9/11 again again...

[tzor]

Did a 9/11 scale event occur before then? No? So your justification is a Regression Fallacy, then? Your personal perception of the risks jumped after 9/11, but actually it was still the same as before, even during 2001.

Did you even bother to look at the link I provided?

19 Apr 1995: truck bombing of federal building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA (169)
31 Oct 1999: intentional crash of Egypt Air flight off Massachusetts, USA, by pilot (217)

[NativeJovian]

A few hundred people -- terrible though it is -- isn't even the same order of magnitude as what happened on 9/11... which is exactly what Heath was trying to point out. Saying "there hasn't been another 9/11 scale attack, we must be doing something right!" is fallacious because it assumes that there would have been another 9/11 scale attack by now, and we stopped it. Given that 9/11 was beyond anything else we've ever seen, you could use the same logic to "prove" that we were safe in 2001 by pointing at the terrorist attacks in the 90s and say "there haven't been any attacks that killed around 3,000 people, so our security must be good enough to prevent something of that magnitude."

It's also worth noting that neither of the incidents you mention were acts of Islamic terrorism. The Oklahoma City bombing was domestic terrorism, and the Flight 990 crash was either a mechanical failure or the pilot committing suicide depending on who you ask (but certainly not terrorism in either case) -- I actually have no idea why it's on a list of terrorist attacks. So how does either of those incidents have anything to do with showing how the US is any safer due to the war on terror?

[tzor]

A few hundred people -- terrible though it is -- isn't even the same order of magnitude as what happened on 9/11... which is exactly what Heath was trying to point out. Saying "there hasn't been another 9/11 scale attack, we must be doing something right!" is fallacious because it assumes that there would have been another 9/11 scale attack by now, and we stopped it.

In one sense the 9/11 attacks were unique. We can go into detail about why they were unique but the fact is that there never was an attack anywhere in the thousands and there most likely will never will be again. That’s why I was using the 100+ criteria. Even Bin Laden did not expect the towers to completely collapse and the death toll in the thousands. Any well coordinated multiple attack scenarios that have casualties in the hundreds could be considered a 9/11 type attack.

[NativeJovian]

So, basically, rather than responding to Heath's point, you're ignoring it. Great.

Take a look at your own list. In the eight years before 9/11 (to match the eight years since then), there were no "major" terrorist attacks by Islamic terrorist groups in the US, and there was exactly one against US targets -- the embassy bombings in 1998 (which only killed 12 Americans; the rest of the hundreds of deaths were locals).

Does that really prove anything? Is that actually evidence that we're safer now than we were then? Can you honestly tell me that?

[Crissa]

Yeah, I really like the point that dealing with bin Laden lawfully was somehow too difficult. Why does your timeline turn to overthrowing a government? It's not like we went into the country and arrested him... Or anyone connected to the 9/11 event. That happened long after, and via other countries.

And really, tzor's list of terrorist bombs ignores the numbers of civilians and our military killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, which dwarf the dead on 9/11 by several magnitudes.

-Crissa

[Morzas]

Oh, but you forget one important detail: they weren't Americans, so they don't count!

EDIT: Wow, completely misread the above post. I blame my H1N1! Caught it at PAX.

[Neeeek]

Oh, but you forget one important detail: they weren't Americans, so they don't count!

Just the number of Americans killed in Iraq is more than double the number killed on 9/11. About 1.5 if you exclude mercenaries.

[ckafrica]

I'm showing my respect

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Afghanistan provided al Qaeda, with, pretty much, room to put stuff and people. The Taliban didn't have the resources to do a whole lot else, and, really, Afghanistan big and mountainous, if you want to hide there you can pretty much just do that (as we've found out).

Sure, they could hide out in caves, but could they have put together training camps in the open without the Taliban's consent?

Saudi Arabia is where the hijackers came from, Saudi Arabia is where Bin Laden got his fortune from. But they're our oil dealer, so we can't make them do anything or they'll cut us off.

I do agree that we're way too soft on Saudi Arabia because of our oil needs. And it's ridiculous that most Americans don't realize most of the hijackers were from that country.

And here's a partial timeline of the events following 9/11, which confirms that the only offer the Taliban made before the bombing started was to try bin Laden in an Islamic court, presumably in Afghanistan, the country run by his friend and father-in-law. It's clear that the Taliban's conduct falls short of "offering to do everything in their power" to bring bin Laden to justice.

[Roy]

Now, I don't know anyone who died in any terrorist attack. And as I am extremely apathetic, particularly regarding people I don't know I don't really care.

