NY Post 9/11

[92bDad]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...TCnkC1UbEdUfsO

[bobatundi]

Wow. What a nutjob.

[alexamenos]

glad someone else said it....after the beatles thing, I'm trying to be less contrarian.

Seems like a bad time to point out the extraordinary incompetence of our military on 9/11, when 19 guys with box cutters trumped the biggest military on earth....i mean jesus h christ, how many billions of dollars do we have to spend to buy a military that can protect its own headquarters from some schmuck from seat 18 b?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

glad someone else said it....after the beatles thing, I'm trying to be less contrarian.

Seems like a bad time to point out the extraordinary incompetence of our military on 9/11, when 19 guys with box cutters trumped the biggest military on earth....i mean jesus h christ, how many billions of dollars do we have to spend to buy a military that can protect its own headquarters from some schmuck from seat 18 b?

Except that the military's hands are tied (and rightfully so) when it comes to things that happen on American soil.

Civilian Government doesn't exist without the controls -- but it does leave it open to issues that the military cannot defend against without breaking the rules.

[mary]

I'd be willing to bet that guy thinks the Beatles are overrated too.

[Mavdog]

I'd bet the author is a huge pat boone fan who believes that rock and roll corrupts youth.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

glad someone else said it....after the beatles thing, I'm trying to be less contrarian.

Seems like a bad time to point out the extraordinary incompetence of our military on 9/11, when 19 guys with box cutters trumped the biggest military on earth....i mean jesus h christ, how many billions of dollars do we have to spend to buy a military that can protect its own headquarters from some schmuck from seat 18 b?

Our Military and many of our defenses were built to protect us from sovereign countries and their armadas. While I find certain aspects of the policies down right distasteful and think it's inconsistent to leave borders practically open while pitching the need for the Patriot Act, it was a pretty graphic statement that National Borders and the prior definition of armed forces was woefully outdated. Or maybe it was just the concept of criminality and acts of war.

Disposable cell phones and email make the old staking out the postal box and tapping landlines a dubious tactic. You can use a Starbucks or some neighbors unprotected wireless to transfer funds or have an international video conference that requires no airline tickets or passport stamps.

We're like a bunch of juiced up Golds Gym freaks that can lift the back of a dump truck but can't lift our arms over our heads to stop a bowling ball dropped from the roof from fracturing our skulls.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

glad someone else said it....after the beatles thing, I'm trying to be less contrarian.

Seems like a bad time to point out the extraordinary incompetence of our military on 9/11, when 19 guys with box cutters trumped the biggest military on earth....i mean jesus h christ, how many billions of dollars do we have to spend to buy a military that can protect its own headquarters from some schmuck from seat 18 b?

You serious alex? So is the military supposed to be on every plane now? NYC has the biggest police force in the world probably but there are still individual acts of violence.

If you want to point to incompetence you can point to the guvment intoto. The legislated separation between fbi and cia, our ignored immigration tracking systems, etc. But I would has to say the military in this case is pretty innocent.

We could get rid of all of those warships etc and then we could see how sweetly everyone would treat us.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You serious alex? So is the military supposed to be on every plane now?

Every plane? I'm not saying they should have been on every plane, I'm saying that they should have at least been on one plane which was headed straight for the Pentagon after two other planes had been rammed into the WTCs.

I bet had that plane not been hijacked by al qaeda, but had that plane been instead a tax-payer funded junket to the Caymens for the weekend, every officer at or above the rank of one-star general would have known its exact whereabouts.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Every plane? I'm not saying they should have been on every plane, I'm saying that they should have at least been on one plane which was headed straight for the Pentagon after two other planes had been rammed into the WTCs.

I bet had that plane not been hijacked by al qaeda, but had that plane been instead a tax-payer funded junket to the Caymens for the weekend, every officer at or above the rank of one-star general would have known its exact whereabouts.

Known, or not known..........do you know?

Could the military have intercepted it, and shot it down over a populated area? Quite possibly, but what would the consequences have been for the military shooting down a civilian plane with Americans on it? And the loss of life on the ground? How many more would have died?

Lawsuits three years down the line from family that would have said you couldn't prove it was hijacked. You couldn't have proven there was no other way to get it down. Lawsuits from the families that would have said it didn't need to be shot down over populated area, etc.

