Why didn't bin-laden assassinate Bush?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter schwarzchildradius
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the strategic choices made by terrorists during the 9/11 attacks, specifically questioning why they did not target President George W. Bush directly. Participants argue that the terrorists aimed to strike symbols of American power, such as the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, rather than the President, as eliminating Congress would have a more significant impact on U.S. governance. The conversation highlights the belief that the President's role is less critical than that of Congress in terms of legislative power and national stability. Ultimately, the consensus suggests that the terrorists sought to undermine American infrastructure and morale rather than simply eliminate a single leader.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of U.S. political structure, particularly the roles of the President and Congress.
  • Familiarity with the events and implications of the September 11 attacks.
  • Knowledge of military strategy and the concept of targeting in warfare.
  • Awareness of the psychological impact of terrorism on national sentiment.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the U.S. Presidential Succession Act and its historical context.
  • Study the strategic objectives of terrorist organizations in modern warfare.
  • Examine the psychological effects of terrorism on public perception and policy-making.
  • Analyze case studies of significant terrorist attacks and their intended versus actual outcomes.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for political analysts, historians, military strategists, and anyone interested in understanding the motivations behind terrorist actions and their impact on U.S. governance and society.

schwarzchildradius
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
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

Well, he is supposed to be irrelevant, isn't he? No one man is supposed to be all that powerful in this country!
 
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
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
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
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).

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.
 
Originally posted by Zero
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.

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 basically we would be ruled under marshal law. correct? or?
 
Originally posted by kat
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?

Hmmm...I was saying that killing the president would cripple us less than Congress...for the reasons you stated.
 
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...I was saying that killing the president would cripple us less than Congress...for the reasons you stated.

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
 
  • #10
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...
 
  • #11
Ted Stevens, senator from my state, is 3rd in line, so I've heard.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by russ_watters
I order you all to immediately buy and read a copy of "Executive Orders" by Tom Clancy.


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.
 
  • #14
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.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Phobos
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.

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...
 
  • #16
Originally posted by Zero
Actually, they were attacking sound military targets in a successful attempt to strike at our infrastructure.
Sound military targets? WTF? I'll give you the Pentagon, but the WTC can in no way be construed as a military target.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by russ_watters
Sound military targets? WTF? I'll give you the Pentagon, but the WTC can in no way be construed as a military target.

Well, compared to the targets that American troops hit...yeah, the WTC sounds like a 'good' place to hit.
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Zero
Well, compared to the targets that American troops hit...yeah, the WTC sounds like a 'good' place to hit.
Breathtaking. They must have loved you in whatever branch of the service you were in.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by russ_watters
Breathtaking. They must have loved you in whatever branch of the service you were in.

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.
 
  • #20
Oh, and isn't the WTC a more legitimate target than a wedding reception, or Canadians on an training exercise?
 
  • #21
Originally posted by Zero
Oh, and isn't the WTC a more legitimate target than a wedding reception, or Canadians on an training exercise?
I wouldn't even know where to begin explaining the term "error" to you in a way you would understand.
 
  • #22
Originally posted by russ_watters
I wouldn't even know where to begin explaining the term "error" to you in a way you would understand.

That's because, for you, 'error' can't exist if it contradicts Bush and his cronies. You can'r explain, because if you try to explain away what I said, you will have to lie to do so, and you have more integrity than that?
 
  • #23
I wouldn't even know where to begin explaining the term "error" to you in a way you would understand.
I know you're not talking to me with that post, but ...
that's a worthless post.
 
  • #24
Originally posted by Zero
Oh, and isn't the WTC a more legitimate target than a wedding reception, or Canadians on an training exercise?

I'm pretty confident that the U.S. never intentionally targeted such things during the recent wars. (If I'm wrong, I'd like to see the cite/reference for that.)

Intentially targeting civilians (WTC) is very different than accidental deaths resulting from valid military targets. I'll grant the catch-22 that when one engages in military action, it is expected that some civilian deaths will occur (so there is not total innocence).

Actually, they were attacking sound military targets in a successful attempt to strike at our infrastructure.

Stretching the point a bit I think. I agree that infrastructure can be a military target, but this was more economy than infrastructure and they did it in such a way that as many civilians as possible were killed on purpose.

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.

Agree.
 

Similar threads

News Bush as bad as bin Laden according to Canada
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
News Bin Laden's New Tape: Bush Misinterprets Public Opinion Polls
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
News Roflmfao bill blum gets osama bin laden's endorsement
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Bin Laden's Victory: Examining Richard Dawkins' Perspective
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
News Is Bush's Veto and War Rhetoric Justified?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
News President survives possible assassination attempt
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
News Bush REALLY Should be Impeached Now
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
News Bush NOT Honest & Trustworthy/Republican Lies
  • · Replies 238 ·
8
Replies
238
Views
29K