With that said I ask you this. Do you really want them dwelling on it? I'd be pretty fucking ticked off if people kept reminding me that I lost someone I cared about. It's been 8 years. Anyone who has lost someone has long since past any reasonable period of grieving and doesn't need sensation seekers digging up their past traumas to use for ratings and political agendas as they were trying to move on with their lives.

Fuck off with the mentioning of it.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Also, if we WANTED Bin Laden, we'd have him already. We spent months after 9/11 sabre-rattling and giving his relatives flights out of the country so he could pack up his dialysis machine and find a new place to hide. Bin Laden's health is broken and he needs to be hooked up to machines a couple times a week or he dies. There is a finite number of places where he could hide and not die.

Bin Laden is more interesting as a distraction to bring him to justice.

[violence in the media]

Well, that's possible.

There is a finite number of places where he could hide and not die.

Given the whole of the universe, this statement remains true. Well done.

[Crissa]

I'm not sure why you're confusing the prior Afghani government with the ruling party and religious sect, the Taliban.

They, like Iran, had a two-part government where a religious, non-democratic group of imams and warlords had veto power over a republican, democratic central government.

The central government did not control any army, certainly not one disloyal to bin Laden, a revolutionary war hero to them - remember, he came from a rich country to fight and win when they had lost against the Soviets. He had one of the first victories, before the Taliban was formed in Pakistan refugee camps and returned from exile to Afghanistan.

We made no attempts to arrest him. We destroyed the civilian government willing to arrest him, even though their terms were more generous than any we give to another country claiming someone residing in our country has committed a terrorist act in another country.

And, as tzor has pointed out for me, more people have died in terrorist actions since 9/11 than in the eight years prior.

What have we done to make this not happen again? Only Flight 93 and the brave gay man who reduced the number who could have died that day shows any difference.

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

You know.

Of all the 9-11 conspiracy theories.

One I give real credence to is that the last plane was shot down.

As I recall events at the time there were media reports of jet fighters tailing it. Reports that sort of just, got forgot about later.

There have since been media reports of Cheney basically declaring himself acting president and giving the order to shoot planes down. The reports on that never precisely explain the context of that.

And the various "called me on the mobile" and "rushed the cabin with a trolley as a battering ram" stories are rather silly and emerged well after events.

That plane was shot the fuck down. On Cheney's orders by the only jets that managed to get near the things. That's OK. Maybe. But the heroic kamikaze passenger story sounds a lot like a bunch of bunk.

[Kaelik]

Frankly, if Cheney did declare himself president, shoot the plane down, and then order the fabrication of it, that would be his greatest act as Vice President.

But honestly, I'm going to have to go with the same thing I say to all nine eleven conspiracies.

Yes, it is 'unlikely' that the passengers rose up to take out the attackers based on a phone call about suicide hijackers.

It is far more unlikely that the government could actually shoot down a plane and not have that ever get out.

I'd bet one of those pilots would have mentioned it, or one of the people in the chain between Cheney and them, or one of the people who otherwise overheard the order.

[Zherog]

Only ... the brave gay man who reduced the number who could have died that day shows any difference.

-Crissa

Would you do me the kindness of elaborating on this, because I'm not sure to what you're referring? Gracias.

[Crissa]

Mark Bingham is said to have led the suggestion to storm the flight deck of the hijacked Flight 93, which would have crashed into one of the Capitol buildings or being shot down over Washington DC. NEADS fighters had been sent out over the ocean, hundreds of miles from the path of the airliner, and were chasing the wrong aircraft until after the crash.

Hijackings will most likely be resisted more violently than before. What else can you think of that we've done to reduce the risk?

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

My memory of on the day media coverage includes claims that the plane in question had been seen by eye witnesses with jets on its tail.

Those reports just got forgotten about afterwards and never spoken of again.

But that's what I remember seeing on the news.

And it meshes in remarkably well with the time line of Cheney going off his nut in "undisclosed location" and yelling at the staff that he totally had authority to approve shooting down the planes.

Reports of actions involving Cheney, Bush and seniour officials on the day by those officials Include officials saying they contacted Cheney to say they had "jets in the air and just needed authorisation to shoot it down" and that they received that authorization, from Cheney, up to half an hour before it went down. Bush also gives authorization to shoot the plane down, reports here are very mixed what with Cheney, sometimes, claiming he had Bush's authority on this from the get go, but it's anywhere from half an hour before to 10 minutes after the crash, but according to certain prominent journalists with Bush at the time he also approved shooting it down a little under 10 minutes before the plane went down.

This stuff is actually pretty extensively documented.