Bad situation, but the military isn't to blame on this one.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Could the military have intercepted it, and shot it down over a populated area? Quite possibly, but what would the consequences have been for the military shooting down a civilian plane with Americans on it? And the loss of life on the ground? How many more would have died?

It's more than 'quite possible' that the military could have intercepted and shot down flight 77. The Pentagon was hit 45 minutes after the first WTC was hit, more than an hour after it was evident that multiple planes had been hijacked. That's ample time to fly a fighter from a hundred or so miles away, so I think it's fair to say that the military absolutely should have been able to do such a thing.

What would the collateral damages been had the military shot down one or more of the planes? Well...what would the damage have been had flight 77 hit a heavily populated center rather than an unused portion of a massive government bureaucracy?

The pentagon got lucky on this one, and by and large they got luckier by completely escaping any criticism of their readiness on 9-11. The fact is that our gazillion dollar Department of "Defense" did nothing on 9-11...nothing.

[dude1394]

very much monday-morning qbing imo. This was all decision making, it has nothing to do with your hatred of the gazillion dollars spent on the military. A very,very cheap military would have been just as effective. If they had decided in a timely manner to shoot it down, they would have shot it down.

The only thing stopping them was their reluctance to kill a very large number of americans, not some lack of capability.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

A very,very cheap military would have been just as effective.

Without a doubt, a very very cheap military would have been just as effective as ours on 9-11.

[aquaadverse]

Except for that pesky Posse Comitatus Act. And having to rely on the FAA to relay information. There were hundreds of planes and thousands of targets.

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_13.htm

It's not a matter of being able, it's a matter of being allowed. Wouldn't happen today.

[bobatundi]

I'm not going to try to second-guess what the military, the police, the FAA, the TSA, or anyone else should have done eight years ago. The problem I have is with the psycho writing this hate-mongering editorial, essentially calling for the extermination of Islam. Doesn't he realize that this is the attitude that makes other countries hate the U.S.?

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by bobatundi

I'm not going to try to second-guess what the military, the police, the FAA, the TSA, or anyone else should have done eight years ago. The problem I have is with the psycho writing this hate-mongering editorial, essentially calling for the extermination of Islam. Doesn't he realize that this is the attitude that makes other countries hate the U.S.?

You can find no end of psychos writing no end of vile things. I'm pretty sure he isn't really concerned about our national image. Which has freedom of speech as a pretty strong principle.

Many countries wouldn't allow something like this to be published at all.

You put it in front of a bunch of people and gave it wider circulation. While it's always interesting observing the insane, I'm pretty sure we're hated for what we do far more than what we say.

Our economic colonialism and exploitation and widely out of proportion consumption of resources probably gins much more hatred.

[Usually Lurkin]

just to reply to alex (rather than visit the link up there) - we were woefully ill-prepared for Pearl Harbor, too. But in both cases, a dirt cheap military would not done as good a job reacting to the event as did our super-trillion dollar bureaucracy of killing power. Are we better prepared for such an event now? I think so (at least if you believe the reports about how we've stopped a couple). Are we better prepared for the next surprise attack that is performed in a way we don't expect? Uh . . .

[bobatundi]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

You can find no end of psychos writing no end of vile things. I'm pretty sure he isn't really concerned about our national image. Which has freedom of speech as a pretty strong principle.

Many countries wouldn't allow something like this to be published at all.

You put it in front of a bunch of people and gave it wider circulation. While it's always interesting observing the insane, I'm pretty sure we're hated for what we do far more than what we say.

Our economic colonialism and exploitation and widely out of proportion consumption of resources probably gins much more hatred.

I didn't put it in front of anybody, let's make sure our facts are in order.

I just hope people are smarter than to buy this crap. No problem with one guy publishing it...just as he should have no problem with me calling him a nutjob for doing so.

[92bDad]

I just went back and re-read the Op-Ed piece...what exactly are people offended by, or why is this guy a nutjob?

Seems to me like he called it like he sees it and quite frankly, I don't have an issue with his view of what has happened over the past 8 years.

Please fill me in, point by point of what it is that you disagree with in his written piece?

[aquaadverse]

[QUOTE=bobatundi;1027608]I didn't put it in front of anybody, let's make sure our facts are in order.

Sorry about that, I was wrong and apologize.