...they got tons of warnings about different stuff all the time, among which this was one of them.
Really? Do you have anything to support this theory?
What are these 'tons of warnings' you're referring to?
Ehm, the fact that the US is a world major player and as such, lots of different groups see benefit in striking a blow against them, will indicate that threats from someone somewhere are pretty commonplace. It's why CIA etc exists at all.
And I'm certain they get memos, warnings, reports etc from their thousands of employees and field agents on a daily basis. (Not everyone reporting every day, but something being delivered on something every day). This is straight from what I've read of press coverage of a report (sic) on how the US intel works, that found that it was far too many reports from too many people from too many different places for anyone to keep up. It's why they're reforming and why they established a department of homeland security.
A warning in this system will be just another piece of data, which a lot of dedicated employees are crunching and deciding on what to put in (the far too many) reports, that then are delivered to the political heads. Bin Laden was on their radar, but he had been for a long time, as doubtlessly many others have been and are. You get reports every time someone has heard something. I can easily imagine that top political leaders will just ignore the warnings after a while, especially since little materializes for a long time. (Was quite a spell there between embassy bombings and 9/11.
As my support I posit all the reports and media that has been about and around the american intel system and it's reform. Secondly I apply my general knowledge about how large government bureaucracies function, since I'm working in one. I've been around enough leaders at various levels in the organization that I have an idea about how they tick and what they react on. (Also how they may easily tune out if their attention is repeatedly drawn towards something they dont see the immeniate danger in.)
My point isn't that noone did anything wrong or that nothing hsould and could have been handled better. I also say that they did lie about the scandal that was Iraq.
What is your source that the intel system and army were "told to stand down".
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
one would imagine it would be dependent upon where the intelligence came from as to whether it was acted upon or not. we have reason to believe an unknown number of terrorists are planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings thatd be enough to get me tightening security and looking a little closer at people. there really was no duty of care.
You hear similar stories daily, you might not take them that seriously after a while. Not smart, but it happens.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
one would imagine it would be dependent upon where the intelligence came from as to whether it was acted upon or not. we have reason to believe an unknown number of terrorists are planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings thatd be enough to get me tightening security and looking a little closer at people. there really was no duty of care.
You hear similar stories daily, you might not take them that seriously after a while. Not smart, but it happens.
Peace
Dan
actually no i dont. i hear about some singular fool who got caught either on a plane or at the airport.
but you know if i had heard intelligence about a possible terrorist attack i d be thinking back a few years to when terrorists tried to blow up the tallest building in NYC and maybe just be that little bit more alert. i know itd be quite the operation to have all airports on guard, but id def be thinking about what would be involved in such an attack, worst case scenario. at the least id have put sky marshalls or some sort of security personnel on planes just in case you know. and yes its so easy to sit back with the benefit of hindsight at and speak of what we would or wouldnt have done. i just think the US govt dropped te ball big time on this and im not all that confident they wouldnt drop the ball again. all that can be done now is to learn from the mistakes made. it might also help to rejigger that foreign policy too.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Indeed. Balls were dropped, and foreign policy also has something to say.
The point is you can't be on alert all the time. If you are, you aren't alert.
They have lots of people that think worst case all the time, but you can't listen to worst case people all of the time. Nothing would ever get done that way. My point is still that I find it far more likely with negligence (even criminal negligence if you will), than any plot allowing it to happen deliberately.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
And I'm certain they get memos, warnings, reports etc from their thousands of employees and field agents on a daily basis. (Not everyone reporting every day, but something being delivered on something every day). This is straight from what I've read of press coverage of a report (sic) on how the US intel works, that found that it was far too many reports from too many people from too many different places for anyone to keep up.
And what report is that? Care to share it with us?
Whenever a report of a planned terrorist attack is discovered it's immediately plastered all over the media and is the front story for the next 24 hours - like the alleged planned attack against the Pope's visit to London a couple of weeks ago, which subsequently turned out to be just a bunch of cleaners who who were overheard talking about his visit and not terrorists at all. Yet you're trying to make us believe the government gets handed hundreds of such reports daily? Sorry, but there is absolutely no truth in that at all.
What is your source that the intel system and army were "told to stand down".
I didn't say anyone was told to stand down.
N.O.R.A.D was engaged in training exercises on 9/11 and was unable to perfom it's duties. This was the first time it had ever been rendered ineffective. It was also the first time that Dick Cheney had been placed in command of N.O.R.A.D and it was the first time it failed, despite hundreds of false alarms that same year prior to 9/11 when N.O.R.A.D worked and planes were dispatched without any delay.
I've been around enough leaders at various levels in the organization that I have an idea about how they tick and what they react on. (Also how they may easily tune out if their attention is repeatedly drawn towards something they dont see the immeniate danger in.)
But the government wasn't repeatedly drawn to any threats of terrorism. They didn't ignore the report entitled 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' because they had been receiving such reports every day. This is just something you've made up.
In any case, I wasn't suggesting that YOU or I hear this everyday. I am suggesting the people in charge hear this every day (or regularly enough). And when the same worry warts come up with the same things for months and months on end without anything actually happening, you may ignore what you shouldn't.
