. That you must pretend otherwise only shows the weakness of your argument.

We are, though, blaming Bush and the FBI--and in my case, Clinton--for not taking the threat seriously and not taking the appropriate steps to protect the nation from imminent threats from terrorists, not forces of natures or other entities which are completely unpredictable or unstoppable.

Would the security measures in place now have prevented 9/11? If yes, then my point is proven. If no, then what the hell are they for?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

So...your test is that we needed something specific, right?

C.I.A. Was Given Data on Hijacker Long Before 9/11

What, precisely, will it take for you to admit you are wrong? Tell me, so I can find that EXACT thing. Please see my previous analogy so we can continue to go in circles.

"In March 1999..."
Great, so now we've come full circle to it all being Clinton's fault.

Good God, talk about what will it take for you to admit you're wrong?

I'm no Clinton fan by any stretch, but no, he's NOT responsible for 9/11 happening either. You're just throwing everything up and hoping something will stick, while demonstrating that you do in fact, have a TV-plot level understanding of any of this.

An American official said: "The Germans did give us the name `Marwan' and a phone number, but we were unable to come up with anything. It was an unlisted phone number in the U.A.E., which he was known to use."

Oh yeah, there it is, the smoking gun: the exact flight, the exact day, the exact people involved!

NOTHING you've yet pointed out has any specifics. A phone number in the UAE, and a first name (among thousands of each in all likelihood) and from that you conclude that anyone was going to slap their forehead and go "wow, that could lead to the twin towers coming down if we don't act this second!" You only know the relevance of any of this due to HINDSIGHT.

Right now, today, there are literally THOUSANDS of leads, on thousands of suspects, thousands of names, numbers, and addresses, etc. who knows how many people that "need to be watched" because they MAY be up to something. The same situation existed in 1999 and any other year. Now which of those suspects will commit some act in 2009? Why don't you tell law enforcement, so they can rest a little easier.

None of this stuff is as forehead slap easy as you pretend it is, because in reality, no one has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight when actually dealing with this stuff in reality, and in real time. The crystal ball simply hasn't been invented yet.

If I'd have shown you some "tip" about a guy who "should be watched" from some unlisted number in the U.A.E, among all the other day-to-day chatter back in 1999, you wouldn't have a friggen CLUE that it would ever lead to any specific event in 2001. In fact, you'd probably come up with something about how paranoid the government and anyone who believed they should be watching Muslims, and how it was all just fascism and everyone's out to take all your freedoms away.

You're simply using hindsight (and are too blinded by partisan stupidity to admit it) to draw conclusions based on things that have already happened.

ANYONE can do that. It's just plain boneheaded and stupid not to realize it.

The HARD PART, the part you clearly have no clue about- is trying to predict which of thousands of leads and countless suspects to worry about BEFOREHAND.

And NONE of it, is the direct job of whoever is in the freakin' whitehouse.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

"In March 1999..."

WORD FIND:

moijwlkreknlamsmackdownuirorrormasdblksm

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

"In March 1999..."


You're simply using hindsight (and are too blinded by partisan stupidity to admit it) to draw conclusions based on things that have already happened.

ANYONE can do that. It's just plain boneheaded and stupid not to realize it.

The HARD PART, the part you clearly have no clue about- is trying to predict which of thousands of leads and countless suspects to worry about BEFOREHAND.

And NONE of it, is the direct job of whoever is in the freakin' whitehouse.

So, let's review what is insufficient in your book as a means of preventing 9/11:

Having two of the hijackers' names on watch lists.

Having an associate of the hijackers and his computer files in custody.

Having warnings from flight schools about suspicious behavior.

Having warnings from foreign intelligence that indicate the general tactic to be used.

Having tested strategies from the Israelis that prevent hijackings.

Ok, so none of this would help. You have to have the exact flight and date. Do you support any of the president's measures against terrorism? It seems to me that, logically, if you think we need the exact flight and exact names for 9/11 to prevented then you must think all of our other measures against terrorism are hopeless wastes of time.

You've hit the nail on the head, yet again, but you won't face the obvious conclusions of your own statements. If the FBI and the administration had been taking the threat seriously they would have kept their finger on all those "countless" leads and all those suspects--as they do now.

America's wake-up call on terrorism should've been the embassy bombings, the Cole, the first WTC bombing, any of the previous attacks, but no. We remained complacent. Our leadership remained unconvinced of the seriousness of the threat and in that, they failed us.

You didn't address my last point: Would the security measures in place now have prevented 9/11? Yes or No.


