POG Politics Thread - Page 61 - Puzzles and Other Games Forum

Whats important about the Able Danger program isn't really the existence of the program itself

it was the media's total and complete (except for Lou Dobbs) silence on what should have been the biggest news story since 9/11 itself.

Based on the Wikipedia entry, this seems like a thoroughly uninteresting report that is trying to blame the military and/or police for terrorism.

TERRORISTS attacked the WTC, Pentagon & (apparently) the White House. The government wasn't able to stop it, despite some information that it was coming, or who the terrorists were.

For contrast, the government had some information that Hussein had WMD's.

How'd that work out?

10-02-2008 , 01:38 PM

#1502

kokiri

ffermwr moch

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 52,228

TLDR it for me?

10-02-2008 , 01:39 PM

#1503

Zurvan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 36,410

Able Danger? There was a government program that identified the terrorist cell that did the original WTC bombing in '93, that ended up leading the big attack. Didn't arrest them. Drama ensued.

10-02-2008 , 01:43 PM

#1504

DustinG

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zurvan

No. It wasn't a report, it was a DIA (defense intelligence agency) datamining program that started back in 1999.

Despite what the official government story- there were several whistleblowers- most important Lt. Col Anthony Schaffer- who said that they had discovered a couple of the Al Qaeda cells including the one containing the alleged ringleader, Mohammed Atta

they tried to hand this information over to the FBI and were repeatedly blocked by their superiors

Whats important isn't so much the story itself- its the medias non-reaction towards would should have been a giant scandal.

10-02-2008 , 01:45 PM

#1505

DustinG

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zurvan

Able Danger? There was a government program that identified the terrorist cell that did the original WTC bombing in '93, that ended up leading the big attack. Didn't arrest them. Drama ensued.

No. I don't know what you read but afaik Able Danger did not exist until 1999.

10-02-2008 , 01:46 PM

#1506

Zurvan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 36,410

Really, it's not a giant scandal.

Not at all.

OMG THEY MIGHT HAVE FOUND TERRORISTS, WHY DIDN'T THEY ARREST THEM?
OMG, HUSSEIN HAD NUKES, WHY DIDN'T THEY STOP HIM?

or,

OMG, THEY ARRESTED TERRORISTS THAT WEREN'T, LIARS!
OMG, HUSSEIN HAD NO NUKES, LIARS!

10-02-2008 , 01:47 PM

#1507

Zurvan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 36,410

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

According to statements by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and those of four others, Able Danger had identified the September 11, 2001, attacks leader Mohamed Atta, and three of the 9/11 plot's other 19 hijackers, as possible members of an al Qaeda cell linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

10-02-2008 , 01:47 PM

#1508

DustinG

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zurvan

Based on the Wikipedia entry, this seems like a thoroughly uninteresting report that is trying to blame the military and/or police for terrorism.

also Zurvan, and I don't mean any disrespect here- but why would the government write a report blaming itself for allowing 9/11 to happen?

10-02-2008 , 01:48 PM

#1509

Zurvan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 36,410

My point being, intelligence organizations receive dozens of potential threat vectors. If they act on one that's wrong, they get skewered. If they don't act on one that's right - they get skewered.

It's better they err on the side of being sure before acting.

10-02-2008 , 01:49 PM

#1510

Zurvan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 36,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustinG

also Zurvan, and I don't mean any disrespect here- but why would the government write a report blaming itself for allowing 9/11 to happen?

...

Why would one part of the government try to blame another part? I dunno, it's pretty unprecedented.

10-02-2008 , 01:49 PM

#1511

DustinG

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31,442

Quote:

there is nothing in that statement that contradicts anything that I have said about Able Danger.

It does not say the program started in 1993. Everything that I have read says the program began in 1999.

10-02-2008 , 01:50 PM

#1512

Zurvan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 36,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustinG

I NEVER SAID IT STARTED IN 1993

I said they identified terrorists involved in the 1993 attack that were later part of the big attack in 2001

10-02-2008 , 01:51 PM

#1513

DustinG

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zurvan

...

