Customer Discussions > History forum

'Do you believe 9/11 happened due in part to incompetence?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 54 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 11:18:33 PM PST
I think you're reading something into the posts that you're responding to that isn't there. Did you see anyone advocating intervention, or for that matter, any policy response at all to the election of the MB? I didn't. Nor did I see anyone suggest that the election of the MB was illegitimate. All I saw was the expression of an opinion that the election of the MB was probably counterproductive.

Look, I don't have any problem with you defending everyone's right to make their own dumb choices. However, you seem to have gone beyond that by suggesting that it is somehow illegitimate for others to evaluate those choices.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012 1:58:41 PM PST
D. Mok says:
> One can be entirely indifferent as to the choices that another society makes, and yet understand from an analytical standpoint that some choices, even if democratically arrived
> at, are unlikely to facilitate the continuation of democracy.

And?
Maybe they don't *want* a democratic system as in the United States. Democracy and religion don't mix. Religion is about obedience and absolutes; democracy is based on skepticism and relativity.

Whether "I think it's the correct choice" is irrelevant. *They* made the choice. The United States' inability to accept any political system other than its own is one major reason why the rest of the world hates it when the U.S. meddles with their affairs.

The U.S. was similarly chagrined when Hamas won a majority in the 2006 Palestinian elections. And now there actually is a chance for dialogue between Hamas and the U.S. government.

There is one thing liberals have always gotten *horribly* wrong. U.S. foreign policy isn't about the good of other people. U.S. foreign policy is about protecting the interests of the U.S. The President of the United States' only true interest should be, indeed, the well-being of the U.S. people. Why? Because he's the President of the United States, not the President of the World. And it is very often in the long-term interests of the U.S. for other nations and peoples to be at peace and prosper. But the bottom line is always self-interest. Altruism is a terribly stupid idea when it comes to international politics; it's a useless illusion, the pipe dream of well-meaning but unrealistic idealists.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 12:22:01 PM PST
D. Mok writes...

"You don't seem to understand that the word "democratic" means, precisely, that the people will choose whom they want, not whom the U.S. wants."

RG responds...

Of course what you're overlooking is that "what the US wants" is also irrelevant in the sense that you employ the phrase. One can be entirely indifferent as to the choices that another society makes, and yet understand from an analytical standpoint that some choices, even if democratically arrived at, are unlikely to facilitate the continuation of democracy. A historical case in point would be voting for Nazis.

I have no crystal ball predictions to make about what the Muslim Brotherhood will do in future. OTOH, I do understand why some folks may be skeptical regarding the MB's long-term commitment to democratic pluralism.

As for "nearly 100,000 people" signing a petition for secession...

The population of the United States exceeds 311 million. "Nearly 100,000" people works out to 00.03% of the population. Big Whoop! It wouldn't surprise me if a bigger percentage of French-speaking Canadians remain in favor of Quebec seceding from Canada.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 8:54:03 AM PST
J. Schwarz says:
I stand by what I said. Do you really think the MB is the correct choice for these people? They chose a religious organization that oppresses minorities and you think that is the correct choice? Anyone home?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 5:29:37 AM PST
anne says:
Just the Facts,

Yay, you didn't leave!

Posted on Nov 13, 2012 4:00:01 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2012 4:00:30 AM PST
D. Mok says:
> It seems like the Arabs/Muslims never make the correct choices. They had a chance to elect a real democratic government and instead they elect the Muslim Brotherhood.

What is "correct" for the Western world is not necessarily what is "correct" for the Islamic world.
You don't seem to understand that the word "democratic" means, precisely, that the people will choose whom they want, not whom the U.S. wants.

And a nation where nearly 100,000 people just signed a petition for secession, a century after the Civil War, should think twice about laughing at the political decisions of other nations.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 12:36:42 PM PST
J. Schwarz says:
It seems like the Arabs/Muslims never make the correct choices. They had a chance to elect a real democratic government and instead they elect the Muslim Brotherhood. As Abba Eban stated, the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 11:40:20 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 11:45:00 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Domenico Rosa says:

[The revival of Star Wars and the Cold War was indeed the top priority at the beginning of W's administration.]

The sinister HAARP device up in Alaska may be part of the Star Wars initiative. What exactly that contraption may be capable of I don't think anyone in the public domain knows. I suspect it uses Tesla technology and can screw up the entire planet in various ways like cause massive earthquakes and super heat the upper atmosphere.

Clark was the head of America's anti terrorism unit when 9/11 happened. I guess he now views himself as the lone voice in the wilderness who tried to warn everyone but nobody listened.

The FBI blames traitor Robert Hanssen for 9/11. They claim they had intelligence about Bin Ladin and were tracking his movements. Hanssen sold that information to the Russians and it found its way to Bin Ladin who became much more cautious as a result and so survived long enough to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks.

