The War On Terror
Melatonin
Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">post 9/11 PNAC front</div> an <a href='http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/09/276676.html' target='_blank'>IndyMedia.org article</a> written my former government minister Michael Meacher is the starting point for this topic, please read it, although most of what is written has no doubt been discussed elsewhere.
so onto the meat of the debate.
the events of 9/11 were on numerous occasions reported to various american governmental agencies prior to them taking place. there were procedures in place for fighters to be scrambled in the event of planes flying off course; none were until after 9:38, a good 78 minuets after the first hijacking was suspected.
is it co-incidence that the PNAC blueprints state the process will be slow in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event".
discuss.
so onto the meat of the debate.
the events of 9/11 were on numerous occasions reported to various american governmental agencies prior to them taking place. there were procedures in place for fighters to be scrambled in the event of planes flying off course; none were until after 9:38, a good 78 minuets after the first hijacking was suspected.
is it co-incidence that the PNAC blueprints state the process will be slow in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event".
discuss.
Comments
I also did a Lexis Nexis search for the quotes mentioned and nothing came up. I'm highly doubting the source and reasoning of it. also did a Lexis Nexus search for information regarding this EU intelligence that Bush had. I've found nothing as well. As for the PNAC, it was obvious to anyone in the late 90's that the Clinton years had eroded the dominance the US held right after the cold war. There were several threats to US power, including Iraq, North Korea, etc. The PNAC recognized the situation in the world an analysed possible to solutions.
Did Bush 'know'? I doubt it. I recall seeing on AOL's Frontpage a few weeks before 9/11 "US warns of possible terror attacks." I thought nothing of it. Most lies have been debunked and the overall intelligence was "There is major terrorist activity going on." On a personal note, when my school announced abruptly "Everyone should come to the courtyard now. There is a national emergency and several of our buildings have been hit." I mentioned to my friends that it was probably a terrorist attack in Africa or the Middle East.'
Anyone, the PNAC was the centerpeice of the Neo-Con philosophy: to create a world of capitalist democracies in which the US would been the single power. Whether or not that should happen is a totally seperate topic. It was correct in its analysis that such actions would be impossible without a major catylst. Coincidence? Somewhat. Such an attack was bound to happen. Does that mean Bush wanted 9/11 to happen? I doubt it.
Also, something to consider: Bush is a religious man. He practically cried making his 9/11 announcment. Unless he's a damn good actor (which he can't be, since he is so dumb, right?) he probably wouldn't let the slaughter of 3000 Americans happen.
I'm a positive in this? No. I'm pretty sure of it though.
I don't think we can ever really know if Bush let 9/11 happen, unless he admits it on his deathbed.
And for those who bring up the Pearl Harbor reference:
Was it a bad thing that the US entered World War II, in the end?
And by the way, the fighter jet argument is 100% untrue.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Copyright 2002 Daily News, L.P.
Daily News (New York)
August 31, 2002, Saturday SPORTS FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 6
LENGTH: 613 words
HEADLINE: F-16S WERE SET TO RAM HIJACKERS SUICIDE PLAN TO STOP 9/11 JETS
BYLINE: By RICHARD SISK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
BODY:
WASHINGTON - Air National Guard pilots in unarmed fighters would have made the "ultimate sacrifice" Sept. 11 and carried out a suicide order to ram their planes into hijacked airlines to stop more attacks, their commander said yesterday.
Col. Robert Marr, commander of the Northeast Air Defense Sector in upstate Rome, didn't have to ask permission from superiors to give the grim order but said he had little doubt his pilots would have done their duty.
"An airman, asked to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of his country, would do no more or no less than the soldier asked to storm the beaches at Normandy," he said in an interview with ABC-TV.
For the first time, Marr discussed the chaos and tension in his darkened control bunker Sept. 11. A total of 16 aircraft were on call nationwide to defend against attack that day, said Maj. Barry Venable, a spokesman for Marr's superiors at the North American Aerospace Defense Command in Colorado. Calling for help The first call from the Federal Aviation Administration warning that American Airlines Flight 11 had been hijacked came to Marr at 8:40 a.m. Three minutes later, he received a similar call about United Airlines Flight 175, according to the NORAD timeline. Marr ordered two fully armed F-15 Eagle fighters to scramble at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and head for New York City.
The planes - whose pilots were identified only by the nicknames Duff and Nasty - took off at 8:52 a.m., but Flight 11 had hit Tower 1 six minutes earlier.
The Pentagon said it lost radar contact with Flight 175 at 9:02 a.m., when the Otis jets were 71 miles and eight minutes away. The official version of the 9/11 catastrophe puts the impact with Tower 2 at 9:03 a.m.
"For a long time I wondered what would have happened if we had been scrambled on time," Duff said in an interview with BBC. "We've been over the flight a thousand times in our minds, and I don't know what we could have done to get there any quicker.
Marr instantly ordered three fully armed F-16 fighters from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Va., to scramble when the next call came from the FAA that American Flight 77 was way off course and headed to Washington at 9:24 a.m.
The planes were 105 miles, or 12 minutes, away when Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon.
Marr ordered the three F-16s to stay on patrol over Washington and then had to face the possibility of having to issue suicide commands to deal with hijacked United Flight 93. Preparing for the worst He decided to divert two unarmed Air National Guard F-16s on a training mission near Detroit to chase Flight 93.
