I've been asking for help a lot lately. Another request

[indie_voter]

I've said the plane headed for the Pentagon should have been intercepted.

This the response I got:

"if you think they should have "intercepted it" before it hit the Pentagon, and then what? Shaken their wings to get the pilot's attention, tried to talk with them, shot it down, what? What would you have had them do? And I ask this because if you think they should have been ordered to shoot it down I wonder if that *had* happened how everyone would have reacted? Our own fighter jets/military just shot down a cilivian aircraft with hundereds of innocent people on board. Did we know positively 100% without a shadow of a doubt they were going to use the plane as a weapon like in New York? I mean it just opens a whole other can of worms that I am surprised to see mentioned as acceptable. AFter all, we'd have to have the intelligence to *know* those were terrorists and what they were doing - that may have required "lists" or "esponage actions" or a host of other things that people would have probably screamed violated some civil rights or something. Let's face it, the terrorists that day weren't broadcasting what they were going to do. Maybe these guys would have chickened out? Maybe they would have missed? Would you, personally, have really been ok hearing that we shot that plane down? I just find it hard to believe that shooting down that plane would have been *more* acceptable to the people who are critical of the actions taken that day. Maybe I'm just naive? LOL

And also, although you didn't mention it here (I don't think, I haven't read all your posts on the subject) I've seen the comments made that Bush actually "endangered" the children in the school because he didn't immediately leave the building. I would say that the absolute safest people in America at that moment were within his vincity. When he travels like that there *are* jets in the sky that would have unhesitatingly shot down any aircraft that entered the airspace above him."

I am so baffled by the illogic I am having trouble framing arguments.

Help?

[democratreformed]

1. If we had shot the plane down,

no one would have ever known it. It would have been another plane full of heroes where the passengers fought back and caused it to crash before it reached its destination.

And, now that I look back over what was written above, it is very contradictory of itself. Notice the person says it's not okay to shoot down a plane to protect potentially (how many people were in the Pentagon?) hundreds if not thousands. Then, they turn around and use the certainty that planes will be shot down to protect ONE MAN to defend his decision to stay and endanger the lives of those children.

I guess we have to conclude from that - that one person, because of who he is, is more important than any number of regular old American citizens.

[indie_voter]

2. you're right , I didn't even register the contradiction. Loony

[democratreformed]

3. s'okay. I didn't either at first.

Here's another thing that really bothers me about this:

We REALLY were under attack that day. And what was our response? Apparently, NOTHING. How does that make you feel about being safe? How does that make you feel about Bush's ability to PROTECT our country? What the hell is our military for? What the hell are all the other agencies that are supposed to be so good at defense for?

What would they do if we were to be really attacked - as in bombers,etc. God, I shudder to think based on the actions of that day. Will they wait for "verification" that someone really is bombing us? Will they wait 'til half the country is gone and then say, "Damn, we better do something"??

[Lisa]

4. so basically, we should all hide behind Bush at the first sign of trouble?

Taking that argument one step further -- if the man's very presence guarantees security (e.g. at that elementary school) -- why did they hustle him AWAY from vulnerable places like, for example, D.C.?

Sure, there may be fighter jets that will shoot things down ... but in that case, they CAN'T control where the downed planes/missiles will land. That is only a last-ditch solution. People -- perhaps even the ones the fighters are trying to protect -- could still die.

In fact, this was one of the reasons why it was such a difficult decision for Canada to allow diverted flights to land at the Montreal airport after the US airports had been shut down on that day. Montreal is close to the US border, and it's one of our biggest cities (2 million people). And the Prime Minister had given the order to shoot down any aircraft that was behaving suspiciously. Canada only agreed to let those planes (which for all we knew might have already been hijacked) near Montreal because we had run out of space at the other airports, and we knew we had to get those passengers safely on the ground, as soon as possible.

[indie_voter]

5. My response and THANK YOU so much for putting up with me today.

if you think they should have "intercepted it" before it hit the Pentagon, and then what?


I would expect the military planes to follow official procedures and guidelines in place ,when faced with a potential hostile aircraft flying in unauthorized airspace.


how everyone would have reacted? Our own fighter jets/military just shot down a cilivian aircraft with hundreds of innocent people on board.

I am betting everyone(including me) would react in horror.

Your point is well taken. This is a horrific moral dilemma.

Slightly OT, but I can't help but think of a Star Trek episode where Spock and Kirk discuss putting the needs of the many over the needs of the few.

This is a no-win situation and will be again, if ever faced with this choice. Do we shoot down an airplane full of a hundred of innocents to save thousands?

If my baby was on the plane I would cry NO! If my baby was in the target, my heart would whisper "yes".

Did we know positively 100% without a shadow of a doubt they were going to use the plane as a weapon like in New York?

Nothing is 100% certain. There are laws of probability however.

Your same question can be asked years later. Federal Air Marshals are on some flights, not all, so there is a potential for the exact same scenerio we faced on 9/11.

If a plane heads for the GG bridge, for example, do we know 100% the intent is to use it for a weapon?

What should we do?

AFter all, we'd have to have the intelligence to *know* those were terrorists and what they were

I am not sure if you've read the 9/11 REPORT: JOINT CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY report, July 24th 2003?

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/911rpt/index.html

In particular Part 2: Narrative--The Attacks of September 11,2002.