P.S. How am I blinded by partisan stupidity if I've repeatedly said that the Clinton administration did the exact same thing? You can't even be troubled to fit your nonsense to what I'm actually saying.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

So, let's review what is insufficient in your book as a means of preventing 9/11:

Helmling. One important fact which was part of the Clinton legacy. The CIA and the FBI were bound by law not to share intelligence beween the two agencies. After 9/11 agencies are now better able to communicate but there has been institutional resistance to change, most notably within the CIA. Bush has tried to change the culture whithin the CIA and they have bitterly resisted attempts at reform. Presidents are in power for a mere eight years. The careerists at State, the CIA and the FBI spend there working lives in these departments. It could take a generation to change the culture. Remember it's been 30 years since Carter and Church fundamentally dismantled overseas intelligence operations. Another reason we have been so ill prepared to fight the terrorists.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Profile. They've mastered it. I'd sooner fly on El Al and feel 100% comfortable than any domestic flight here.

They also sealed those cockpits tight.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

So, let's review what is insufficient in your book as a means of preventing 9/11:

Having two of the hijackers' names on watch lists.

That's akin to saying having a drug dealer's name on a police file will stop him from running drugs and committing murder, or whatever else. The reality is, most criminals, of virtually any nature, are known to police and investigators before they commit their latest crimes. Investigators can have all the 'watch lists' of terrorists suspects, crime bosses, druglords, whoever... the gulf between making lists of suspects and actually preventing crimes is VAST. And actually, as I pointed out before, law enforcement mostly takes a reactive role, not a preventative role- criminals must actually commit a crime before law enforcement can act.

Preventing terror plots before they happen has got to be the most difficult task any law enforcement agency can have- you have to stop an event from happening, and yet, have enough evidence to hold the suspects -probably indefinitely, unless you want them free to pull off another act at a later time. You can't hold suspects indefinitely without actual, concrete EVIDENCE (you know, that thing you've shown no proof of anyone having?) Proving a conspiracy -especially among people that haven't actually acted yet- is no easy feat either.

You've yet to show where there was enough evidence collected to tell anyone exactly what the 9/11 plotters were up to before it happened, and enough that would have prevented it.

Having an associate of the hijackers and his computer files in custody.

This is highly interesting, because it sheds light on EXACTLY what went wrong the the FISA laws, and why all the bitching and whining about current attempts to keep FISA from standing in the way of investigations that could stop terrorists, was wrongheaded. It was mostly FISA courts that kept anyone from examining Moussaoui's computer and files. Again- nothing that could actually have prevented 9/11. But hey, you and I are on the same page if you're in favor of preventing roadblocks and red tape like those thrown up by FISA from preventing information from being gathered that could stop terrorists.

Here's another one- when law enforcement finds something that DOES stop terrorists, how about the New York Times and others REFRAIN FROM RATTING OUT such operations?

Something we can agree on, perhaps?

Having warnings from flight schools about suspicious behavior.

There were warning from all sorts of sources about "suspicious behavior". BRussel even quoted one about "suspicious behavior" involving surveillance of federal buildings. Day in and day out, law enforcement agencies probably get reports of "suspicious behavior" from every corner of society. I remember after 9/11 when the FBI were checking out "suspicious behavior" from students on college campuses, and every time some blue haired old lady thought she saw something- and every single time leftists lost their minds and cried fascism. The ONLY reason you know that "suspicious behavior" from flight school students has any relevance to anything, is once again, due to HINDSIGHT. "Suspicious behavior" is basically the only thing law enforcement is EVER going to be dealing with- why would you ever check out something that wasn't suspicious? But since that's practically everything on their plate, it's silly to single out one incident and say it could have prevented 9/11.

Having warnings from foreign intelligence that indicate the general tactic to be used.

Again, commonplace. One incident you quoted happened years before 9/11 and exists among thousands of other warning about all kinds of possible threats. Such information travels all the time between nations, back and forth. The only reason you now know to single out anything to do with 9/11, is hindsight.

Having tested strategies from the Israelis that prevent hijackings.

Again, hindsight. In 2001, no one, least of all the airlines themselves was overly concerned about hijackings, since a major one hadn't happened for something like 20 years or more. I'm all for greater cockpit security NOW that we all know terrorists might pull something on a plane- but no one knew it for certain before 9/11.

Ok, so none of this would help.

Hindsight measures are never much help, no.

Being a step ahead of terrorists is what will help- but to do that, you need to give law enforcement some leeway into what they can do- things like tapping phones, seizing revenue sources, not having their methods outed by idiot journalists with an axe to grind, and yes Virginia, perhaps a bit of "profiling" when needed.

You have to have the exact flight and date.

That and a lot of other information to prevent 9/11, absolutely. You can't prevent people from boarding planes, unless you know exactly who they are, and what planes they will be boarding, to say nothing of WHEN. You can't take the shotgun approach and shut down every flight in the country BEFORE an event like 9/11

Do you support any of the president's measures against terrorism? It seems to me that, logically, if you think we need the exact flight and exact names for 9/11 to prevented then you must think all of our other measures against terrorism are hopeless wastes of time.

That's a really silly conclusion- it's not my side of the fence that's always making anti-terror measures out to be "paranoia" and "fascism". Of course, I support ANY president's measures against terrorism, and more importantly, I support law enforcement's efforts that are actually what gets the job done.

