Slashdot Mirror

So how many times have organizations of the Federal Government had information beforehand on suspects and have failed to put the pieces together and act vs. actually succeeding at stopping something? They've never given any evidence that they have been able to stop anything significant based on prior knowledge and yet I've lost count of how many times they have traced back having information and the threat *still* happened.

• 
     
• Why did U.S. intelligence fail on September 11th?

•    

• The 9/11 Comission Report

•    

• The Boston Bombing Intelligence Failure

•    

• Obama calls Christmas day attack an intelligence failure

•    

• Long history of intelligence failures

That doesn't even consider the many times when there is no intelligence failure and bad things still happen. Thinking that knowing everything about everyone will prevent problems only infringes liberties with no promise of protection. At some point you have to see through the claims that ". . . if only we do X we can ensure that this will never happen again!" as being unworkable and it's better to protect liberties than to infringe them . . . including liberties of foreign citizens. Trying to blame Snowden's disclosures for why bad things aren't prevented is ludicrous.

Of course there's always the root of the problem: who effected the bad thing? We should blame the implementors of the evil rather than some fringe player . . . unless all you want is a scape goat that's in arms reach.

The TSA did not exist on 9/11. Mohammed al-Qahtani was turned away by immigration after his flight landed in the US. He was chosen for Secondary inspection because he didn't fill out the paperwork properly. He was denied admission for a long list of suspicious activity ($2800 cash, no hotel, no return ticket, multiple stories, etc) in addition to being "creepy." That case really doesn't have much in common with what the TSA is attempting to do. That is also CBP's job. They are tasked with undesirable people out of the United States. When the TSA does their job (keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiaries off airplanes), it does not matter who boards an aircraft.

The AAPD asked numerous questions concerning the case. I explained that apart from not having a return ticket and possibly not having sufficient funds, the subject appeared to be malafide. I further explained to the AAPD that when the subject looked at me, I felt a bone chilling cold effect. The bottom line is, “He gave me the creeps”.

Full Testimony: http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/witness_melendez.htm

They were allowed past security even with implements that could kill people (the box cutters). They were trained in flying aircraft without wanting to learn how to take off and land, but wanted to focus on just flying the aircraft.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

"A pilot they consulted at one school, the Sorbi Flying Club in San Diego, spoke Arabic. He explained to them that their flight instruction would begin with small planes. Hazmi and Mihdhar emphasized their interest in learning to fly jets, Boeing aircraft in particular, and asked where they might enroll to train on jets right away. Convinced that the two were either joking or dreaming, the pilot responded that no such school existed. Other instructors who worked with Hazmi and Mihdhar remember them as poor students who focused on learning to control the aircraft in flight but took no interest in takeoffs or landings. By the end of May 2000, Hazmi and Mihdhar had given up on learning how to fly.37"

Maybe they just told the screeners at the airport that day that they were temp workers for a cardboard box factory and needed the cutters for their job? I guess if I were a lawn care professional I could have taken a lawnmower and put it in the overhead bin?

There were numerous things that should have set off alarms, at least somebody dropping a dime to the FBI or CIA. Oh wait,

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

"1998: An Oklahoma City FBI agent sends a memo warning that "large numbers of Middle Eastern males" are getting flight training and could be planning terrorist attacks. [CBS, 5/30/02] A separate CIA intelligence report asserts that Arab terrorists are planning to fly a bomb-laden aircraft into the WTC (World Trade Center). [New York Times, 9/19/02, Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02"

Yeah, I sure feel safe with a 60 year old Flight Attendant guarding a drink cart to make me feel safe when the pilot takes a whizz..

Yeah. All of those middle class Saudi Arabians committed a horrific crime. I'm really glad we forced the Saudi government to help us bring the remaining criminals to justice, and root out and prosecute all of their enablers. Oh wait: we didn't punish Saudi Arabia at all, or even get them to sign an extradition treaty. And where did all of the money come from?

Financing of the Plot
To plan and conduct their attack, the 9/11 plotters spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000, the vast majority of which was provided by al Qaeda. Although the origin of the funds remains unknown, extensive investigation has revealed quite a bit about the financial transactions that supported the 9/11 plot. The hijackers and their financial facilitators used the anonymity provided by the huge international and domestic financial system to move and store their money through a series of unremarkable transactions. The existing mechanisms to prevent abuse of the financial system did not fail. They were never designed to detect or disrupt transactions of the type that financed 9/11

Oh man. We totally nailed that one. It's a good thing Al Qaeda are so dumb, or they'd keep finding friendly states with zero infrastructure, and using them to launch attacks so we get stuck in intractable war after intractable war, eventually bleeding our treasury dry.

We'd never be dumb enough to fall for it, though. Right?

On July 26, 2004, the Wikipedia article for Let's Roll claimed that Todd Beamer's last words to a telephone operator were "Roll it" instead of "Let's roll." Later revisions cited the 9/11 Commission Report as a source. The report, however, does not actually transcribe any part of Beamer's phone conversation, and does not identify who said "Roll it" during the passengers' invasion of the cockpit (which presumably happened after Beamer's phone call ended). I attempted to correct it on October 27, 2005. It was immediately reverted. I reverted again with a detailed explanation and didn't bother to pursue it any further. The spurious detail was reverted back into the article and remained a part of subsequent revisions until at least January 24, 2007, still falsely citing the commission report as a source.

