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

I hate to keep bringing it up but

  1. Apr 8, 2004 #1

    amp

    User Avatar

    Is there any truth to the allegation the Russian Prez V. Putin warned Prez Bush during the summer of 2001 that terrorist were planning to hijack planes to use in an attack? There is much of this going around about what was known or unknown.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 8, 2004 #2

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I don't know about Putin giving a warning, but the concept was a matter of public knowledge. There were also specific warnings from the Philipines that terrorists had planned to hijack planes there and crash them into buildings. They also had plans to fill a light plane with explosives and fly it into the pentagon, though this involved no hijacking.

    Njorl
     
  4. Apr 8, 2004 #3

    amp

    User Avatar

    Questioning

    So if this was public knowledge, why didn't the Bush admin implement immediate measures? Why wasn't (to my knowledge) this information brought up during the questioning by the 911 commission?
     
  5. Apr 8, 2004 #4
    My personal view is that although all the warnings did exist - what could actually be done? Before 9-11, there were no terrorists plots of note which put any country on full alert to the threat of being savagely attacked. I'm thinking that the info that some militant group was planning to bomb the WTC with planes would have had the same credentials as any other terrorist warning.

    I think that there was no way to physically stopped 9-11 as such. US policy was too hated around the world meaning dozens of groups were willing to attack the USA. It was just a "coincidence" that the group behind the 9-11 attacks (whoever they may be) struck first and that was truly unfortunate.
     
  6. Apr 8, 2004 #5
    It's hard to point to any one thing that could have stopped 9/11. I mean you cant just say, if Pres. Bush had looked at a memo that Dick Clark had sent him, it would have stopped 9/11. But what we know now is that there was in fact quite a bit of information reguarding a possible attack within the united states, by al-queda, possibly using planes. I think that if the Bush administration had been much more proactive in fighting terror, and had been more alert to any direct warnings (which there were in fact), that could have led to other information that had a reasonable chance of stopping 9/11.
     
  7. Apr 8, 2004 #6
    ehh, I think that misses the obvious-- instead of heading out on a month long vacation right after getting a brief that Al Qa'ida is planning an attack inside the US using hijacked planes-- he could've attacked Bin Laden. He did Not do that, instead he took break.
     
  8. Apr 8, 2004 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I will defer to my new signature as my comment. :cool:

    “Since I fought in Vietnam I have not seen an arrogance in our foreign policy like this" - John Kerry

    [Luckily I never fought in VN but you get the idea]
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2004
  9. Apr 8, 2004 #8

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  10. Apr 9, 2004 #9
    Ja, but I don't think that would have been a feasible option. What right did Bush have pre 9-11 to go and bomb out whoever he felt like bombing? As any other memo's containing any warnings, the fact of the matter is that you don't know for certain that the attack is going to happen. In this case it did BUT what about the other 1000's of warnings which have just come and gone like a one-hit wonder song :biggrin:

    I think that accusing Bush of basically, leaving his citizens in their time of desperate need (ie. his going on vacation as schwarzchildradius pointed out) is nonsense. I stand by my conviction that nothing could really be done but investigate the probability rather than enact any rash judgements ie. bomb Bin Laden.

    Also, (and I know this may be a little out of place but it is my opinion) as far as I'm concerned - I don't 100% blame Bin Laden for it. Maybe the investigation occurring at the moment will truly reveal the source but I will be a bit of a conspiracy theorist and say that even though the "evidence" points towards him, it was a joint affair with other organisations - both legitimate and illegitimate. BUT this is a debate for a different thread so... :cool:
     
  11. Apr 9, 2004 #10

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There were a lot of little things that could have been done that might have given us a small chance at preventing the attack.

    The CIA, immigration and the FBI could have communicated better. If the various low-level people were informed of plans for a big attack inside the US, activities could have changed. The CIA could have re-informed immigration of suspected terrorists who entered the US. Immigration could have made a point of tracking down many of these individuals, the FBI could have engaged in surveillance of these individuals. This alone would have discovered that several of them were taking flying lessons. Interviews with the flight instructer would have revealed that they were not interested in learning how to take off or land.