Why would one part of the government try to blame another part? I dunno, it's pretty unprecedented.

As far as 9/11 goes it most certainly would be.

10-02-2008 , 01:54 PM

#1514

Zurvan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 36,410

I really don't understand the point you're making. The US government did not attack the WTC. The Able Report didn't imply they did. I didn't imply that anybody said anyone other than terrorists attacked the WTC.

10-02-2008 , 01:56 PM

#1515

DustinG

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zurvan

I NEVER SAID IT STARTED IN 1993

I said they identified terrorists involved in the 1993 attack that were later part of the big attack in 2001

You are missing the bigger picture.

It identified people involved in the 9/11 attack who also happened to be involved in the 1993 attack

They then tried to pass this information on the FBI multiple times

They were prohibited from doing so by their superiors

Lt. Col. Schaffer went public and the story went NOWHERE

it should have been a huge scandal and I don't understand how you can argue otherwise

10-02-2008 , 01:56 PM

#1516

Nicholasp27

27th level thinker

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 84,494

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zurvan

they acted on one that was wrong to take us to war
acting on this other would not have taken us to war

10-02-2008 , 02:00 PM

#1517

Zurvan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 36,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustinG

"Dude, these guys are terrorists"
"Um, I don't see compelling enough evidence to get them arrested"
"But, the FBI-"
"Nope, not compelling. STFU and go back to work"

That's not a scandal. That's somebody using their judgement on the quality of work and information. The fact that he was mistaken isn't the point - the point is that there's dozens of such reports. ONE was correct.

It's not interesting because there's no intent to cause harm, there's no negligence, and there's no incompetence.

10-02-2008 , 02:01 PM

#1518

kokiri

ffermwr moch

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 52,228

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustinG

pre or post 9/11? I'm confused

10-02-2008 , 02:02 PM

#1519

DustinG

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31,442

I don't understand Zurvan how you can be totally unaware about the existence of this program- which I said was just merely the first thing that I wanted to discuss if we were going to be discussing 9.11, read one wikipedia article on it, and the argue with me vehemently about its unimportance.

10-02-2008 , 02:03 PM

#1520

DustinG

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokiri

pre or post 9/11? I'm confused

pre

10-02-2008 , 02:03 PM

#1521

Zurvan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 36,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicholasp27

they acted on one that was wrong to take us to war
acting on this other would not have taken us to war

So... everyone that's ever connected with terrorism should be thrown in jail? Or only the ones that are actually terrorists? How do you tell the difference?

What if you look at the available data and conclude someone who is a terrorist is not? These decisions are made by people, and by demonizing everyone who mistakenly clears a terrorist - if they do their due diligence, obv - all you do is incentivize arresting everybody who could potentially be a terrorist. Which is bad.

10-02-2008 , 02:04 PM

#1522

Zurvan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 36,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustinG

Is there something that's not represented in the Wikipedia article that makes this a huge conspiracy?

10-02-2008 , 02:05 PM

#1523

DustinG

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31,442

as I said, for me whats important about Able Danger is not the program itself, as that can be explained away like Zurvan is attempting to do

what isn't so easily explained away is the media's non-reaction to the story once it broke

10-02-2008 , 02:06 PM

#1524

DustinG

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 31,442

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zurvan

Is there something that's not represented in the Wikipedia article that makes this a huge conspiracy?

its just one part of a much larger picture

10-02-2008 , 02:07 PM

#1525

Zurvan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 36,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustinG

OK... here's what I don't understand.

The report is easily explained as a mistake. Why should the media care?

OMG somebody made a mistake!!!11eleven

What do you think there is here that makes this a giant scandal?

Page 61 of 3357

First

11 41 51 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 71 81 111 161 261 561 1061

Last

Closed Thread Subscribe

...

Page 61 of 3357

First

11 41 51 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 71 81 111 161 261 561 1061

Last