A partitial TOC:

II. Pentagon Flight Hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salim al-Hazmi.. 143
A. The Malaysia Meeting and Identification of Khalid al-Mihdhar and Salim
and Nawaf al-Hazmi — First Watchlist Opportunity ….…………………….. 143
B. Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi Travel to the United States — Second
Watchlist Opportunity …………………………………………………..…… 147
C. Khalid al-Mihdhar Leaves the United States and Nawaf al-Hazmi Applies for
a Visa Extension ……………………………………………………………… 148
D. The Attack on USS Cole and the Identification of Khallad—Third Watchlist
Opportunity……………………………………………………………………. 148
E. The June 11, 2001 FBI/CIA Meeting and Khalid al-Mihdhar’s Return to the
United States………………………………………………………………….. 150
F. The Watchlisting of Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi…………………151
G. The Search for Khalid al-Mihdhar…………………………………………….. 152
H. The Case Against Bin Ladin……………………………………………………154
III. NSA Communications Intercepts Related to Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf and
Salim al-Hazmi …………………………………………………………….…………….. 155
IV. Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar Had Numerous Contacts With an Active
FBI Informant……………..……………………………………………………………… 157
A. Background…………………………………………………………………. 158
B. Informant’s Relationship with Two Hijackers……………………………… 159
C. Questions About the Informant’s Credibility………………………………. 162
V. Associates of the September 11 Terrorists in the United States………………………. 168

Time, CNN and other news outlets have reported some of the terrorists used their real names when buying the tickets. This is one of the questions the 9/11 Family Steering committee has asked the governement to verify.

IF this was the case with regards to the plane which hit the pentagon, it would show up on the passenger list. Whenever we fly our names appear on such lists, controlled by the airlines. The government can request access to the lists at anytime.

OT: Didn't Jet Blue just get in trouble for selling their lists?

Let's face it, the terrorists that day weren't broadcasting what they were going to do.

The official Congressional report does not support your conclusion. I urge everyone to read it, it is a vital piece of history.

There were intelligence,agency and government oversight failures(by previous and current adminstrations). Asking questions is the only way to assess what we need to do the next time this happens, so we will be better prepared to defend ourselves.


Maybe these guys would have chickened out?

While it is hard for me to understand fundamentalist Islamic thought, there are people who train for years for "suicide" missions.

However they don't consider it as suicide as we define it. They believe they are martyrs and dying for Allah. They believe they will be rewarded in the after life by Allah for their actions.

We've see it in Israel for years.

Personally I think this is sick and deluded.

Would you, personally, have really been ok hearing that we shot that plane down?

No. Nor will I be if we have to do it to prevent another attack.

I've seen the comments made that Bush actually "endangered" the children in the school because he didn't immediately leave the building.

I think it was an extremely unwise choice.


I would say that the absolute safest people in America at that moment were within his vincity.


I disagree. In hindsight we know nobody was targeting the President. At that moment, there was no way of knowing if he was a target or not. Nor was it certain only planes were being used for attack.


Planes are effective in destroying thousands, but if the intent is to take out one person, is there a better way?

We've heard stories about terrorist trying to get dirty bombs, anthrax and chemical weapons.

What if one of those were the choice to use against the president?

Or perhaps even more chilling, a suicide bomber?

We have also seen with past assassination attempts of presidents and other VIPS, crowded places are a popular MO.

The attempts on President Lincoln, President Kennedy, President Ford and President Reagan come to mind.

I would love to know what the official procedure the Secret Service is supposed to follow to protect the president when the country is in attack. HOWEVER, I realize this is and should be classified.


When he travels like that there *are* jets in the sky that would have unhesitatingly shot down any aircraft that entered the airspace above him.

Again, assuming planes were the weapon of choice with regards to targeting him.

The hypothetical shooting down of an airplane targeting the President, btw, would as tragic as shooting down the planes which target populated cities.

Sadly there is no easy choice when faced with the choice of sacrificing the lives of the few for the good of the many.

[eridani]

6. Intercept means get up there and find out what's going on

not shooting a plane out of the sky. Normal procedure calls for intercepting ANY plane that is off of flight plan, and doesn't respond to radio. Not because it means a hijacking--mostly it doesn't. What it always and everywhere means is serious deep shit trouble. Always! It is imperative to find out whether some malfunction has occurred which might cause a crash, possibly in populated areas.

The question is WHY WERE NORMAL, STANDARD PROCEDURES NOT FOLLOWED?? Twelve different jets tracked golfer Payne Stewart's plane until the last pair was able to verify that the plane's windows had frosted over, it was unlikely that anyone in it was alive, and that it was on course to crash in an unpopulated area.

WHY WAS THIS NOT DONE ON 9/11?? My employer has had more thorough investigations of paper cut injuries.

[Skittles]

7. THE G.D. F***ING PENTAGON SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVACUATED

WELL BEFORE THAT PLANE HIT IT. WHAT ABOUT THAT ???????????????????

[indie_voter]

8. OMG!! I didn't even THINK about that. You're right.

[Skittles]

9. THE SECOND TOWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVACUATED TOO

and honestly, when they saw the path these planes were taking, BOTH TOWERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVACUATED. Remember what Bush was doing when all this was taking place? HE WAS SITTING IN A CLASSROOM READING A KIDDIE BOOK. NO ORDERS WERE *EVER* ISSUED TO EVACUATE ANYWHERE. I don't understand why this has NOT become a MAJOR ISSUE.