4 ms·

> There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. With 20/20 hindsight,

> There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. With 20/20 hindsight, yes. Intelligence services are constantly going through massive amounts of information trying to pick out credible threats. When they eventually miss one, sure, it looks obvious in retrospect. But I bet there's dozens of "kill the evil Westerners" speeches happening in third world countries around the world right now. And then when there's a military raid or drone attack on someone who gives such a speech, people get outraged. It's a no gratitude, no-win business for the intelligence services, who actually seem to be doing a pretty outstanding job that's really difficult and important.

stevejalim 16y ago
Argh - sorry - I meant to upvote this from 1 and clicked down to 0 instead! :o( Wish there was a way to undo that click, given how small the arrows are...
GiraffeNecktie 16y ago
Did you even read the article? This wasn't about some random chatter happening in some far corner of the globe it was about: - An actual identified terrorist showing up at a US flight school. The agents who had him in custody were begging for permission to investigate what was on his laptop and they were denied. - The team that was charged with the job of testing airport security were actively prevented from doing their jobs (and later, after 9/11, disbanded) I don't see how anyone could brush this off as just "20/20 hindsight".
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- lionhearted 16y ago
  The problem is, you're ignoring false positives. Reports of potential threats happen frequently. The overwhelming majority of them are false positives. > Did you even read the article? ... An actual identified terrorist showing up at a US flight school. Did I read the article? "A foreign intelligence service promptly reported that he had connections with a foreign terrorist group" -> Not exactly an actual identified terrorist. "Had connections with a foreign terrorist group" could be anything. And which foreign intelligence service? Britain? Israel? South Africa? Mexico? In retrospect, it's obvious, sure. But at the time, not so much. He wasn't a convicted criminal. He was someone who was probably friends with another guy they suspected, or went to the same mosque. If he was someone with a criminal record, of course he'd have gotten a more thorough treatment. > The agents who had him in custody were begging for permission to investigate what was on his laptop and they were denied. Probably those damned civil rights and limited search and seizure things. > The team that was charged with the job of testing airport security were actively prevented from doing their jobs Again, your read of the article is questionable. They identified weaknesses in the system, and no resources were spent on those weaknesses. But there's other weaknesses too, lots of them. Yes, in retrospect, it seems obvious that there were weaknesses. But there's many potential targets, and there's not an unlimited budget. Yeah, after things go wrong it's very easy to say something should have been done beforehand. > I don't see how anyone could brush this off as just "20/20 hindsight". It is 20/20 hindsight. There's thousands of false positives. The article is written with an assured tone because they know how history happened. How many times have there been warnings of an imminent North Korean strike into South Korea? Dozens? I do know the stats on Israeli warnings about their neighbors mobilizing near them - over two dozen times in the last 50 years, full military mobilizations... how many became invasions? 2 out of those 24+? There'll probably be clues after any bad event happens that it was going to happen... that doesn't necessarily mean anyone was being negligent. Also, a little more friendliness and less snark when you comment? Something like, "I disagree with your interpretation" instead of "Did you even read the article?
  - Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
    You seem to suggest that it is all due to hindsight. Much of that suggestion is of course your own opinion from thin air as I assume you do not have any experience in intelligence service work. Even if you do, do you not think that at least some of the things mentioned in the article are mistakes even if the person is placed in the position they would have been before the attacks and used only his foresight?
- notahacker 16y ago
  I don't think either i) the agents that weren't permitted to scrutinise the suspected terrorist's laptop would have thought it remotely worth posting to Wikileaks ii) if they had, it would have made the slightest difference to what actually happened
- notahacker 16y ago
  I don't think either i) the agents that weren't permitted to scrutinise the suspected terrorist's laptop would have thought it remotely worth posting to Wikileaks ii) if they had, it would have made the slightest difference to what actually happened
- exit 16y ago
  Am i misreading the article? Is the suggestion that 9/11 was a false-flag operation in so far as some actors high in the intelligence chain of command ALLOWED a very real cell of terrorists to carry out their mission by suppressing their subordinates? It's easy to get that from your summary, but the article itself still skirts around saying this explicitly.
  - leot 16y ago
    Yes, you are. The only thing I inferred from the article was the existence of inter-agency political conflicts, turf wars, and bureaucratic risk-averse officiousness.
aquarin 16y ago
The truth is that people see only the failures. We never know what apocalypses have been avoided.

stevejalim 16y ago

Argh - sorry - I meant to upvote this from 1 and clicked down to 0 instead! :o( Wish there was a way to undo that click, given how small the arrows are...