So that "nothing" got done (or rather not enough) is not any good indication of a plot. It does indicate that the information flow should be differently organized, which they promptly adressed with a new department.
So this is a poor indicator of a plot in itself. It can be easily and sufficiently explained by bureacratic quirks, too much information perhaps, and (if you will) a few people not being alert at the time. Stuff that now looks obvious, look obvious because we know what ended up happening. We dont know all the info they get about stuff that doesnt happen. So applying a bit of slack in the 20/20 hindsight, doesnt paint it as obvious that someone "let" it happen.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I've been around enough leaders at various levels in the organization that I have an idea about how they tick and what they react on. (Also how they may easily tune out if their attention is repeatedly drawn towards something they dont see the immeniate danger in.)
But the government wasn't repeatedly drawn to any threats of terrorism. They didn't ignore the report entitled 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' because they had been receiving such reports every day. This is just something you've made up.
My point isn't that there aren't reports. The question is how many other reports circulate about other things, and what is ultimately done about what is reported.
Too many people think of government as a single person or something. When in fact everything the government does involves a host of people for the simplest tasks. Stretching a bit to do what the people in the organization think is right or necessary can be done. Blackops targeted at people "we" generally dont like happens alot. However, for a state organization to actively break every barrier it's members will have spectacularly like this, requires way more control over the organization than they ultimately have. The state cannot infact do anything "on it's own". It is staffed to the rafters with "regular people".
So if the warning was so undeniably clear and imminent, the leaders could not possibly have put a lid on it which wouldn't explode in their faces at some point in the rather near future. It seems the warning report wasn't that clear and imminent. You can't start to close down the entire US airport system because someone think that Bin Laden might do something in the future. You'd need pretty rock solid evidence for that. It appears it wasn't viewed as that. Now, also in big complex organizations, you have people who then goes out and says "told you so!", because to them it looked clear. But that's rather akin to all the "I told you the world economy was gonna collapse" people that turned out right after the financial crisis was a fact.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I wasn't suggesting that YOU or I hear this everyday. I am suggesting the people in charge hear this every day (or regularly enough).
I know that's what you were saying, and I'm saying that they don't. You're suggesting that the leadership receives reports daily warning of an imminent threat of attack from terrorists.
So if the warning was so undeniably clear and imminent, the leaders could not possibly have put a lid on it which wouldn't explode in their faces at some point in the rather near future. It seems the warning report wasn't that clear and imminent.
From the C.I.A's point of view it was clear and imminent. And for anyone who reads the report - including you or me - it was clear and imminent, as the above article I posted makes evident.
It was clear and imminent and it did explode in their faces during the 9/11 commission investigation, but because those responsible had already made sure that the 9/11 commission was essentially powerless the issue - along with the dozens of other issues - was brushed under the carpet.
At the very least, they should be tried and prosecuted for gross negligence and dereliction of duty.
At the very least, they should be tried and prosecuted for gross negligence and dereliction of duty.
See, I don't necessarily disagree with that. My point isn't to excuse them of responsibility, just outlining that it probably doesn't go much further than negligence or "dereliction of duty" if you will. That's serious enough.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
My main feelings on sept 11 and the london train and bus bombings was at both attacks the disatster relief teams were already in place. Doing Drills
once. yep bare arsed luck
but twice on 2 of the biggest terrorist attacks in history
FEMA in place sept 10 ?????
london bombings
On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.
Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.
Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.
I dont belive these act were carried out by either the Us or the UK governments. But I think they may have allowed it to happen. not the whole gov, just a few in the right positions
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
thing is with chomsky there is no bias or opinions involved, for the most part. he is simply going by international law and statements made by public figures.
Comments
Ehm, the fact that the US is a world major player and as such, lots of different groups see benefit in striking a blow against them, will indicate that threats from someone somewhere are pretty commonplace. It's why CIA etc exists at all.
And I'm certain they get memos, warnings, reports etc from their thousands of employees and field agents on a daily basis. (Not everyone reporting every day, but something being delivered on something every day). This is straight from what I've read of press coverage of a report (sic) on how the US intel works, that found that it was far too many reports from too many people from too many different places for anyone to keep up. It's why they're reforming and why they established a department of homeland security.
A warning in this system will be just another piece of data, which a lot of dedicated employees are crunching and deciding on what to put in (the far too many) reports, that then are delivered to the political heads. Bin Laden was on their radar, but he had been for a long time, as doubtlessly many others have been and are. You get reports every time someone has heard something. I can easily imagine that top political leaders will just ignore the warnings after a while, especially since little materializes for a long time. (Was quite a spell there between embassy bombings and 9/11.
As my support I posit all the reports and media that has been about and around the american intel system and it's reform. Secondly I apply my general knowledge about how large government bureaucracies function, since I'm working in one. I've been around enough leaders at various levels in the organization that I have an idea about how they tick and what they react on. (Also how they may easily tune out if their attention is repeatedly drawn towards something they dont see the immeniate danger in.)
My point isn't that noone did anything wrong or that nothing hsould and could have been handled better. I also say that they did lie about the scandal that was Iraq.