If they had been able to reach Flight 93, Marr said, he would have ordered them to "get close and convince the plane" to land, since "they don't have any weapons."
For a brief moment, he said, he thought of asking the F-16 pilots to ram their planes into Flight 93 if it failed to respond. But the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03 a.m., well before it could be intercepted.
"In the heat of the moment, all suggestions were considered, but no decision was made to employ unarmed fighters" on suicide missions, Marr said.Graphic: MAD SCRAMBLE
The Pentagon
9:24 a.m. Langley Air Force Base alerted to emergency.
9:30 Three F-16s airborne.
9:37 Hijacked plane smashes into Pentagon.
Fighter jets were 105 miles - 12 minutes - away.
WORLD TRADE CENTER
8:40 a.m. Otis Air Force Base alerted
to emergency.
8:46 Two F-16 crews scramble as first hijacked plane hits WTC.
8:52 Fighters are airborne and streaking toward New York City at 533 mph.
9:03 Second hijacked plane hits WTC.
The F-16s were 71 miles - eight minutes - away.
LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2002 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I <3 College and Lexis Nexis.
<a href='http://www.bushlies.net/pages/1/index.htm' target='_blank'>bushlies.net</a>
perhaps not the exact date... but I think he knew more than he let on.
bushlies.net
perhaps not the exact date... but I think he knew more than he let on. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Consider your source.
Listen people, if you get 100 calls a day saying there is going to be some sort of terrorist attack, and 99% of them are false and end up never happening, and then one day it happens, you can't simply step back and say "OMG THEY KNEW THOSE BASTAGES DIDN'T DO ANYTHING! THEY WERE WARNED!"
Marr ordered two fully armed F-15 Eagle fighters to scramble at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth
Marr instantly ordered three fully armed F-16 fighters from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton
"get close and convince the plane" to land, since "they don't have any weapons."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
im confused. your article seems to directly contradict itself several times.
first they are fully armed, then they have no weapons? which is it?
also, do you <i>really</i> beleive that airplanes would be scrambled if they were powerless to stop it anyway?
anyway.
the article was actually published in numerous papers over here aswell, one in particular [the guardian] is well respected, and generally thought to be more than iraqi-propaganda.
on a similar note, just because somthing is mirrored on a site which agrees with it, does <i> not </i> mean that it is untrue.
*edit, jammer, i was gunna say, i like your new avitar /edit*
I don't even think they have ANY aircraft on such status anymore.
In the cold war things like that happened, but keeping an aircraft ready like that is very very costly.
You don't just go "emergency!" Hop into your "jet" and blast off
bushlies.net
perhaps not the exact date... but I think he knew more than he let on. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Consider your source.
Listen people, if you get 100 calls a day saying there is going to be some sort of terrorist attack, and 99% of them are false and end up never happening, and then one day it happens, you can't simply step back and say "OMG THEY KNEW THOSE BASTAGES DIDN'T DO ANYTHING! THEY WERE WARNED!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, hindsight is 20/20 and all that...
However if you get persistant warnings over a period of time involving airplanes...dunno, maybe you should consider a security measure upgrade ?
Obviously the very name of my source indicates a biased viewpoint...but do you dispute the Bush quote which essentialy boils down to 'nobody ever thought hijackers would fly commercial aircraft into buildings ?' I mean c'mon... Samuel Byck tried to hijack a commercial aircraft with the goal of flying it into the White House in the 70's !
IMO the Bush admin. simply underestimated the danger and refused to own up to the fact afterwards.
Without miring myself in some sort of conspiracy argument about the events pre 9/11, I <i>do</i> think that PNAC and its allies in our government are opportunistic scum using the cover of a profound national tragedy to steamroll their agenda over the world.
I'm not so naive or romantic to think that their goals here have erverything to do with security and nobility and nothing to do with profit.
Intelligence officers are caught in a continuous catch 22. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. They can either warn the population everytime they suspect something might happen, and risk being "the agency that cried wolf", or never warn unless its something really really imminent, and risk not warning the population of something that happens.
Either way, whiners will always claim that they either werent warned, and someone should be punished for that, or that they were warned just too often so they didnt believe it, and someone should be punished for that also.
Intelligence prefers to side with the warn to much, that way they can at least say - hey, we told you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Much of the sympathy expressed for America two years ago has been lost in the row over Bush's Iraq policy," said German newspaper the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to hijack the topic at hand or anything, but I felt this really reflected a lot of the current feelings towards America. They're right: so much of the sympathy expressed towards America over S-11 was thrown away by the Iraq conflict. In one stroke, so many people who would have been ardent supporters of the US have now been turned into hating or disliking America.
The war on terror could have gained so much support, but now the very term has been warped thanks to the Iraq war. People now are thinking that the "war on terror" is just the latest buzz-word to legitimise invasions of places the US doesn't like. Look around you in this very forum and you find people who dislike the US for no more reason than Iraq and Bush. They're not alone. 2 years ago I was stunned by S-11 and offering my condolenses to every American I could find. Now, I'm to the stage where the sound of an American voice puts my teeth on edge. Why? Iraq and Bush.