Iraq may have been involved with 9/11, though maybe not.

Well, the bipartisan 9/11 commission said, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." [emphasis mine] And in case you think that was just politicized or the analysis incompetent, the Washington Post reported, "In testimony before the commission, CIA and FBI officials said they agreed with the staff report's assessment of the abortive relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq. A CIA counterterrorism analyst who testified using the pseudonym Ted Davis said, 'We're in full agreement with the staff statement,' which he said did 'an excellent job' of representing the agency's current understanding of the al Qaeda-Iraq relationship." Finally, even President Bush has said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." So, essentially, the President, Congress, the CIA, and the FBI don't think there was a connection.

They were tied to the '93 WTC attack

Again, the experts disagree. As one article puts it, "In sum, by the mid-'90s, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the F.B.I., the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the C.I.A., the N.S.C., and the State Department had all found no evidence implicating the Iraqi government in the first Trade Center attack."

the '95 OKC attack

Given McVeigh's ideology, this doesn't even make much sense. Also, remember, he fought against the Iraqis in the first Gulf War. Again, the investigation into the attack did not turn up such a link, and the only claims I can find for such a link are right in the run up to the most recent Iraq War (and not particularly credible).

But somehow, Clinton looks like a saint and Bush made it all up.

Saint BJ? Leaving aside irrelevant comparisons to Clinton, the fact is that the Bush administration made many false and misleading statements about Iraq in the run up to war. People who want to deny that try to focus on the question of whether Iraq was a threat, but that is not what they lied about. Many governments believed there was some level of threat from Iraq, but the lies from the Bush administration came in the details and the claimed level of certainty. They presented tenuous or already discredited (within the intelligence community) claims as solid. They had reason to believe some things based upon circumstantial evidence, but in describing them they used phrases like "no doubt," which you can find in the transcripts of interviews with multiple administration officials. Given that few outside the administration had access to classified intelligence, and only the administration had the ability to release (declassify) information, there was very little way for anyone to expose these falsehoods. All the false and misleading statements are way too numerous to list, but thankfully someone has gone to the trouble to catalog them.

When a public servant is in that position of power and trust and something as important as going to war is on the line, we the people must demand honesty and cannot tolerate that sort of deception. You can have a different opinion about th

He actually does believe (and fear) that "they" are trying to attack us on a daily basis, but are constantly being thwarted by the government. It's really sad...

Yes.

It's also really true.


Though the "planes operation" was progressing, the plotters had problems of their own in 2001. Several possible participants dropped out; others could not gain entry into the United States (including one denial at a port of entry and visa denials not related to terrorism). One of the eventual pilots may have considered abandoning the planes operation. Zacarias Moussaoui, who showed up at a flight training school in Minnesota, may have been a candidate to replace him.


"They" have not thrown up their hands and given up since 2001.

Sadly, I don't see any push from any group/government with the financial backing to actually do a serious investigation. Of course it takes time, but because it takes time to do it you actually have to START it.

As for the free fall thing, every video I've seen shows the building collapsing unhindered, and every video showing the entire collapse shows them falling at roughly free fall speed. Show me a video where this is not the case.

For the BBC, I'm not sure what the reason for it is. The BBC is not necessarily complicit, just not doing their job. Using your favorite Ockham's Razor here would seem to imply that SOMEONE told the BBC that the building was either going to collapse or had already collapsed. Why would the reporter say it had collapsed when the building is still CLEARLY VISIBILE just behind her? (Youtube video, check other videos as well) That's not normal. Now what evidence was there saying that building 7 would collapse? It wasn't hit by a plane. There were other buildings in the area that didn't collapse that were also on fire, but were there any reports saying they were going to collapse? The selectiveness of the reporting is unusual.

Silverstein's comment is not evidence for complicity; however, he purchased the building just 6 months prior to 9/11 and insured it against TERRORISM. The building hadn't changed ownership in 33 years. First order of business was replacing the security company with another one, which just happened to have Marvin Bush, W's brother, on the board of directors, and Marvin's cousin as the CEO. This same Securacom security company also did security work for Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, which also play in 9/11. One must also understand that WTC 7 and I believe also the other two (don't quote me on this though) were not in the best of financial shape. The NY Port Authority had tried for years to get permission to demolish the buildings, without success. It also was looking at some costly renovations, on the order of billions! Blowing the buildings up would not only not cost them money, they'd get money from insurance. Now if one also takes into account some of the documents located in WTC 7, very sensitive documents looking into Enron and Worldcom and probably others, the whole picture starts to get interesting. These pieces of information are not proof of conspiracy to blow up the towers, but I will say they sure raise some serious questions, none of which have been investigated.

Another interesting aspect of the story were the unusual trades in the days just before the attacks. There was a large surge in purchases of 1) put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines, of 2) put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group, of 3) put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, in 4) purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon, in 5) purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes (info from 9/11 research, read article here). Whoever made the $2.5 million on trading United Airlines has yet to claim it.