What is your source that the intel system and army were "told to stand down".
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
actually no i dont. i hear about some singular fool who got caught either on a plane or at the airport.
but you know if i had heard intelligence about a possible terrorist attack i d be thinking back a few years to when terrorists tried to blow up the tallest building in NYC and maybe just be that little bit more alert. i know itd be quite the operation to have all airports on guard, but id def be thinking about what would be involved in such an attack, worst case scenario. at the least id have put sky marshalls or some sort of security personnel on planes just in case you know. and yes its so easy to sit back with the benefit of hindsight at and speak of what we would or wouldnt have done. i just think the US govt dropped te ball big time on this and im not all that confident they wouldnt drop the ball again. all that can be done now is to learn from the mistakes made. it might also help to rejigger that foreign policy too.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The point is you can't be on alert all the time. If you are, you aren't alert.
They have lots of people that think worst case all the time, but you can't listen to worst case people all of the time. Nothing would ever get done that way. My point is still that I find it far more likely with negligence (even criminal negligence if you will), than any plot allowing it to happen deliberately.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
And what report is that? Care to share it with us?
Whenever a report of a planned terrorist attack is discovered it's immediately plastered all over the media and is the front story for the next 24 hours - like the alleged planned attack against the Pope's visit to London a couple of weeks ago, which subsequently turned out to be just a bunch of cleaners who who were overheard talking about his visit and not terrorists at all. Yet you're trying to make us believe the government gets handed hundreds of such reports daily? Sorry, but there is absolutely no truth in that at all.
I didn't say anyone was told to stand down.
N.O.R.A.D was engaged in training exercises on 9/11 and was unable to perfom it's duties. This was the first time it had ever been rendered ineffective. It was also the first time that Dick Cheney had been placed in command of N.O.R.A.D and it was the first time it failed, despite hundreds of false alarms that same year prior to 9/11 when N.O.R.A.D worked and planes were dispatched without any delay.
No you don't.
But the government wasn't repeatedly drawn to any threats of terrorism. They didn't ignore the report entitled 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US' because they had been receiving such reports every day. This is just something you've made up.
In any case, I wasn't suggesting that YOU or I hear this everyday. I am suggesting the people in charge hear this every day (or regularly enough). And when the same worry warts come up with the same things for months and months on end without anything actually happening, you may ignore what you shouldn't.
So that "nothing" got done (or rather not enough) is not any good indication of a plot. It does indicate that the information flow should be differently organized, which they promptly adressed with a new department.
So this is a poor indicator of a plot in itself. It can be easily and sufficiently explained by bureacratic quirks, too much information perhaps, and (if you will) a few people not being alert at the time. Stuff that now looks obvious, look obvious because we know what ended up happening. We dont know all the info they get about stuff that doesnt happen. So applying a bit of slack in the 20/20 hindsight, doesnt paint it as obvious that someone "let" it happen.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
My point isn't that there aren't reports. The question is how many other reports circulate about other things, and what is ultimately done about what is reported.
Too many people think of government as a single person or something. When in fact everything the government does involves a host of people for the simplest tasks. Stretching a bit to do what the people in the organization think is right or necessary can be done. Blackops targeted at people "we" generally dont like happens alot. However, for a state organization to actively break every barrier it's members will have spectacularly like this, requires way more control over the organization than they ultimately have. The state cannot infact do anything "on it's own". It is staffed to the rafters with "regular people".
So if the warning was so undeniably clear and imminent, the leaders could not possibly have put a lid on it which wouldn't explode in their faces at some point in the rather near future. It seems the warning report wasn't that clear and imminent. You can't start to close down the entire US airport system because someone think that Bin Laden might do something in the future. You'd need pretty rock solid evidence for that. It appears it wasn't viewed as that. Now, also in big complex organizations, you have people who then goes out and says "told you so!", because to them it looked clear. But that's rather akin to all the "I told you the world economy was gonna collapse" people that turned out right after the financial crisis was a fact.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I know that's what you were saying, and I'm saying that they don't. You're suggesting that the leadership receives reports daily warning of an imminent threat of attack from terrorists.
They don't.
From the C.I.A's point of view it was clear and imminent. And for anyone who reads the report - including you or me - it was clear and imminent, as the above article I posted makes evident.
It was clear and imminent and it did explode in their faces during the 9/11 commission investigation, but because those responsible had already made sure that the 9/11 commission was essentially powerless the issue - along with the dozens of other issues - was brushed under the carpet.
At the very least, they should be tried and prosecuted for gross negligence and dereliction of duty.
See, I don't necessarily disagree with that. My point isn't to excuse them of responsibility, just outlining that it probably doesn't go much further than negligence or "dereliction of duty" if you will. That's serious enough.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
once. yep bare arsed luck
but twice on 2 of the biggest terrorist attacks in history
FEMA in place sept 10 ?????
london bombings
On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.
Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.
Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.
I dont belive these act were carried out by either the Us or the UK governments. But I think they may have allowed it to happen. not the whole gov, just a few in the right positions
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
thing is with chomsky there is no bias or opinions involved, for the most part. he is simply going by international law and statements made by public figures.