According to the FBI Hanssen caused the deaths of many double agents in the KGB, probably caused 9/11, and almost started World War III, all for about $ 30,000 a year.

Well he needed money to buy presents for his stripper girlfriend.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 11:33:55 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 12, 2012 11:43:05 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
John M. Lane says:

[Without that "unimaginable defense budget", you and I might be lampshades, bars of soap or chatting in Russian or Chinese.]

Yes for better or worse this is the way the chips fell on planet Earth. America has emerged as the supreme and deadliest super power.

A question I find interesting but which I guess is controversial is how responsible are the citizens of a country when their country goes to war. Like during World War II were the German and Japanese people somehow themselves responsible for what happened ? Or were they just pulled along by the irresistible currents of history ?

How responsible are Muslims in general for 9/11 and whatever other terrorist attacks have happened or will happen ?

Perhaps it's Mohammed's fault. He was a false prophet I believe.

Religion had a role in Germany also with Hitler and the boys. They took aspects of Christianity, mythology, and the occult and merged them all together to create a new religion where Adolf was presented as a messianic savior.

Many Christians today view 9/11 and terrorism as a titanic struggle between Christianity and Islam and they look to the Middle East for the anti Christ to emerge.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 11:27:07 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
D. Mok says:

[There is a balance.]

Yes there are two sides to America being the supreme military power on Earth.

The United States never used nuclear weapons in anger again after World War II. Would Stalin have done the same if Russia was the only atomic power ? For Hitler we know the answer.

I agree if some horrific incident happens everyone will turn on their TVs and expect American jets to fly overheard and save everyone. And in fact America has already saved the world from tyranny and world domination twice during the two world wars.

After World War II however the water got murkier as the Military Industrial Complex, a term created by Eisenhower, got out of control.

I guess this gets into questions about what have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accomplished. No more 9/11s have happened so far at least.

It will be interesting to see what happens on planet Earth after December 21. A new age is upon us, at least according to the Mayan calendar.

Edgar Cayce predicted that the world will move into an era where individual wealth and power will no longer be important. Rather poeoples' concern for one another will be the overriding influence.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 9:46:20 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
I agree, J. Schwarz.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 1:49:04 PM PST
J. Schwarz says:
Unfortunately mankind has not progressed psychologically far enough to do away with defense budgets. If you seriously take a look at the history of mankind you can see how mentally unstable individuals are responsible for much of the worlds problems. The next great challenge for humanity is to do away with mental illness and to teach kindness and empathy towards others. We still need to shed parts of us that are still animalistic. Treatment of women and minorities, inhuman conditions in prison, hatred of others based on religion, mentally psychotic people in charge of a country. We have a long way to go before humanity grows up.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 12:12:34 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 11, 2012 12:14:04 PM PST
On pp 251-252 of Speaking for Myself: My Life from Liverpool to Downing Street , Cherie Blair wrote that, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack:

"I remembered the conversation I'd had with President Bush, when he and Laura had stayed at Chequers the previous spring. [...] George had been talking about the Star Wars missile defense system, initiated by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, and how he saw that as the ultimate shield. But I had grown up under the shadow of IRA terrorism. 'Surely,' I'd said, 'the real danger is not from Russia or any other country sending bombs, but from individual people in a terrorist attack?' George had looked bemused at the suggestion. Americans had no sense that such a thing could ever happen to them, and that's what made September 11 so shocking."

The revival of Star Wars and the Cold War was indeed the top priority at the beginning of W's administration.

Richard A. Clarke, a ten-year White House counterterrorism official, in his book Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror , revealed the negligent lack of interest on the part of W and others (and especially of clueless Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser) with respect to the threat posed by Islamic extremists--even after the 6 August 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside U.S.": "Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks ... 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."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 11:58:14 AM PST
John M. Lane says:
Fear of enemies is why states exist.

I don't believe that the United States "needs" enemies to justify its defense budget. The reality is that we have enemies and that military weakness invites them to attack.

Without that "unimaginable defense budget", you and I might be lampshades, bars of soap or chatting in Russian or Chinese.

Posted on Nov 11, 2012 9:29:02 AM PST
D. Mok says:
> There's a theory that the United States will always need enemies to justify its unimaginable defense budget.

There is a balance. The U.S. cannot stop developing military and high-tech weapons, because it put itself in the position of being the "World Police". However, it is also a fact that the Department of Defense has many, many pork-barrel projects that are utter failures, incredibly inefficient, and in some cases outdated.