[Crissa]

The jets, however, were not over PA, but instead over the Atlantic 100 miles east of DC at their rally point. They then failed to find Flight 93 and followed a different flight instead.

There was a private jet in the area of Flight 93's crash, however.

Your timeline is nice, but irrelevant to the location of the dispatched NEAD fighters and the copious amount of recorded audio about the activities on Flight 93.

I'm not even sure what your point is supposed to be, except evidence that you're willing to believe scattered 'reports' rather than verifiable evidence.

-Crissa

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Also, if we WANTED Bin Laden, we'd have him already. We spent months after 9/11 sabre-rattling and giving his relatives flights out of the country so he could pack up his dialysis machine and find a new place to hide. Bin Laden's health is broken and he needs to be hooked up to machines a couple times a week or he dies. There is a finite number of places where he could hide and not die.

Bin Laden is more interesting as a distraction to bring him to justice.

I'll agree that the Bush administration used bin Laden as a distraction and a justification for their perpetual "war on terror." The fact that they started another war rather than aggressivel try to track down bin Laden speaks volumes.

They, like Iran, had a two-part government where a religious, non-democratic group of imams and warlords had veto power over a republican, democratic central government.

I'd love to see you back that up, since I can't find any evidence of it online. But even if what you say is true, you're arguing that the U.S. shouldn't have declared war on Afghanistan because some figurehead with no real power to deliver made promises that were easily vetoed by the real rulers.

[Zherog]

Mark Bingham is said to have led the suggestion to storm the flight deck of the hijacked Flight 93, which would have crashed into one of the Capitol buildings or being shot down over Washington DC. NEADS fighters had been sent out over the ocean, hundreds of miles from the path of the airliner, and were chasing the wrong aircraft until after the crash.

Thanks, now I know who you're talking about. Didn't know he was gay. And don't particularly care either, honestly. *shrug*

[PhoneLobster]

I'm not even sure what your point is supposed to be, except evidence that you're willing to believe scattered 'reports' rather than verifiable evidence.

So you prefer to believe the passengers seriously stormed a locked cabin with a tea trolley and flew the plane into the ground. And that it took a week for the mobile phone bullshit about it to surface?

Basically your counter to the suggestion that the government shot the plane down, like it decided to do and just after it decided to do it then just said it didn't is... that they say they didn't.

Because that's what your "they say there were no jets in the area" line amounts to. If the government was going to deny they shot it down then pretty much by definition it involves them denying planes were present.

You just like your little trolley story.

[Crissa]

Thanks, now I know who you're talking about. Didn't know he was gay. And don't particularly care either, honestly. *shrug*

No, you'r right, it's quite irrelevant. Except in all the documentaries they omit his boyfriend and sexuality, which just heteronormatizes him.

I had no idea that PL thinks it's easier to convince all 35+ people phoned and all the federal traffic controllers and pilots to allow their words to be changed to cover up a shoot-down. Very odd. Or that it would take longer to report such disparate information than a pat story fed by an authority.

'd love to see you back that up, since I can't find any evidence of it online. But even if what you say is true, you're arguing that the U.S. shouldn't have declared war on Afghanistan because some figurehead with no real power to deliver made promises that were easily vetoed by the real rulers.

Well, I didn't say we shouldn't have invaded. But we killed all the police, destroyed the civilian government, and started a civil war by backing insurgents unsupported by the populace and who made their money trafficking illegal goods and such. That's what we did. We didn't capture bin Laden, we shot the police and arrested the guy who drove the tractor at his ranch.

...I'm very interested that all the information on Afghanistan prior 9/11 has been pretty much overwritten by modern occurrences. Anyhow, yes, that's how an Islamic Republic works. You have a civil government and a shadow Islamic government and then Islamic courts. It's not like our three-part government, as it's more like five major parts, with some having veto powers over others and some not having really any power at all yet expected to do all the deal-making.

Yes, their power was limited. So that's a reason to shoot them?

-Crissa

[Username17]

In other news: anyone who talks about nanothermite residue pretty much loses all credibility instantaneously. Nanothermite residue is just aluminum dust. It's what you get when you crush pretty much anything in the modern world.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

I think those people who believe it took explosives to take down the twin towers do so for a reason.

They want to believe it took more than just a couple of planes to do it.

Because they want those big permanent looking buildings that make up their cities to feel more permanent and immovable.

The rather alarming reality is those things are fragile. Worse still a lot of them have shelve lives, short ones, many were, and still are not built with much consideration for making them last in the genuine long term. I read an interesting article on it once a long time ago. Short story, expect various bits to be just falling off modern skyscrapers within our lifetimes.