How does the 9/11 Commission Report mention it? In a footnote. This is a what it says (see here , Chapter 5, note 130)

130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/1

WTC #7 -- you start counting when the penthouse falls. Ok, let's try that. Then, why is the front of the building still standing? Oh, that's right, there is something below it still holding it up! If you had counted the time that the penthouse took to fall, I'm sure it would have been around free fall speed. However, since we don't have any video of the entire collapse of the penthouse, we take another reference point, like the roof of the front of the building. When that starts to collapse (IE, there is nothing supporting it anymore), the building only takes 6.5 seconds to fall, roughly free fall speed.

Now, you also say that both towers took over 15 seconds to collapse. Which video shows that? Even the 9/11 commission, which got so much wrong, gets THIS fact right when it says the south tower took 10 seconds to collapse - http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9 .htm

Have you actually read The New Pearl Harbor or The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions? Do you actually comprehend the sheer number of coincidences of catastrophic failure one would have to accept in order to stand by the official story? Doesn't seem so yet. Keep reading up on the evidence or read The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson to figure out that even the official story doesn't hold up consistently.

The 9/11 Commission endorsed the REAL ID requirements, noting that "For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons ... All but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of identification document, some by fraud. Acquisition of these forms of identification would have assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and other necessary activities."

Recommendation: The U.S. border security system should be integrated into a larger network of screening points that includes our transportation system and access to vital facilities, such as nuclear reactors. The President should direct the Department of Homeland Security to lead the effort to design a comprehensive screening system, addressing common problems and setting common standards with systemwide goals in mind. Extending those standards among other governments could dramatically strengthen America and the world's collective ability to intercept individuals who pose catastrophic threats.

Recommendation from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report.http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Rep ort_Ch12.htm/

Here are a few ways how changes made as a result of Real ID will improve security:

• Standard levels of identity-proofing prior to issuing and ID (States are all over the place with this right now)
• Verify identity documents with the issuing entity. If someone brings you a passport, verify with DOS that they actually issued one to the person. Same with SSOLV, SAVE, EVVE, etc.
• Requiring that a person is in the country legally prior to issuing an ID or set the expiration date on the ID to the last day the person is permitted in the US (had this been done prior to 9/11, several of the terrorists whose visas had expired would not have been able to obtain valid IDs which they used make preparations and board planes)
• Ensure "one person, one license" by checking with other states prior to issuing an ID (this is a major problem not just for combating terrorism but for identity theft as there have been numerous instances where a person has obtained multiple licenses under multiple names for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining credit)
• Photo first- Capture an applicant's photo at the begining of the process. If the person later presents fraudulent documents and skips out, there is a photo record of the individual.
• Standardize the information appearing on the IDs (things like first and last name, DOB, DL#, address, etc. are standard)
  
  Want further proof? Have you read the DHS Draft Regulations for Real ID (link above)? I'm doubtful...If not, read it before demanding proof of something you haven't even spent the effort to look into.

Legal and EXPIRED. At least this "fucking moron" can read...http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_stateme nts/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf

Kind of true.
The hijackers, all but one, used authentice state issued identification in order to hide thier nationalities. However they did use fake passports to obtain that autentic ID.
The one who did not used this actual passport, again authentic.
It should be noted that a passport was not needed for the flights they were on(all internal to the US) but they needed some form of ID to prove who they were when at check in.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Not es.htm

Damn I pressed the submit button by mistake. Specifically I was talking about May 1999 in Kandahar, you can read that specific part, here, it's near the bottom of the page.

Every Soldier who deploys uses some type of simulation to train critical Warfighting skills. Simulations help our Soldiers hone their skills, rehearse their missions and return to their families safely when their missions are complete. PEO STRI responds quickly to critical, emerging requirements with innovative acquisition and technology solutions and puts the power of simulation into the hands of America's Warfighters!

The three pilots in Florida continued with their training. Atta and Shehhi finished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses. They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.65

I'm not so sure what you're getting at here -- but remember all those months of claiming that Saddam Hussein supported Al Qaeda, and was developing weapons of mass destruction to launch at us? Remember how the loyal opposition was vilified for calling bullshit? We know how the WMD search turned out, and we know that U.S. intelligence knew at the time how it would turn out. Now a U.S. Senate report points out that, in fact, there was no link at all between Hussein and Al Qaeda, and that the Bush administration knew it.

You know, We have all those years of Bush senior claiming iraq had WMDs, we had all those years with Clinton claiming iraq had WMDs, we had all those years the UN claimed iraq had WMDs, We had all those years Russia, germany, france and England claimed iraq had WMDs. Then we had all those years that everyone listed above cited stonwalling tactics, lack of co-operation and ability to inspect certain facilities without a long delay (days or weeks). We had UN inspectors getting kicked out of the country after they attempted to view certain facilities. We had the IAEA shut out of some facilities when checking for the presence of radioactive material. We have not one, not two, but three UN inspection reports stating that iraq's known WMDs aren't acounted for and some are missing completly.