Hindsight will, again, prove to be 20/20. If the U.S. took too much money out of military development, and then China is revealed to have a secret and ultra-advanced air force that causes an incident, the people in the U.S. will scream, "Why didn't we spend more on military development"? The likelihood at this point in time, however, is that the U.S. has already spent so much money in that area that it *has* no opponents who can match it. In the meantime, shadows of the Cold War and Islamic extremism continue to grow -- conflicts that require older solutions like diplomacy, cultural understanding and political manoeuvring, not high-tech weaponry. All the high-tech weaponry couldn't gain the U.S. an advantage in Vietnam, nor could it alleviate the aftermaths of the Iraq occupation.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 9:13:09 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
ReasonableGuy says:

[The term you're looking for is "normal bias".]

That sounds reasonable guy.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 9:12:17 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
D. Mok says:

[Even now, the Republicans are more concerned with sending fat contracts to make military weapons (more to line the pockets of their defense-contractor friends than to defend the nation).]

I heard something along those lines.

The big wigs in the Air Force are more interested in building the next generation of airplanes than doing what's needed for national defense.

There's a theory that the United States will always need enemies to justify its unimaginable defense budget. If there aren't any legitimate enemies the U.S. will invent them. That's exactly what happened with Viet Nam and this was the main cause for assassinating president Kennedy I believe. Whether it's still true today I won't speculate.

FDR and company wanted Japan to commit the first overt act of war when Pearl Harbor happened. I'm not saying they knew about or even planned Pearl Harbor. But I think there are documents that support the idea that they wanted Japan to do something. This could have contributed to creating an environment of carelessness and high risk.

In a way the entire 20th century in America was a struggle against political corruption and organized crime. The golden age of the Italian mafia in America is apparently over. But they had their day in the sun and they made their money. They were I believe also involved with the Kennedy assassination together with the CIA and the other members of the Military Industrial Complex.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 8:59:41 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Suetonius says:

[Then you said: "Jesse Ventura, on a TV program about 9/11 said that the computers with the information concerning the 2.3 trillion dollars were destroyed in the attack on the pentagon."]

Yes Jesse had his own TV show about conspiracies that came out a few years ago. I watched them.

I wouldn't say they were that great.

I didn't realize until recently he was in the movie Predator. He had also been a Navy Seal and governor of Minnesota. That's a wide variety of career paths.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 8:43:50 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Just the Facts says:

[for me it answered the questions as to why the towers probably colapsed - no conspiracy, just greed -]

Well it appeared to me that the two WTC towers collapsed in a very controlled way which I presume is the way they were designed. Those buildings took direct hits from airplanes and remained standing long enough for most people to get out.

Sadly some people got down to ground level in one of the towers and they were told to go back to their offices. That was the official policy which was designed to protect people from falling debris. It was the wrong policy for that situation however.

When I was living in Poughkeepsie, NY one of the members of my Church was the head of security at the WTC or something along those lines. I wonder if that was the guy who told everyone to go back to their offices.

If that would have been me once I hit the first floor I'm out the door. It's scary enough being in those skyscrapers under normal circumstances.

I haven't read that book but what does it say ? They cut corners during construction ?

The Italian mafia had a stranglehold on the cement industry in NYC for many years which is a scary thought. Who knows if those parasites might have provided sub standard cement for many buildings to line their greedy pockets even more than they already did.

After 9/11 the mafia made more money with the scrap metal that was hauled away from ground zero.

For many years every citizen of NYC was paying an indirect tax to the mafia in the form of higher costs for many things such as garbage collection, clothes, windows, cement, and God knows what else.

The mafia is a terrorist organization in Italy but not as much in the U.S.. In American they had a more secretive profile where excessive violence was frowned upon due to the intense pressure that it brings from law enforcement. They didn't need violence in America to make money although they used it when necessary, mainly among themselves.

All of these issues are sort of inter related in a way. Organized crime. Government corruption. Terrorism. The buildup of nuclear arsenals. Conspiracies and lies. A lot of those things came together in an intriguing way during the 1960s, the decade of assassinations.

Those things happen on countless worlds because the forces that cause them are the same everywhere.

Jeff Marzano

The Men Who Killed Kennedy

Gotti: The Rise and Fall of a Real Life Mafia Don

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 6:55:52 AM PST
J. Schwarz says:
Even in Israel where they are constantly vigilant terrorists succeed every now and then. We are no way near the security in Israel so if they have an occasional problem we can have them too. We don't have the mindset the Israelis have because we are not under the gun every second. So if the occasional crazies target the west when the west is not vigilant we will have people killed unfortunately.

Posted on Nov 11, 2012 3:48:23 AM PST
D. Mok says:
> Terrorists are going to succeed now and then, no matter what.

Exactly.
It's very easy to point fingers after every disaster. The fact is, there are no "right" decisions in the moment; "right or wrong" can only be discerned after the fact.