    Other things would not have been possible. Even if Bush had gone on television and stated that Al Qaeda had terrorists in the US who would try to hijack planes and crash it into skyscrapers, we wouldn't want the added hassle at airports. The news all summer had been about the unacceptable delays when flying. The security was only possible after the attacks.

    Njorl
     
  12. Apr 11, 2004 #11
    I disagree with ya, because Clinton's security team stopped several potentially massive attacks inside the US around the millenium. Sure it's unfair to lay all the blame on Bush, and I don't, but if he and his intelligence crew can't crack a nut once in a while then, who the heck can? It's his job to put intelligence from diverse sources together to render at least a rough picture of the real threats to the US security. As I recall, the US was on high alert already on 9/11 & was conducting defensive training ops at the time. This leads to other questions, like why did it take so long to get the jets near the planes, as the official story goes (or it could be that the jets were there but nobody gave the command to fire).
     
  13. Apr 11, 2004 #12
    Shhh...don't mention Clinton.

    The fact is, though, that Bush's administration had every reason to suspect exactly what was going to happen, and apparent;y did nothing to try to prevent it.
     
  14. Apr 12, 2004 #13
    Rumours and Lies

    Posted by Janitor:
    “Rumors involving politicians are always interesting, but I wonder how often there is really anything of substance to them.

    Here, for example, is one that seems to imply that L.B.J. was responsible for ordering murder.”

    Ah, although that story may be a rumour, I have it on good authority that LBJ was indeed instigated in a couple of murders.
    A little incident named "Viet Nam".
     
  15. Apr 13, 2004 #14
    Considering the fact that at least one of the commission members have already come out saying that the likely conclusion is that 9-11 could have been prevented, I would say that the "Bush is Jesus, he can do no wrong my head is buried in the sand" attitude resembles the attitude that Bush had, that helped lead to 9-11.
     
  16. Apr 13, 2004 #15
    I love to see 5 or 6 people sit around and tell each other how much they agree with one another :smile:
     
  17. Apr 13, 2004 #16

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I thought the questioning of Condoleezza Rice was unnecessarily rude.

    By the way, can you imagine the outrage that organizations like N.O.W. and the N.A.A.C.P. would have expressed over the style of questioning of Rice if she were a member of a Democrat cabinet, and it were a Republican doing the questioning in exactly the same style? "A public lynching..."
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2004
  18. Apr 13, 2004 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The thing I find funny is the very things that people are mad at Bush for not doing for 8 months, Clinton didn't do for 8 years.

    ... and that's putting it nicely: what Bush really needed to do was fix Clinton's policy mistakes (ie, restructure the FBI and CIA) - a task not easily done in 8 months.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2004
  19. Apr 13, 2004 #18

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I've always been registered Democrat, but by no means do I vote straight-ticket. I find it hard to respect those people (and I personally know a few) who maintain a double standard when it comes to political parties. They love to wallow in the lack of scruples displayed by John Sununu, but they have no interest in discussing the lack of scruples by Jim Wright--or vice versa.
     
  20. Apr 13, 2004 #19

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    This is simply false. The "Kerry Amendment" to which you refer, was to cut 1.5 billion over 5 years from the NRO (National Recon. Office), not the FBI and CIA. The NRO had been hoarding black budget money to buy a fancy new building, and it pissed off Kerry. His amendment was voted down in favor of Republican backed cuts for twice as much, across the board in the intelligence agencies and bureaus. Kerry's cuts would have had no impact on counter-terrorism. The bipartisan cuts that were instead implemented did have an effect on counter-terrorism.

    Senator Kerry was not an "inept nitwit", he was prophetic.

    Njorl
     
  21. Apr 13, 2004 #20

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    One more thing. North didn't mention Bin laden. It is a myth propogated by right wing web-sites. He was convinced Abu Nidal was after him. It was just another of North's paranoid delusions, like Nicaragua having the capacity to launch an amphibious assault on the US and occupy Texas.

    Njorl
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: I hate to keep bringing it up but
  1. Screwed up? i think so (Replies: 9)

  2. I hate (Replies: 20)

Loading...