Why was nobody disciplined for the failures on 9/11?

[Dawkinsrocks]

The most benign view available is that they knew and did nothing but there is a wealth of evidence to suggest it is much worse than that.

But the simple fact that nobody was discplined illustrates that the Bush administation were not displeased by the failures on 9/11.

Once people understand that and can take their rose coloured specatcales off then suddenly it makes a lot more sense. The big leap is for them to accept that 9/11 was at least in part executed with the complicty of the US Government to serve their goal of raising trillions of dollars for star wars programs and to garner support for an illegal war on Iraq.

After all, once their largely contrived cold war had gone away what were they going to use as an excuse for diverting all that money to war when it could have given everyone in the US medicaid for life?

 

[GenSeneca]

After all, once their largely contrived cold war had gone away what were they going to use as an excuse for diverting all that money to war when it could have given everyone in the US medicaid for life?

The answers are so obvious it is too tiresome to write them down

Sorry

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The US administration's position on 9/11 is a set of amazing new robes and you are one of the clingons admiring their cut and design.

Unfortunately for them and you, the emperor's not actually wearing any clothes

 

[GenSeneca]

the us administration's position on 9/11 is a set of amazing new robes and you are one of the clingons admiring their cut and design.

Unfortunately for them and you, the emperor's not actually wearing any clothes

dawkinsrocks has no clothes!!!

 

[Not Amused]

GenSeneca.

Have you ever considered not acting like a little prick? This is really very boring now.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

That post was a response to your own.

I see you are endowed with great self-knowledge which is commendable

 

[vyo476]

GenSeneca.

Have you ever considered not acting like a little prick? This is really very boring now.

Knock that off. Name-calling is not allowed, no matter what the justification.

And to Seneca: Not Amused does have something of a point. Please try to post with substance above sarcasm. This sort of thing just litters the board, which is bad for everybody.

 

[Not Amused]

It was not direct name calling.

I did not say Seneca was a little prick, I merely said Seneca was acting like one, a subtle difference I feel.

Sorry anyway

 

[dahermit]

The threat from civil airliners being hijacked and used as missiles has been a known threat since before 9/11.

On 9/11 the most powerful nation on earth was successfully attacked by this known threat, it got through all its defense systems and nobody was disciplined.

So we must conclude that either
Failure of this nature is acceptable

OR

Failure of this nature is approved.

The agony of choice.

There is a third possible reason none were disciplined. When one studies organizational dynamics one finds that the primary objective of the organization is to continue to exist despite any stated or unstated objective.

That said, it is the nature of any organization to protect itself (and continue to exist) by not disciplining its members no matter how serious the offense. Or, if it must, sacrifice the lest senior member of the organization as it did with Lt. Callie for the My Lai Massacre when Major Medina virtually assured it would happen with his directive the night before.

Another example, at Ruby Ridge the actions of the agency assured return gunfire by shooting the dog without announcing who they were, and resulted in the death of a 14 year-old boy. As if that were not enough, a mother was shot by an agency sniper while holding her baby (how would that have played out in any urban scenario). While the agency was successfully sued by the husband, and the actions of the agents were denounced by many, the sniper was later promoted by his organization.

A similar situation took place in the Waco incident. A complete screw-up, and no one being held responsible.

Therefore, there have been several examples of how and why organizations escape punishment, suggesting that 911 would be no different.
A mysterious reason is not supported, it just is how organizations work.

 

[GenSeneca]

Knock that off. Name-calling is not allowed, no matter what the justification.

And to Seneca: Not Amused does have something of a point. Please try to post with substance above sarcasm. This sort of thing just litters the board, which is bad for everybody.

I dont care about being called names, goes with being a Conservative... You get called the most horrific and nasty names in the book. And if you feel I was acting like a [expetive], please remember... I was immitating Dawkins.

Vyo, I agree 100% that Not Amused has a point, but with all due respect consider this - if Not Amused has a point.... and I was simply Copying & Pasting replies that Dawkins has made... Then shouldn't Dawkins ALSO be asked to provide something of substance when replying, rather than his usual sarcastic nonsense?

You see, I only C&P'd Dawkins responses because I am so sick and tired of his worthless, sarcastic, nonsensical drivel - I wanted him to see how irritatingly useless it was and how it adds NOTHING to the conversation... It seems to have worked.

Now you (vyo) and Not Amused have pointed this out.... Yet neither of you pointed it out when Dawkins said those things, repeatedly, and have remained silent although he rarely offers anything besides sarcasm and nonsense. He often bumps his threads, like this one, by tossing out those same nonsensical sarcastic lines, over and over again. Its obnoxious and I hoped to be just as obnoxious by immitating his behavior - Mission Accomplished!

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Most eloquently put.

It is shame you can't put more of this energy into responding with some facts and reason.

If nobody was disciplined for what you believe to be a the biggest breakdown in national security ever then a reasonable person has to wonder what the hell is going on.

I realise that this wouldn't include you GenSeneca but I am sure there are a lot of people reading it who might just agree.

 

[GenSeneca]

Most eloquently put.

It is shame you can't put more of this energy into responding with some facts and reason.

I have and you people IGNORE everything I say and pretend like I never said it... Well, being the only one that puts effort into a conversation gets OLD FAST. If you want to spew the same nonsense over and over, I'll be glad to spew it right back at you.

You want to have a real discussion? Then YOU answer some questions for a change....

Who was responsible for the WTC attacks in 1993?

 

[Libsmasher]

Is this thread STILL sputtering along? The answer to the title is Bubba Clinton, just as I said. To give you a clue - he once sent two FBI agents to Riyadh to "arrest" Osama ben Ladin. Thank god he wasn't president during WWII - he'd have responded to Pearl Harbor with a strongly-worded protest sent to the League of Nations.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your effort to pin it on Clinton at least shows that you acknowldge that the US did it.

You have come a long way.

It won't be long before you acknowledge that Bush et al did it to garner support for their illegal attack on Iraq and Afghanistan.