When 9/11 happened, I was in New York City, in fact just several blocks from the World Trade Center, at Canal St. and Broadway. When the name "Osama bin Laden" started bubbling to the surface, I remember thinking how frighteningly easy it was to attack the United States. Firearms are too easy to obtain; explosives are too easy to obtain; vehicles are even easier to obtain.

To me, the failure wasn't actually failing to stop the attack -- which can happen even with the most diligent government and personnel. The failure was systemic -- the Bush administration simply did not pay enough attention to Islamic extremism in general. There *was* no diligence to begin with. Even now, the Republicans are more concerned with sending fat contracts to make military weapons (more to line the pockets of their defense-contractor friends than to defend the nation). If a couple of billion dollars were sent into intelligence instead -- developing assets in the Arab world, training language and culture experts -- I'd venture to guess the United States would be a lot safer than if it had acquired a few more experimental fighter jets.

> The security on the airplanes was too casual and trusting.

In an open Democratic society, where individual rights are held this dear, there *is* no security that can prevent an attack. In the days after 9/11, airport security was ramped up almost to the point of paralysis, and it *still* failed to a staggering degree whenever it was tested. And you can only defend against methods that are tried and true. On September 10, 2001, nobody was seriously considering the threat of hijacking a plane and flying it into a building. And there are always new ways to attack; the government doesn't have the will and resources to guard against every potential threat.

The solution is political. The U.S. has to make the extremists not want to attack it. Otherwise, if they try enough times, they will get through every so often.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 10:49:36 PM PST
Jeff writes...

"It all started when a handful of punks with box cutters got control of those airplanes. How was this even possible ? A five year old kid could have kicked those cockpit doors down probably.

It would have required leadership and actual monetary costs to everyone to implement the security checks that are now in place at airports. Would the pressure against doing this have been too great before 9/11 ? If yes this means that change only happens after a catastrophe has already occurred."

RG responds...

The term you're looking for is "normal bias". Intellectually, people know that low probability events can occur, and eventually will occur somewhere, but the bias is to say "not today". "Today is going to be a 'normal' day." Don't have enough lifeboats to carry all the passengers? No worries, there's no reason to believe that this is going to be anything other than a "normal cruise".

I can't tell you when the first airline hijacking took place, but I do know that when I was growing up, getting hijacked to Cuba became something of a running joke. Then, of course, there were all those hijackings in the 70s. More recently, in the run-up to 9/11 there were a spate of stories about passenger "air-rage".

There was ample time to figure out that finding some way to secure the cockpit cabin door would be a good idea (and maybe to put a lavatory on the secure side so that the crew never needs to leave the cabin in flight). It was doable. It could have been incorporated into the initial design of most airliners in the sky today. Had there been the will, there was plenty of time to phase in the requirement. Normal bias though tends to rob those who might be in a position to push for such requirements of any sense of urgency. There's always tomorrow... right up to the day when there isn't.

New Orleans and Katrina is another example. Everyone knew intellectually that New Orleans was a low-lying city in a hurricane zone, and that eventually it would be hit. There were any number of things that the city government could have done which would have left it better prepared. They weren't budget busters either. They were just simple things like having a back-up water supply at the Superdome and the city's hospitals. Not that this would have prevented Katrina's destruction, but how much misery would have been averted for the victims of the storm if only this basic need had been better provided for? It didn't happen. Everyone knew that a major hurricane could happen any year, but no one faced the fact that "any year" could be "this year". "This year", they all bet, was going to be another "normal year".

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 5:39:28 PM PST
Suet says:
"Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that several credible people did report seeing the Pentagon struck by a Boeing 757 with American Airline markings."

D. R. Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, page 265.

Oh heck Dave, are you going to start believing PEOPLE over THEORY?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 1:50:29 PM PST
Suet says:
Thank you, John. Your nephew and hundreds of other eyewitnesses. But who can argue with 'truthers'? They know!

"The evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is overwhelming."
D. R. Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, page 1.

Yeah!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 1:22:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012 1:23:35 PM PST
John M. Lane says:
One of my nephews was a Military Policeman and he was on patrol near the Pentagon on 9/11/01 when it was hit. He saw the airliner come in low.

He said it was so low he thought it ripped the emergency lights off the roof of his patrol car. It didn't, but he saw it come in. It was a commercial airliner.

A couple of years later he recalled losing an argument to a "Truther" who had "proof positive" that it was a missile, not an airliner. All my nephew had was what he'd seen. There'd been a "Truther" conference in Tehran about that time and all sorts of "evidence" turned up.

The truther told him, "Just because you were there doesn't mean you know what happened." That's true, but it gives him a good head start.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  15
Total posts:  54
Initial post:  Nov 8, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 14, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions