Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How will Bushco downplay this?

  1. Apr 21, 2004 #1

    amp

    User Avatar

  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 21, 2004 #2

    amp

    User Avatar

    Hughes check the link- it is a news report about the US having fighter jets practice for just what occured on 9/11- it was before 9/11 long enough before so that Bushco claim of non-knowledge starts to appear weak and feeble. Unless of course they weren't sent invitations with date and time of exercise, in which case they can claim ignorance.
     
  4. Apr 21, 2004 #3
    Sorry. I was lazy, and it caught up with me.
     
  5. Apr 21, 2004 #4
    Condi Rice is the most imcompetent liar in an administration full of them.
     
  6. Apr 22, 2004 #5
    Maybe she could take some lessons from Sen. Kerry, who is a VERY experienced competent liar, in a party that is full of them.
     
  7. Apr 22, 2004 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Back up a sec: what is there to downplay? Ie, what is the significance of that report?
     
  8. Apr 22, 2004 #7
    Rice testified before Congress that although they were informed that Al Qaeda was about to hijack airplanes and plan a major terrorist attack against the world trade center, nobody could have possibly imagined that terrorists could have hijacked airplanes and flown them into buildings.

    Even though it appears that not only did many people imagine it, the military planned for it. And in the past terrorists actually planned to fly a plane into the WH, and in the nineties some republican christian nutjob actually flew a plane into the WH, and the list goes on and on.
     
  9. Apr 23, 2004 #8

    amp

    User Avatar

    Thanks Chemecalsuperfreak, I didn't think one had to spell it out. Now... about those orders to stand down when the hijackings were already known...the origin of those orders????? >>> Sherlock would have fun with this!
     
  10. Apr 25, 2004 #9
    Off-topic.
     
  11. Apr 25, 2004 #10
    Military shoots down 4 passenger jets killing 500(?) civies. Somehow i dont think that would go down well with u guys :confused:
     
  12. Apr 25, 2004 #11

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Nice philosophical point. Would it be legitimate to kill 500 people in order to save 3000?
     
  13. Apr 25, 2004 #12
    Wouldn't it be killing 500 civilians to save 2,500, since the people who died that were in the planes were counted in the total casualty count?

    Even if the military was prepared for that, knew about the 4 hijacked planes and could have dispatched jets to stop them, what could they really have done? Shooting down passenger planes would get them enough ****, but shooting down a passanger plane in the middle of New York City? It would have been just as huge an explosion, but in some other place. Hell, if the plane exploded at the base of some large building, even more people could have died, since the building would likely collapse sooner (if not instantly), and no one could actually get out the bottom exits, since they'd be up in flames...

    Quite a dillema the military would be in, the only thing they could really do would be try to somehow guide the plane off course, but what could they do to veer suicide bombers off course?
     
  14. Apr 25, 2004 #13

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I thought Zero was paying a compliment to Condi, et.al.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2004
  15. Apr 26, 2004 #14
    the point i was making was not the dilemma of killing 500 to save 2500.
    Shooting down the 4 planes would not result in the entire world believing that 2500 were saved, it would infuriate the globe. It would be hard to resist blaming it on Bush wouldnt it?
     
  16. Apr 26, 2004 #15

    amp

    User Avatar

    Politically speaking- your saying it had to happen to get the emotional/volitional commitment required for pre-emptive measures. Shades of Star Trek, this point was examined though I think not the civil implications, as far as I remember. Might that be the reason the jets were ordered to stand down... to wait and see what happened? What the hijackers would do?
     
  17. Apr 26, 2004 #16
    what im saying is, no matter what decision the military or Bush made it would always be wrong according to certain peeps. I think that includes you amp.
     
  18. Apr 26, 2004 #17

    kat

    User Avatar

    studentx- right on the nose.
     
  19. Apr 26, 2004 #18
    Right on the nose if you're after another logical fallacy, sure.
     
  20. Apr 26, 2004 #19

    amp

    User Avatar

    Unfortunately ,your wrong StudentX BTW Adam which fallacy- StudentX, I say unfortunately because I would have had the mil. jets following the planes in the shortest possible response time. Which I believe they were known to be hijacked no more than 20 mins after take off, I really need to know when or rather how long after they were hijacked it was reported to pertinent officials. Anyways, while following the hijacked jets the mil interceptors would have orders from me to force touch down of jets should they start to vector towards densely populated areas. As Prez I would have taken responsibility in that No-Win situation.
     
  21. Apr 26, 2004 #20
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: How will Bushco downplay this?
  1. How comical (Replies: 46)

  2. How to read the DOW (Replies: 13)

Loading...