
WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if? - resdirector
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rowley-wikileaks-20101015,0,5616717.story
======
palish
Dear god. It's been 9 years. About ~3,000 random people died. Do you have any
idea how many random people have died in the last 9 years? Could we maybe
solve car accidents rather than _potential terrorist attacks_?

I'm sorry for being callous, but _damn_ , let's agree to prioritize...

~~~
runT1ME
3000 people died, but if you don't think the events _changed the world_ you're
delusional. We're talking about two prolonged wars, trillions of dollars,
thousands of american lives being lost, countless civilians being injured or
killed in war, a loss of civil liberties, hundreds if not more afflicted with
illness due to the toxicity of ground zero, questions about our governments
ability and willingness to protect against terrorism, possibly hundreds
tortured in the name of fighting terrorism, and I could go on.

~~~
palish
That's my point. All of that is a consequence of people being so massively
upset about this one particular event. And for what? Exactly what you said:
for no good reason!

Let us please learn to put things into perspective _so that we can avoid the
true tragedies which you described_ :

\- two prolonged wars

\- trillions(!) of dollars spent

\- countless civilians being injured or killed in war

\- a loss of civil liberties

\- possibly hundreds tortured in the name of fighting terrorism

Those tragedies were not caused by 9/11. They were caused by our _perception
of how terrible 9/11 was_. In reality, the 3,000 lost lives pales in
comparison to the bone-chilling list you assembled.

~~~
Jach
This is something I want to deeply understand some day. 1.8 people die around
the world _every second_ , and here we are getting pissed over a few thousand
dead 9 years ago, the US media is drumming up an old fashioned _religious war_
, and meanwhile 150,000 humans each with their own lives and family die every
day. Human psychology is a funny thing.

~~~
alexdias
The thing is, those 150,000 humans don't all die of the same cause. These
3,000 did.

Also, this has been stated multiple times, but 9/11 wasn't about killing 3,000
people, it was about attacking America as a whole, making people feel that
they weren't safe in their own country. Surely you don't feel that way just by
knowing that 150,000 humans die of random causes each day.

This is major speculation, but what do you think would've happened if the
fourth plane reached the White House/Capitol Building ?

~~~
gloob
_Also, this has been stated multiple times, but 9/11 wasn't about killing
3,000 people, it was about attacking America as a whole, making people feel
that they weren't safe in their own country._

They aren't safe in their own country. Huge numbers of them die prematurely of
random causes every month.

 _Surely you don't feel that way just by knowing that 150,000 humans die of
random causes each day._

I look both ways when I cross the street. I don't check my car for bombs every
morning. That should tell you something about which I fear more.

Disclaimer: IANAA (I Am Not An American). Perhaps they feel differently than I
do.

~~~
pyre

      > They aren't safe in their own country. Huge numbers of them
      > die prematurely of random causes every month.
    

The crux being that people have either accepted those random causes of death,
or they feel that they have enough control to avoid them (even if that isn't
true). Terrorist attacks (though rare on American soil) are something that
people have not (yet) accepted as unavoidable, or are something that they feel
they have control over avoiding.

The following also contributed:

\- The attack was perpetrated by Muslims against a predominantly Christian
country. Especially a country with a lot of 'born-again'/Evangelical
Christians that are rabidly religious. This helps to form a "Us vs. Them"
mentality as well as a "They are attacking our way of life; our very
identity." I have a strong feeling that the reaction would be less severe
(though maybe not by much) if it had been perpetrated by members of another
religion (or at least people that didn't use their religion as a reason for
their actions).

\- The attack was perpetrated by a group. A group that has members that are
still 'at large.' (i.e. "It could/will happen again.") By contrast, the
Oklahoma City Bombing was easy to dismiss as some random crazy guy.

\- It came from outside of the country. If the attack had been from a group
that was based in the US (i.e. some political group that resorted to
terrorism), then the reaction probably wouldn't have been so severe. It's
easier for form an "Us vs Them" mentality when there is a greater distinction
between "us" and "them." If the people behind the attacks were Americans,
people would still be outraged, but it would be a hell of a lot easier for
them to picture those people as just 'crazies.' I think that a number of
people also view Arabs/Muslims as 'below' them (i.e. "a bunch of rag-heads
living out in the middle of god-forsaken desert") even if they consider
themselves to be more enlightened than that.

------
lionhearted
> 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.

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
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".

~~~
lionhearted
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
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?

------
Estragon
In this case, the rot had spread from the top. There aren't really any formal
organizational remedies for that, beyond changing the regime at the top. Check
out the first two pages of the preface to _The One-Percent Doctrine_
([http://books.google.com/books?id=gV3m6sYhnrsC&printsec=f...](http://books.google.com/books?id=gV3m6sYhnrsC&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false))

    
    
      ...at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent Summer, 
      George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice.
    
      He looked hard at the panicked CIA officer.
     
      "All right," he said.  "You've covered your ass, now."