Here's a newsflash for you: to prevent the next acts of terror, law enforcement will once again need SPECIFICS. To gather specific evidence, there's a lot of hard work they'll have to do. If FISA courts or any other red tape stand in the way of checking out computers or going through other evidence that needs to be checked out, then REMOVE the roadblocks and let law enforcement do its job. If not, don't bitch and blindly cast blame when something goes wrong in the future.

P.S. How am I blinded by partisan stupidity if I've repeatedly said that the Clinton administration did the exact same thing? You can't even be troubled to fit your nonsense to what I'm actually saying.

Okay fine, leave out the word "partisan" if you like.

[Orion27]

I think the "hindsight" in all casses post the 1993 World Trade center bombing is a red herring. How much warning did we need? We treated these issues as crimes instead of as act of war. We had pretty much connected the dots as manifested by Clintons refusal to get take Bin Laden, handed on a silver platter in the late 90's . 9/11 was just another in a series of attacks against this country. After 9/11, someone was due a big smackdown to make point. Iraq and Afgahnistan.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

After 9/11, someone was due a big smackdown to make point. Iraq and Afgahnistan.

Agree with up till .... Iraq. Afghanistan I can understand. The Taliban were and continue to be a menace (especially to the Afghans) . But Iraq???? Come on, there is STILL no proof there was ANY connection to 9/11.

My pet theory: The military types in power in the US just wanted an excuse to try out all their high tech toys and tactics - Iraq made an easy victim. No I don't have any proof so don't ask.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Agree with up till .... Iraq. Afghanistan I can understand. The Taliban were and continue to be a menace (especially to the Afghans) . But Iraq???? Come on, there is STILL no proof there was ANY connection to 9/11.

My pet theory: The military types in power in the US just wanted an excuse to try out all their high tech toys and tactics - Iraq made an easy victim. No I don't have any proof so don't ask.

Sorry, but Iraq was in the wrong place at the right time. And don't ask me for proof either!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I think the "hindsight" in all casses post the 1993 World Trade center bombing is a red herring. How much warning did we need?

You're speaking in general terms. Warning of what? That terrorists wanted to strike us? Sure, we knew that. We know it now, also. Just knowing that, doesn't prevent specific incidents.

We treated these issues as crimes instead of as act of war. We had pretty much connected the dots as manifested by Clintons refusal to get take Bin Laden, handed on a silver platter in the late 90's . 9/11 was just another in a series of attacks against this country.

I agree in principal, Clinton's mucking up the capture of Bin Laden in the 90's, certainly didn't help anything. And he failed to send stronger responses to terrorist attacks that happened on his watch. But blaming him for 9/11 is just as useless and misguided as blaming Bush.

Now that I think about it, if the Europeans knew so much about 9/11, why then didn't they bust up the Hamburg cell where most of the 9/11 attackers came from? THAT kind of thing would have gone a long way toward thwarting 9/11 than tracking some unlisted number in the UAE. What about the terrorists in their own friggen back yards??

And no, I'm not blaming the Europeans for 9/11 either- but since a lot of the roots of 9/11 have European origins every bit as Middle Eastern origins, maybe we can lay off all the complete horse$hit about the Euros knowing so much more than we did, and warning us about every damned thing.

Once again, it comes down to this:

Many al-Qaida members lived in the Hamburg apartment at various times. In all, 29 men listed the apartment as their home address while Mohamed Atta's name was on the lease. Reportedly, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed visited the apartment repeatedly.

German intelligence monitored the apartment, but did not find any evidence against the residents.

Source.

Uh oh, there's that tricky word EVIDENCE again.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

That's akin to ... "partisan" if you like.

Big, long post and you didn't answer the one direct question I placed to you.

Would today's security measures have prevented 9/11?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Sorry, but Iraq was in the wrong place at the right time. And don't ask me for proof either!

LOL!!!

Iraq was in the wrong place! That's frickin' hilarious.

"Sorry, Iraq, if only you'd be in the Caribbean this decade. Now bend over!"

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Big, long post and you didn't answer the one direct question I placed to you.

Would today's security measures have prevented 9/11?

Thats not a black and white question.

Would the terrorists account for current policies in their plans? Could they get through at all? Whats are the odds that they get caught? Depends on a number of factors


Can't say for sure either way.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

LOL!!!

Iraq was in the wrong place! That's frickin' hilarious.

"Sorry, Iraq, if only you'd be in the Caribbean this decade. Now bend over!"

I don't think he was refferring to a physical place. I think he was refferring to their constant denial of UN resolutions and humanitarian attrocities.

But i'm sure you were intelligent enough to pick up on that.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't think he was refferring to a physical place. I think he was refferring to their constant denial of UN resolutions and humanitarian attrocities.

But i'm sure you were intelligent enough to pick up on that.

I'm not sure your sense of irony is developed enough for us to converse.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I'm not sure your sense of irony is developed enough for us to converse.

my sense of irony is just fine.


if i were some of you though i'd really take a look at your senses of logic and ration, if you can call them senses.