GiraffeNecktie 16y ago

Did you even read the article? This wasn't about some random chatter happening in some far corner of the globe it was about: - An actual identified terrorist showing up at a US flight school. The agents who had him in custody were begging for permission to investigate what was on his laptop and they were denied. - The team that was charged with the job of testing airport security were actively prevented from doing their jobs (and later, after 9/11, disbanded) I don't see how anyone could brush this off as just "20/20 hindsight".

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
lionhearted 16y ago
The problem is, you're ignoring false positives. Reports of potential threats happen frequently. The overwhelming majority of them are false positives. > Did you even read the article? ... An actual identified terrorist showing up at a US flight school. Did I read the article? "A foreign intelligence service promptly reported that he had connections with a foreign terrorist group" -> Not exactly an actual identified terrorist. "Had connections with a foreign terrorist group" could be anything. And which foreign intelligence service? Britain? Israel? South Africa? Mexico? In retrospect, it's obvious, sure. But at the time, not so much. He wasn't a convicted criminal. He was someone who was probably friends with another guy they suspected, or went to the same mosque. If he was someone with a criminal record, of course he'd have gotten a more thorough treatment. > The agents who had him in custody were begging for permission to investigate what was on his laptop and they were denied. Probably those damned civil rights and limited search and seizure things. > The team that was charged with the job of testing airport security were actively prevented from doing their jobs Again, your read of the article is questionable. They identified weaknesses in the system, and no resources were spent on those weaknesses. But there's other weaknesses too, lots of them. Yes, in retrospect, it seems obvious that there were weaknesses. But there's many potential targets, and there's not an unlimited budget. Yeah, after things go wrong it's very easy to say something should have been done beforehand. > I don't see how anyone could brush this off as just "20/20 hindsight". It is 20/20 hindsight. There's thousands of false positives. The article is written with an assured tone because they know how history happened. How many times have there been warnings of an imminent North Korean strike into South Korea? Dozens? I do know the stats on Israeli warnings about their neighbors mobilizing near them - over two dozen times in the last 50 years, full military mobilizations... how many became invasions? 2 out of those 24+? There'll probably be clues after any bad event happens that it was going to happen... that doesn't necessarily mean anyone was being negligent. Also, a little more friendliness and less snark when you comment? Something like, "I disagree with your interpretation" instead of "Did you even read the article?
- Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
  You seem to suggest that it is all due to hindsight. Much of that suggestion is of course your own opinion from thin air as I assume you do not have any experience in intelligence service work. Even if you do, do you not think that at least some of the things mentioned in the article are mistakes even if the person is placed in the position they would have been before the attacks and used only his foresight?
notahacker 16y ago
I don't think either i) the agents that weren't permitted to scrutinise the suspected terrorist's laptop would have thought it remotely worth posting to Wikileaks ii) if they had, it would have made the slightest difference to what actually happened
notahacker 16y ago
I don't think either i) the agents that weren't permitted to scrutinise the suspected terrorist's laptop would have thought it remotely worth posting to Wikileaks ii) if they had, it would have made the slightest difference to what actually happened
exit 16y ago
Am i misreading the article? Is the suggestion that 9/11 was a false-flag operation in so far as some actors high in the intelligence chain of command ALLOWED a very real cell of terrorists to carry out their mission by suppressing their subordinates? It's easy to get that from your summary, but the article itself still skirts around saying this explicitly.
- leot 16y ago
  Yes, you are. The only thing I inferred from the article was the existence of inter-agency political conflicts, turf wars, and bureaucratic risk-averse officiousness.

aquarin 16y ago

The truth is that people see only the failures. We never know what apocalypses have been avoided.