Then we have reports of Iraq attempting to buy "yellow cake" from Niger. Surprisingly, this information was offered to the table by France, one of the biggest oposers to the war in iraq. Russia admits the information surounding it but questions if the credibility of the inteligence is enough to goto war over because they didn't get the "yellow cake" (note that it doesn't question the creditiblity of the report, just if it is enough to goto war over). The only suggestion of the claim itself being false is by a person who wasn't qualified to investigate the situation who later purposfully used a conclusion of his invstigation's report (his opinion) to discredit the president and vice president and bring about a misleading scandel surprisingly close to an election.

We have Clinton making a conection to iraq and al Qaeda. We have top level iraqi officials present at al Qaeda meetings which is though to be were the bombing of the USS cole was planned. We have al Qaeda members in iraq getting medical treatment for injuries from when we invaded afghanastan and we have this statment comming from the 9/11 commision, Bin Laden

also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden

NOPE. S.Arabia. 19 of 21 plane-crashers came from SA. The money came from there. Logically Bush shd have invaded SA. But he didn't.

NOPE. Iraq was AGAINST qaeda and laden. You could have asked saddam to catch Laden and he would have gladly done it for you.. But NO. You had to invade and oust him and kill 2300 US soldiers as a result of your misbeggotten policy.

US law != international law. Get that right.

I know you are sarcastic... but wanted to clarify it for the lower brethren bro...

You're correct that flying lessons and equipment for 19 would not reach that sum, however, you've failed to include:

Living expenses - most of them did not hold any sort of job
Flights to and from the U.S.
The purchase of the tickets themselves on 9/11
The purchase of tickets on multiple cross-country "practice" flights
The fact that most of these flights were first class, significantly increasing cost.

Also, please see the http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Not es.pdf9/11 report, pg. 499, note 131. The source on this information is actually the planner of the attacks himself, KSM.

Oh? Can you give me a chapter/page number? The only references I find are in chapter 2, chapter 4, and chapter 10, and they don't support the contention other than saying that the Bush administration believed it. Most of the mentions (e.g. Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan) and most of the press reports would seem to argue against your claim.

It Also confirmed that there was no credible intelligence PRIOR to the invasion indicating that the WMDs weren't where we expected them to be.

I suppose that UN weapons inspectors, who were trained in such matters and actually went there don't count as credible? There were, as you know, lots of reports indicating that the weapons weren't there--in fact, the vast majority of the intelligence argued against it, which is why the Bush administration have been accused of "cherry picking" the facts to support the policy they had already decided on. But of course, I suppose you can just write them all off as "incredible," as Bush seems to have done.

Further, we went in based on a whole host of other reasons, that are either accidentally overlooked or deliberately ignored... For example, we've been in a HOT shooting war with Iraq for 15 years. He's been jerking us around about WMDs for that entire time.

Nice dodge. There may have been many motivations for the people who sold us this war to have done so, but they can't be counted as reasons why we bought it unless they told us about them. For example, when people were being asked by pollsters "should we go to war with Iraq?" why didn't any of them say "That's a silly question--we're already at war with Iraq"? For that matter, why was there a stink when it was learned that Bush had started (or rather, stepped up) bombing before getting the authorization from congress? If everyone knew that we'd been in a "HOT shooting war with Iraq for 15 years" there wouldn't have been any surprise at all.

You can't seriously claim that We The People authorized this war based on things we weren't told, but that the things we were told had nothing to do with it, can you?

And, as an aside, how could he have been "jerking us around" about WMD unless he actually had some?

--MarkusQ

Oh? Can you give me a chapter/page number? The only references I find are in chapter 2, chapter 4, and chapter 10, and they don't support the contention other than saying that the Bush administration believed it. Most of the mentions (e.g. Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan) and most of the press reports would seem to argue against your claim.

It Also confirmed that there was no credible intelligence PRIOR to the invasion indicating that the WMDs weren't where we expected them to be.

I suppose that UN weapons inspectors, who were trained in such matters and actually went there don't count as credible? There were, as you know, lots of reports indicating that the weapons weren't there--in fact, the vast majority of the intelligence argued against it, which is why the Bush administration have been accused of "cherry picking" the facts to support the policy they had already decided on. But of course, I suppose you can just write them all off as "incredible," as Bush seems to have done.

Further, we went in based on a whole host of other reasons, that are either accidentally overlooked or deliberately ignored... For example, we've been in a HOT shooting war with Iraq for 15 years. He's been jerking us around about WMDs for that entire time.

Nice dodge. There may have been many motivations for the people who sold us this war to have done so, but they can't be counted as reasons why we bought it unless they told us about them. For example, when people were being asked by pollsters "should we go to war with Iraq?" why didn't any of them say "That's a silly question--we're already at war with Iraq"? For that matter, why was there a stink when it was learned that Bush had started (or rather, stepped up) bombing before getting the authorization from congress? If everyone knew that we'd been in a "HOT shooting war with Iraq for 15 years" there wouldn't have been any surprise at all.

You can't seriously claim that We The People authorized this war based on things we weren't told, but that the things we were told had nothing to do with it, can you?

And, as an aside, how could he have been "jerking us around" about WMD unless he actually had some?

--MarkusQ

Oh? Can you give me a chapter/page number? The only references I find are in chapter 2, chapter 4, and chapter 10, and they don't support the contention other than saying that the Bush administration believed it. Most of the mentions (e.g. Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan) and most of the press reports would seem to argue against your claim.

