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

Why didn't bin-laden assassinate Bush?

  1. Jun 2, 2003 #1
    Bush's schedule was public knowledge and it is easily possible that the jet that went down in Pennsylvania was headed for either the Senate or the White house. The terrorists used intelligence and were not stupid, so why did they opt to strike military beauracrats and soldiers, and Wall Street engines of capitalism instead of a "decapitating" strike at the commander in chief? Did they think that the president was irrelevant to US foreign policy?

    __________
    "Accept the outcome of a free election" - - Mikhail Gorbechev 1 9 8 9
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 2, 2003 #2
    Well, he is supposed to be irrelevant, isn't he? No one man is supposed to be all that powerful in this country!
     
  4. Jun 2, 2003 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The best speculation I heard was that the 4th plane was headed to Washington as well. Bush wasn't there, so the more likely target would have been Congress. That would be far more damaging than taking out the president and I think Bin Laden though nuts was smart enough to know that.
     
  5. Jun 2, 2003 #4
    How would they be able to find and reliably hit the particular building the president was going to be in, at the particular time he was there? The Pentagon plane was supposedly believed to be actually intended for the White House / Congress, which are apparently very hard to find from the air. What if Bush had survived, or changed his schedule? -- then it's useless. And in any case, the President is just one guy; probably worse for OBL if it President Cheney instead. The White House, etc, are national symbols, and include lots of the top people who keep things running... losing an entire administration would be much more of a blow than merely getting a new leader.

    Who knows, though.
     
  6. Jun 3, 2003 #5
    That's a good point, it would have been much more devastating to eliminate what 30-100 senators? Yet that does not cripple our military (as much as I'd expect a presidential whacking would).
     
  7. Jun 3, 2003 #6
    Nope, wouldn't do much...that's why we have chain of command. Everyone get's bumped a notch, and it slows the military down not at all.
     
  8. Jun 3, 2003 #7

    kat

    User Avatar

    Actually, for the senate and reps. wouldn't there need to be a quorum to pass legislation, including a declaration of war? and to replace senate and reps, doesn't there need to be an election? I had just read an article about this..I can't rmember where..but basicly we would be ruled under marshal law. correct? or?
     
  9. Jun 3, 2003 #8
    Hmmm...I was saying that killing the president would cripple us less than Congress...for teh reasons you stated.
     
  10. Jun 3, 2003 #9

    kat

    User Avatar

    Oops@! sorry, misread..at any rate, here's the link to the article for those who have not read it: http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.13208/news_detail.asp
     
  11. Jun 3, 2003 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I order you all to immediately buy and read a copy of "Executive Orders" by Tom Clancy. It begins with a terrorist crashing a plane into the Capitol Building where there is a joint session with the President giving a speech. Everyone is killed - except of course for Vice President Jack Ryan who is running a little late....
     
  12. Jun 5, 2003 #11
    Ted Stevens, senator from my state, is 3rd in line, so I've heard.
     
  13. Jun 5, 2003 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yeah.

    Presidential Succession
     
  14. Jun 5, 2003 #13

    I second this order...it is an excellent book, and as most of Clancy's work, tends to be educational as well. A good read.
     
  15. Jun 5, 2003 #14

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    They weren't attacking the Bush Administration, they were attacking America.

    If they see Americans as weak-willed, then attacking our leadership may only serve to enrage us. But attacking our citizens, economy, & symbolism would break our backs. Or so they thought.
     
  16. Jun 5, 2003 #15
    Actually, they were attacking sound military targets in a successful attempt to strike at our infrastructure. In addition, they acheived their goal of forcing America to react precipitously, in order to unify Arab sentiment against America. They have made us see the world on their terms.


    The terorists won, folks...
     
  17. Jun 5, 2003 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Sound military targets? WTF? I'll give you the Pentagon, but the WTC can in no way be construed as a military target.
     
  18. Jun 6, 2003 #17
    Well, compared to the targets that American troops hit...yeah, the WTC sounds like a 'good' place to hit.
     
  19. Jun 6, 2003 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Breathtaking. They must have loved you in whatever branch of the service you were in.
     
  20. Jun 6, 2003 #19
    Yep..they offered me something like $26,000(before taxes, split over 4 years) to re-enlist!

    Breathtaking, huh? Economic power is political power, and hitting the infrastructure of that power seems a sound military target to me. Better that than hitting water treatment plants, so that no one has fresh water.
     
  21. Jun 6, 2003 #20
    Oh, and isn't the WTC a more legitimate target than a wedding reception, or Canadians on an training exercise?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Why didn't bin-laden assassinate Bush?
  1. Bin Laden 'surrounded' (Replies: 15)

  2. New Bin Laden tape (Replies: 5)

Loading...