quote:

---

Originally posted by Vladimir Scorpius:
Actually, I have several questions about planes flying into skyscrapers.

Why did the United States Air Force fail to scramble interceptor jets — in defiance of all long-standing rules and well-established practice — for almost two hours after it was known that an unprecedented four planes had been hijacked?
I don't believe it's accepted practice to destroy hijacked planes. Hijackers, more often than not, have a goal in hijacking a plane besides destroying buildings, and sending jets to scare the bejesus out of the highjackers gives them the wrong idea and jeopardizes any people in the aircraft.

How could the world's most powerful military fail to react throughout a prolonged, horrifying attack on the financial and political capitals of the nation?
"Prolonged, horrifying attack"? You make it sound as if we saw this coming. The attacks were bolts of the blue, and the US would consume massive amounts of time and resources vigorously pursuing every potential threat. As it is in this kind of affair, by the time you know for sure what's going on, several weeks have passed since the attack.

How did the FBI know the exact identities of the hijackers within 24 hours of the attacks? If their files were so readily to hand, why hadn't they been apprehended earlier? After all, several conscientious FBI agents had raised the alarm about a number of known Al Qaeda sympathizers at U.S. flight schools, and had been ignored.
Suspicions were raised on them -- but not credible suspicions, not ones which would lead an immediate investigation or apprehension. In the US, it is not possible to arrest a man because you have a hunch about him being willing to commit a crime, nor should it ever be so.

Why did Donald Rumsfeld call for a war on Iraq (not Afghanistan) the morning after the Saudi hijackers had accomplished their attack?
Because Donald Rumsfeld is an irrational warmonger. You knew this, right?

Why did the two squadrons of fighter jets at Andrews Air Force base, 19 kilometres from Washington, not zoom into action to defend the White House, one of their primary tasks?
Why were the planes at Pearl Harbor mostly destroyed on their carriers? After all, there were obvious warnings about the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
The answer to both is that there was no state of alarm at the time of the attacks. Asking the US to be on constant alert against any remotely credible threat would be insane.

Why did George Bush sit for half an hour in a Florida classroom, listening to a girl talk about her pet goat, after his chief of staff told him about the second plane? For that matter, why did he pretend that he first learned of the attacks in that classroom, when he had actually been briefed as he left his hotel that morning?
So far as I'm aware, the final sentence of this paragraph makes false assumptions -- Bush couldn't have been briefed about the attacks before they happened, could they? He was there for PR, plain and simple.

Why has there been no public investigation into the billions of dollars "earned" by insider trading of United and American Airlines stock before 9/11?
1½ good questions out of 7.

I don't think these questions have been answered yet.
It's idiotic questions like most of these that prevent more valid, sane ones from being answered, too. Conspiracy-theory nonsense allows the powers that be to propaganda away genuine concerns about the events following the 9/11 attacks as "insane conspiracy theories".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by el presidente:
I don't believe it's accepted practice to destroy hijacked planes. Hijackers, more often than not, have a goal in hijacking a plane besides destroying buildings, and sending jets to scare the bejesus out of the highjackers gives them the wrong idea and jeopardizes any people in the aircraft.

I see you've dished out the rhetoric right from the get-go. You've changed "the accepted practice of interceptor jets" to "the accepted practice of blowing up planes". Then you go on to describe why blowing up planes is a bad thing. And then you automatically equate the "better choice" to military policy. All I have to say is...huh?


"Prolonged, horrifying attack"? You make it sound as if we saw this coming. The attacks were bolts of the blue, and the US would consume massive amounts of time and resources vigorously pursuing every potential threat. As it is in this kind of affair, by the time you know for sure what's going on, several weeks have passed since the attack.

(I didn't phrase the questions. A well-respected Canadian journalist did.)

So...you think it would be a waste for the US would consume "vast amounts of time and resources" in order to stop further terrorist attacks? You don't consider two wars to be "vast amounts of time and resources"?

Suspicions were raised on them -- but not credible suspicions, not ones which would lead an immediate investigation or apprehension. In the US, it is not possible to arrest a man because you have a hunch about him being willing to commit a crime, nor should it ever be so.

It's not possible to arrest a man for a potential crime? What about all those people sitting in jail with no evidence and no trials forthcoming? What about the USA's policy on dealing pre-emptively with Saddam? Do you agree with these now, Alec? The US does what it likes.

Because Donald Rumsfeld is an irrational warmonger. You knew this, right?

It's so easy and fun to say "the Bush administration is filled with idiots". Sort of like how Disney poked fun at Hitler during the war, by making him out to be incompetent. (Except that...gasp! He wasn't!) But they all got their jobs because they're at least of average intelligence.

Why were the planes at Pearl Harbor mostly destroyed on their carriers? After all, there were obvious warnings about the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
The answer to both is that there was no state of alarm at the time of the attacks. Asking the US to be on constant alert against any remotely credible threat would be insane.

Again, you've transformed "protecting the leader of the country" to "being on constant alert against any remotely credible threat". Not the same, Alec. It's not hard to protect a single, vital target. Once again, drop the rhetoric.

So far as I'm aware, the final sentence of this paragraph makes false assumptions -- Bush couldn't have been briefed about the attacks before they happened, could they? He was there for PR, plain and simple.

It was after the attacks, before the PR event.

1½ good questions out of 7.

Wow. A "good question", and you decided not to answer it.

It's idiotic questions like most of these that prevent more valid, sane ones from being answered, too. Conspiracy-theory nonsense allows the powers that be to propaganda away genuine concerns about the events following the 9/11 attacks as "insane conspiracy theories".