It Also confirmed that there was no credible intelligence PRIOR to the invasion indicating that the WMDs weren't where we expected them to be.

I suppose that UN weapons inspectors, who were trained in such matters and actually went there don't count as credible? There were, as you know, lots of reports indicating that the weapons weren't there--in fact, the vast majority of the intelligence argued against it, which is why the Bush administration have been accused of "cherry picking" the facts to support the policy they had already decided on. But of course, I suppose you can just write them all off as "incredible," as Bush seems to have done.

Further, we went in based on a whole host of other reasons, that are either accidentally overlooked or deliberately ignored... For example, we've been in a HOT shooting war with Iraq for 15 years. He's been jerking us around about WMDs for that entire time.

Nice dodge. There may have been many motivations for the people who sold us this war to have done so, but they can't be counted as reasons why we bought it unless they told us about them. For example, when people were being asked by pollsters "should we go to war with Iraq?" why didn't any of them say "That's a silly question--we're already at war with Iraq"? For that matter, why was there a stink when it was learned that Bush had started (or rather, stepped up) bombing before getting the authorization from congress? If everyone knew that we'd been in a "HOT shooting war with Iraq for 15 years" there wouldn't have been any surprise at all.

You can't seriously claim that We The People authorized this war based on things we weren't told, but that the things we were told had nothing to do with it, can you?

And, as an aside, how could he have been "jerking us around" about WMD unless he actually had some?

--MarkusQ

...in February 1996...[t]he Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

It's amazing to me you will believe some website but you won't believe the findings of the 911 commission. I'll grant you the possibility of a relationship between Palestinian suicide bombers and Saddam. But there is no proof of any such relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam. This so called relationship was one of the primary reasons the Bush administration called for invading Iraq.

Afghan Muslims (including Saudi Muslims like bin Ladin)

Saudis are Arabs; Afghans are not. As far as I know, the US mostly founded Afghan Muslims.
Bin Ladin did not need any funding; he had enough from back home. In fact, that was his greatest contribution.

If you think I'm just making this up, feel free to read the 9/11 Report. It's in the first 70 or so pages (skip the parts about how the hijackings actually take place, the back story is far more interesting - incluidng the parts about Sudan, Somalia and the Balkans (if my memory serves me well)).

Except FISA doesn't really work very well. It takes weeks for the courts to respond and often by the time it responded with an "OK" it was too late, or the target had moved or was using something different and the process would have to be repeated.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

There are many interesting issues revolving around - if the US government can ignore the "right to bear arms" section of the constitution, then what else do they feel obliged to ignore when convenient.

Besides that, however, you can't use your own atmosphere of fear and extrapolate your reasoning and beliefs onto another culture.

As much as Austrlia is trying its best to absorb the "American Way (tm)", one thing we don't want is a constant feeling of fear.

I can't imagine what it must be like to think that your only ticket to safety is to own a lethal weapon that hopefully you'll be able to use sooner than the "predator" can.

I can't help but think that the "we have to protect ourselves", "it's our right to protect ourselves" thing is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. A kind of positive-feedback system, feeding itself.

But for all the guns, people wouldn't need so many guns.

I did some research for an ethics (engineering ethics, of all things) debate topic at university (not to demonise america - something to do with personal vs professional responsibility). In the same year 2,973 people were killed on 9/11 [1] - Americans felt obliged to "protect themselves" against fellow Americans, lethally, in 11,671 [2] homocides using guns.

America supposedly has the highest rate of gun deaths per capita in the world, and is home to something like 40% of the world's firearms.

Isn't this just a little bit alarming? Are you saying this is the "best way"? The "way it should be"? Is there no room for improvement here?

[1] pp2, http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/kadidal05260 5.pdf
[2] 2,749 (WTO) + 184 (Pentagon) + 40 (Flight 93) - pp552, http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Yeah, except for the guy that went back to the rental place to try to get his $400 deposit back after the truck was used to try to blow up the world trade center.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch3 .htm

Mohammed Salameh, who had rented the truck and reported it stolen, kept calling the rental office to get back his $400 deposit. The FBI arrested him there on March 4, 1993.

I'd love to have heard that conversation.

<thick-middleeastern-accent>
Yes, I rented your truck last week, I want the security deposit back. Where is the truck? Yes, well... funny thing is it was stolen. Well, I stopped to buy some donuts and when I came out it was gone. Where did this happen? Lower Manhattan. No, I didn't file a police report. Yes, I understand that, but... No, I can't file a report -- it was your truck, maybe _you_ should file this report. Look, I just want my money... Yes, I'll be there tomorrow morning!
</thick-middleeastern-accent>

I'll just mention that firstly, I think it's good you pointed out the hyperbole in the grandparent poster. I also think there have been more "fuckworthy" governments than GW Bush, but the thing is - not in any of our lifetimes, right? And that's where you've missed the point completely. You're focusing on the hyperbole but the real message was that it is disturbing to see these traits of oppression and totalitarianism (and an open disregard for your constitution, E.G. forcible disarming of the citizens of New Orleans) [hmm, I guess that was my turn for hyperbole]. [3]

So, anyway.. am I mis-reading the theme of your post here? That to expect responsible adults (and countries) to make ethical, rational decisions is too much to ask?

