Rex Kickass Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics...ml?pagewanted=1 52 separate hijacking and suicide mission warnings to the FAA in 2001 and they still didn't really pay attention. Just wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Liberal.Media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Five of the intelligence reports specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings, the report said. Two mentioned suicide operations, although not connected to aviation, the report said. Or to spin it another way: Forty-seven of the fifty-two intelligence reports even failed to mention Al Qaeda in any way. Only two mentioned suicide operations and none of the fifty-two reports connected suicide operations to aviation. It just depends on what message you are trying to send. Of course, the NY Times is NOTORIOUSLY liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Serious question. How much intelligence do people think there is in regards to different types of terror attacks in different specific areas, targeting specific places sitting on these peoples desks right now? Especially after all of the interogating we have done, I'll bet there are reams of info on just about every target and method imaginable. Nuke plants, bio facilities, water supplies, landmarks, buildings, harbors, airports, hospitals, infrastructure etc... I'll bet it is all out there. How would you prepare for all of that? If we had 52 warnings before something happens, how many 10's of thousands of things are we sitting on now? I would be curious to see in these 52 warnings, were specific airlines/airports targeted? How many different ones were described if any? Was it just the east coast, or did they have wind of the full plot involving west coast airlines as well. And most importantly if we had a near blueprint of their plan, and had gone before Congress with it to request funding to protect against it, would it have ever even gotten out of committee? Somehow I doubt it including those conducted by the F.A.A.'s own security branch, that raised alarms about the growing terrorist threat to civil aviation throughout the 1990's and into the new century," the report said. declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it. The article states that no where in the warnings was a 9-11 style attack described, so what were the suicide attacks that were described? And what were the airport/airline warnings regarding? And if the airlines were given warnings, which this seems to indicate, and the airlines did nothing with the warnings, how should the government have responded? What recourse did they have? Could they have demanded more inspections and checkpoints? Could they have required closer passenger screening? This article raises a lot more questions than it answers for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 We're forgetting something. It was LEGAL to carry boxcutters onto the plane! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 07:10 AM) We're forgetting something. It was LEGAL to carry boxcutters onto the plane! I believe airlines can set whatever stricter standards they want. There are many areas that different airlines have diffferent cargo, checked bags, and carry on restrictions. The challenge the intelligence community has is sorting through threats without means and opportunity from threats with means and opportunity. It is really easy in hindsight to come up with the correct action, far harder when the stuff is mounding over your desk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 09:01 AM) I believe airlines can set whatever stricter standards they want. There are many areas that different airlines have diffferent cargo, checked bags, and carry on restrictions. The challenge the intelligence community has is sorting through threats without means and opportunity from threats with means and opportunity. It is really easy in hindsight to come up with the correct action, far harder when the stuff is mounding over your desk. I thought the FAA set the standards when it comes to knives, guns, etc. I'm just pointing out that they didn't break any laws getting on the planes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 I'm not blaming anyone or anybody actually. Reading the article, though, it just continues to blow my mind how the US government had been so complacent and ignorant to the imminent threat of terror attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 09:43 AM) I'm not blaming anyone or anybody actually. Reading the article, though, it just continues to blow my mind how the US government had been so complacent and ignorant to the imminent threat of terror attacks. I think if they jumped on every "imminent" threat we'd be on continuous lockdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 Here's where you're wrong. Common sense security increases could have made a difference. The FAA, and the Federal Government weren't, and frankly still aren't interested in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 09:52 AM) Here's where you're wrong. Common sense security increases could have made a difference. How? It was common sense to believe that someone would try to highjack a plane with boxcutters? While, I do agree that "Common sense and FAA" don't belong together. There's plenty of little old lady's without their knitting needles and nail clippers that would agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Common sense changes all the time. Common sense told us that the sun, moon, and stars revolved around the flat earth. Common sense would tell us that a box cutter couldn't cause an airplane to crash into the World Trade Center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 10:21 AM) Common sense changes all the time. Common sense told us that the sun, moon, and stars revolved around the flat earth. Common sense would tell us that a box cutter couldn't cause an airplane to crash into the World Trade Center. Tex, is this bizarro day? You agree with me here, you agree with me on the WalMart issue. OK, what'd you do with the real Tex? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 09:26 AM) Tex, is this bizarro day? You agree with me here, you agree with me on the WalMart issue. OK, what'd you do with the real Tex? I hacked his account and am posting as Tex.... wait til you see the PMs I sent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 10:30 AM) I hacked his account and am posting as Tex.... wait til you see the PMs I sent It all makes sense now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 09:26 AM) Tex, is this bizarro day? You agree with me here, you agree with me on the WalMart issue. OK, what'd you do with the real Tex? I'm a moderate. I side with conservatives on a lot of issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 10:50 AM) I'm a moderate. I side with conservatives on a lot of issues. Just not this one usually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 09:26 AM) Tex, is this bizarro day? You agree with me here, you agree with me on the WalMart issue. OK, what'd you do with the real Tex? And BTW, it is you that is agreeing with me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 10:59 AM) And BTW, it is you that is agreeing with me I knew it couldn't last very long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 10:01 AM) I knew it couldn't last very long. I logged out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 10:01 AM) I knew it couldn't last very long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.