6 000 000 people died in the world's largest conspiracy. Killing 2000 is a hell of a lot easier. Especially when they're helpless sheep who consider asking questions to be "idiotic".

I'm not saying it's probable that the USA launched an attack on itself. Just possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vladimir Scorpius:

quote:

---

Originally posted by el presidente:
I don't believe it's accepted practice to destroy hijacked planes. Hijackers, more often than not, have a goal in hijacking a plane besides destroying buildings, and sending jets to scare the bejesus out of the highjackers gives them the wrong idea and jeopardizes any people in the aircraft.

I see you've dished out the rhetoric right from the get-go. You've changed "the accepted practice of interceptor jets" to "the accepted practice of blowing up planes". Then you go on to describe why blowing up planes is a bad thing. And then you automatically equate the "better choice" to military policy. All I have to say is...huh?

Okay, my bad if I screwed this up. The second point still stands, though -- sending out interceptors to meet the hijackers is going to give them the wrong idea in a serious way.


"Prolonged, horrifying attack"? You make it sound as if we saw this coming. The attacks were bolts of the blue, and the US would consume massive amounts of time and resources vigorously pursuing every potential threat. As it is in this kind of affair, by the time you know for sure what's going on, several weeks have passed since the attack.

(I didn't phrase the questions. A well-respected Canadian journalist did.)

So...you think it would be a waste for the US would consume "vast amounts of time and resources" in order to stop further terrorist attacks? You don't consider two wars to be "vast amounts of time and resources"?
(I love how you try to rile people up by using the material of a third party. It's like you don't even think about these things until after you've posted them.)
I didn't say I agreed with the war. I said that it would be patently insane to pursue any vaguely reasonable terrorist threat, as it would involve a clampdown on civil liberties and a huge amount of resources being expended. Your arguement seems to state that not predicting the attacks' occurence lead inevitably to two wars.

Suspicions were raised on them -- but not credible suspicions, not ones which would lead an immediate investigation or apprehension. In the US, it is not possible to arrest a man because you have a hunch about him being willing to commit a crime, nor should it ever be so.

It's not possible to arrest a man for a potential crime? What about all those people sitting in jail with no evidence and no trials forthcoming? What about the USA's policy on dealing pre-emptively with Saddam? Do you agree with these now, Alec? The US does what it likes.
I said that pre-emptive arrest is wrong, and that it's not something that is accepted process here. Learn to read, dickweed.[/qb]

Because Donald Rumsfeld is an irrational warmonger. You knew this, right?

It's so easy and fun to say "the Bush administration is filled with idiots". Sort of like how Disney poked fun at Hitler during the war, by making him out to be incompetent. (Except that...gasp! He wasn't!) But they all got their jobs because they're at least of average intelligence.
I didn't call him an idiot. I called him "irrational" because he has produced no evidence to substantiate his claims of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the Bill of Rights being threats to American security. Please learn to read these things more carefully; this will be the fourth out of four times you've "refuted" me on something I didn't say, implicitly or explicitly, and on something I'd agree with you on.
Please read these things before responding to them.

Why were the planes at Pearl Harbor mostly destroyed on their carriers? After all, there were obvious warnings about the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
The answer to both is that there was no state of alarm at the time of the attacks. Asking the US to be on constant alert against any remotely credible threat would be insane.

Again, you've transformed "protecting the leader of the country" to "being on constant alert against any remotely credible threat". Not the same, Alec. It's not hard to protect a single, vital target. Once again, drop the rhetoric.
You claimed that fighters should have been scrambled to protect the White House. The President was not in the White House after the attack, and before the attack there was no state of alert. We don't make a practice of protecting the President with combat aircraft unless there is a state of alert. So either you're asking why we didn't protect a President who was not there, or why we didn't protect him before and risked having him get killed in an attack we had no evidence to suggest.

So far as I'm aware, the final sentence of this paragraph makes false assumptions -- Bush couldn't have been briefed about the attacks before they happened, could they? He was there for PR, plain and simple.

It was after the attacks, before the PR event.
Again, so far as I'm aware, the PR event was at the same time as the attacks, more or less.
1½ good questions out of 7.

Wow. A "good question", and you decided not to answer it.
Do I look like the CIA to you? I can't very well answer good questions, as they're the sort I'd ask myself.

It's idiotic questions like most of these that prevent more valid, sane ones from being answered, too. Conspiracy-theory nonsense allows the powers that be to propaganda away genuine concerns about the events following the 9/11 attacks as "insane conspiracy theories".

6 000 000 people died in the world's largest conspiracy. Killing 2000 is a hell of a lot easier. Especially when they're helpless sheep who consider asking questions to be "idiotic".
Exactly. Why are you giving the people conspiring against them fuel by asking stupid questions?

I'm not saying it's probable that the USA launched an attack on itself. Just possible.
It's possible. It's also possible that Israel engineered this attack on us. It's no more likely, but hey, the various theocracies and despotisms of the Middle East sure latched onto it.

---

---

quote:

---

Scorp, they can arrest people now because of the Patriot Act. Before the planes hit, that bill would probably have been murdered, if not by the legislative chambers, then by the press.

I don't see any conspiracy to cause the attack here. It just doesn't seem credible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by el presidente:
Learn to read, dickweed.

---

quote:

---

Please learn to read these things more carefully;

---

quote:

---

Please read these things before responding to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Manfluffer:
Aw, would you people shut up? Your simple, stupid little formulas, Republicans = Bad and Democrats = Good, do not work; nor does Liberal = Good, or Conservative = Bad. EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT.

---