As screwed up as it sounds, these are the sole reasons I voted for Bush--screw Iraq, screw Afghanistan.

But to what extent? In these countries since the conflict began, they're accumulating deaths equivilent to a "911" attack every 3 months [2]. If the USA was getting 12,000 deaths a year [1] would they be happy about it?

Conversely, the Middle Eastern people created Bush and the administration. You reap what you sow doesn't care what side you're on.

It sounds like you're saying, "It isn't our fault we're arrogant bastards, it's everyone else's for not standing up and trying to fuck us back!".

It's my understanding that this is the type of attitude that lables America with the term "arrogant"; that they think if there's no conflict and confrontation, everybody must be happy with it.

People are still ultimately responsible for their choices and actions.

Incredible...

[1] pp2, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/47081. pdf
[2] 2,749 (WTO) + 184 (Pentagon) + 40 (Flight 93) - pp552, http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
[3] I think tightly regulated gun control is a good thing. Is America's culture and society ready for it? Probably not in all places. But if you're going to ignore the fucking constitution, exactly how does a citizen actually know what their rights are and what rules their government is playing by?

Wow, people still think Iraq was in any way tied to the attacks of 9/11?

Do us a favor and get informed, also in free e-book.

During the dispute over the 2000 presidential election, Roberts was part of a team of Republican lawyers and former Supreme Court law clerks who may have assisted the Bush-Cheney campaign.

The Republican party is trying to replace a moderate swing voter with a staunch conservative, one that assisted Bush in winning (or as some like to call it, stealing) the 2000 election.

Sounds like your main news sources are Fox News and the Republican National Committee.

Well, I remember when I started using internet, I wandered over to FBI web server and found there a web page simmilar to this. It was something like 1998 ... and yes, it did mention Bin Ladin in top ten most wanted people. I expect that a report delivered to White House having this name in, should ring a bell no matter what the rest of the report says.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

Here's a thought: You could actually work just a wee bit to find answers some answers for yourself. The logical, and popular, places to start would be 9-11 Commission and the important followup Intelligence Matters.

Of course, during this period where everyone gets to choose their own facts, you can choose to accept what is obvious to rational observers. Or not.

No one except, let's see... the 9-11 commission. Try reading it sometime. Here is a link to the search query for "fraudulent". It is freaking astounding. You are correct when you say that they did have valid documents on them, but the majority of these documents were indeed obtained fraudulently or had been fraudulently manipulated as well. For instance, many of the hijackers had had their passports fraudulently manipulated to conceal travel in and through Iran and Afghanistan, knowing full well that such travel histories would likely incur further scrutiny upon entry to the US or when applying for entry visas. I'll let you read the rest... the document manipulation capabilities of Al Qaeda were quite impressive.

I mean, that worked so well for Clinton- letting Al Qaeda attack the WTC and then not capturing them, not going to war, not increasing security.

Clinton was the worst president we ever had 4 years ago. Bush let al Qaeda attack the WTC and then didn't go out and capture them. Where's Osama? Bush did go to war but in the wrong country. Bush has done nothing to increase security... read the 9/11 Commission report if you disagree. The White House's own reports say terrorism has increased since 9/11.

Then again it's hard to change people's minds no matter how many "facts" you have. Right?

Uh huh. You need to put down Moore's crackpipe. I prefer information a little less psychotic and profitable, and a little more bipartisan.

The links with the exception of the 9/11 comission findings are somewhat dated.

What you did not quote from the report is this part:

According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Same location Chapter 2 (Paragraph 76)

The important word here is evidence. If Iraq actually would have hosted OBL at some point after the Afghanistan intervention, no ally to the US would have ever objected to taking on Iraq.

The 911 comission site contains some more interesting material. For instance this gem of wisdom from a hearing:

The perception of U.S. unilateralism over a military confrontation with Iraq may adversely affect international consensus and multilateral cooperation in the war against terrorism. As other issues rise to the top of the international political agenda, there is concern that multilateral cooperation may dissipate over time. There have been suggestions that it not only diverts attention away from the global war on terrorism but may lead to an overstretching of already stretched anti-terrorism and intelligence resources. The tendency to link Iraq with the issue of al-Qaeda remains unhelpful, as there exist limited credible evidence to suggest any active operational linkage exists or that it should constitute a real cause for immediate danger and concern. Mixing the two separate issues together have lead to confusion and divisions how to best respond and the likely consequences any U.S. military action may have in maintaining the quality of the global or regional coalition in the war against terrorism.

"The Problems Ahead in Forging An Effective Global Anti-Terrorism Strategy" Bullet point #9)

In my opinion the strategy to invade Iraq and especially the inept way this adimistration went about it, was a completly inadequat reaction to 911. Apparently you are still not willing to see this, so I suggest we just observe how the Iraq "adventure" plays out and chat about it again a year from now.

The links with the exception of the 9/11 comission findings are somewhat dated.

What you did not quote from the report is this part:

According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Same location Chapter 2 (Paragraph 76)

The important word here is evidence. If Iraq actually would have hosted OBL at some point after the Afghanistan intervention, no ally to the US would have ever objected to taking on Iraq.

The 911 comission site contains some more interesting material. For instance this gem of wisdom from a hearing:

The perception of U.S. unilateralism over a military confrontation with Iraq may adversely affect international consensus and multilateral cooperation in the war against terrorism. As other issues rise to the top of the international political agenda, there is concern that multilateral cooperation may dissipate over time. There have been suggestions that it not only diverts attention away from the global war on terrorism but may lead to an overstretching of already stretched anti-terrorism and intelligence resources. The tendency to link Iraq with the issue of al-Qaeda remains unhelpful, as there exist limited credible evidence to suggest any active operational linkage exists or that it should constitute a real cause for immediate danger and concern. Mixing the two separate issues together have lead to confusion and divisions how to best respond and the likely consequences any U.S. military action may have in maintaining the quality of the global or regional coalition in the war against terrorism.

"The Problems Ahead in Forging An Effective Global Anti-Terrorism Strategy" Bullet point #9)

In my opinion the strategy to invade Iraq and especially the inept way this adimistration went about it, was a completly inadequat reaction to 911. Apparently you are still not willing to see this, so I suggest we just observe how the Iraq "adventure" plays out and chat about it again a year from now.

There are laws on the books forbidding murder in every country - yes. However, that doesn't mean they are followed (remember Iran has the fatwa against Salman Rushdie - and don't even get me started on China honoring copyright laws on the books). Furthermore, the people we are talking about are NOT concerned with national laws. They are adherents to a radical, and distorted, view of Islam which expressly sanctions murder of innocents (cf. Section V. Killing Women, Children, and the Elderly is Permitted for one example.

Saddam did not "back" Radical Islamic terrorism any more than Islamic terrorism backed him - they were fellow travelers who found each other useful upon occasion. (see Weekly Standard article or, if you feel the source is too impugned despite the footnooting, how about the UK Guardian. Even the 911 report stated "Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army." Chapter 2

So, while there is no evidence that that 9/11 was directly plotted by Saddam, there is a -lot- of evidence of other cooperation on a variety of traning and supply matters. Add into that Saddam's demonstrated willingness to use WMD on his own population and against Iran in a war he started, then the case for preemption becomes stronger. Not that the case is proven, but statements like "The current administration got all their facts about Iraq plain wrong" ignores the evidence out there (much of which is contradictory, admittedly) as well as the consensus pre-war intelligence estimates of the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc. etc.

100 Facts and 1 Opinion

by JUDD LEGUM

[from the November 8, 2004 issue]

Click here to download, circulate and distribute a PDF version of this article.

IRAQ

1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress

2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

Sources: Fox News, The Boston Globe

3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.

Source: PBS

4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

Source: The Washington Post

5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.

Source: globalsecurity.org

6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.

Source: Yahoo News

7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission

8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.

Source: New York Times

9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.

Source: USA Today

10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Sa

According to the "9/11 Commission Report" (see http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1 1.htm), "...the 9/11 attacks revealed four kinds of failures: in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management." The US government had "tended to underestimate a threat that grew ever greater...Insight for the future is thus not easy to apply in practice. It is hardest to mount a major effort while a problem still seems minor. Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier-but it then may be too late."

Just as the media blasted the Administration for failing to detect and prevent 9/11, folks are now complaining this same administration was too trusting of limited intelligence, which led them to war with Iraq. Given a post-9/11 world, intelligence on possible threats was taken more seriously, because THE RISK OF MISSING A KEY THREAT INDICATOR WAS UNACCEPTABLE!

Place yourself in this situation: someone breaks into your house and steals all your computers (gasp). When the police investigator asks you if you've seen anyone suspicious in the neighborhood, you admit you haven't been watching that closely. The next day, you see an unfamiliar driving in your neighborhood. Honestly, what do you think? Is someone casing your house? Is the driver more a threat now that you've been robbed? You don't know who broke into your house, but I bet you're more aware of the possible dangers!

Now back to the real issue...the US was attacked! After 9/11, lots of critics asked "why didn't you see all the warnings?" Every piece of intelligence was then looked at with a new perspective. Even if the Administration was looking at just shadows and ghosts, their best information they had showed that Iraq was a threat. The "Neighborhood Watch" signs weren't working anymore. The added security patrols weren't working anymore. The perceived threats still existed, and the President AND CONGRESS took the actions they thought were proper!

It seems like everyone is blaming the President for using a level of imagination the 9/11 Commission accused them of not using prior to the attacks in 2001!

Why stop at reading "excerpts" of the 9/11 Commission Report?

Read the whole thing. (I did.) If you think the report somehow says that Bush did the right thing in invading Iraq, you clearly haven't been reading the right "excerpts". (Like, say, Chapter 2's detailing of the lack of substantive links between Iraq and al Qaeda.)

Why stop at reading "excerpts" of the 9/11 Commission Report?

Read the whole thing. (I did.) If you think the report somehow says that Bush did the right thing in invading Iraq, you clearly haven't been reading the right "excerpts". (Like, say, Chapter 2's detailing of the lack of substantive links between Iraq and al Qaeda.)

Bin Ladin's grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: "It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind." If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda's leaders said "desires death more than you desire life."

No, they didn't. In 2001 Congress passed a resolution passed authorizing military force in Afghanistan. Then in 2003, Congress passed a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq. At no point did Congress pass a declaration of war. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants to Congress the power to declare war.

How the heck does this guy think that "Iraq didn't pose a clear and present danger to the United States." Iraq was the source of the terrorism.

Saddam Hussein doesn't like the U.S. He did a lot of terrible things. But he didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission found no links between Iraq and 9/11. Check out their report here.

This past Sunday on Meet the Press, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said "I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

President Bush, when pressed, has said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Here is President George W. Bush, on Sept 17 2003: "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th"

But no, you're right. OK to stick you in jail for a while if it turns out the next Ted Bundy just happens to be your brother?

Please, there are plenty - plenty - of reasons to think the Saudis aren't our friends. Don't recycle wrong ones.

Why is it that you would not care to hear my words of dissent? Am I not free to speak them?

We hear your "words of dissent." I'm proud of the fact that in our country, you're free to voice them. But I'm under no obligation to agree with them or speak in a friendly tone. If it were up to you, you would plunge millions of Americans into utter squalor, and kill millions indirectly by cutting them off financially. If people like this ever come to power, there will be civil war, and I'll be the first to enlist.

The thing that makes Libertarianism truly insane is that you people don't take the theory to its obvious conclusions. If the government isn't going to be involved in regulating the quality of food, the infrastructure you rely on, and so forth, who is? And will they do it for free? Probably not. You'll wind up paying far more to corporations than you do currently to the government. Do you really want to get separate monthly bills for highway usage, number of minutes spent in the park, pounds of meat analyzed for e. coli, and so forth? Just picture your cell-phone bill and imagine getting one of those for everything you now take for granted.

But here's the real stumper: if Libertarians hate government so much, why do they want to get involved with it? It's obvious that you'll never see Libertarians come to power in your lifetime, so why make yourself crazy complaining about taxes and government control? If you hate this government so much, why not take more effective steps to eliminate it? If this Michael Badnarik was actually serious about his ideals, he'd crash a jet airplane into the Pentagon or something. Some guys actually did this already -- Maybe you've read about it.

If you want to live in America, get used to the idea that most people here don't want anarchy -- excuse me, I mean "Libertarianism." I love this country, and anyone actively trying to dismantle its government is my enemy.

- ben

As far as I can tell he doesn't believe that the United States is to blame as such, but that the Government of the United States is to blame. It would help the discussion if you didn't misrepresent his views. That said, this belief can be accounted for quite easily. The 9/11 commision wrote a little book that while not blaming the US Government exlusively, leaves a strong impression that the US Government wasn't as effective as it might have been, or might be expected, if the people who are getting the big bucks where doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Interesting. But our justifications for the Iraq invasion were links to al Qaeda and WMDs. I'm not defending Hussein's regime, mind you...I'm saying our reasoning for the invasion was flawed. Without significant change (i.e., massive beef-up in size) to our military, we can't invade every country with a group of terrorists in it. Our main beef (due to 9/11) was al Qaeda, which we seem to have forgotten about in the rush to Baghdad. We've still not run down ObL, and according to all the intel/terror alerts al Qaeda is still out there making threats against us and planning attacks (or at least keeping the Dept. of Homeland Security busy flipping the lights of the color coded alert system).

But we've been concentrating on Iraq, which, by all the post-invasion data, had nothing to do with 9-11/al Qaeda and no longer had the much-debated WMD's.

AARRRGGG!!!! Why won't these falsehoods die?! Their passports may have been issued in the true names of the terrorists, but they were still fraudulent. Try reading the complete 9-11 commission report. Specifically, page 563, note 32 claims that two of the hijackers had fraudulently manipulated their passports and that it is believed that up to 11 others did as well (their passports were not recovered from the wreckage). Apparently, the passports had been doctored to remove entrance and exit stamps of the countries the terrorists passed through enroute from Afghanistan to the US. This is the sort of information that immigration officials use to determine both the depth with which the entrant should be interviewed, as well as what additional surveillance would be required.

You don't have this kind of trouble in foreign airports that are BIGGER targets for this sort of thing.

You sir, have obviously never flown in or out of Ben Gurian airport in Tel Aviv, Israel... and it seems to have served them quite well.

> Which is why you have to present ID to rent a truck.
> Can we shut the fuck up now, please?

IDs might stop the casual, "oh, I think I'll blow up a building today" terrorist, but it's barely a speed-bump on the road to executing a serious attack.

> Have you not read the 9/11 Commission report? You are suffering from a
> failure of imagination.

Predictive failures aren't the only ones cited in the report. How can one predict THE method that will be used next in a sea of nearly limitless possibilities? That's why accurate counter-terrorism intelligence is central to the findings of the commission, and the source all that nice new funding. Funny how the FBI has a lot more openings now, specifically for would-be agents who want to do counter-terrorism surveillance.

For those who haven't parused the commission report:

clicky here. There are plenty of failures of imagination in the post-event analysis as well :)

Pure propaganda - chock full of deceit. The 9/11 commission report refutes virtually every point in the film.