General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDid you take Al Qaeda / bin Laden seriously before 9/11?
8 votes, 4 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes. I took the threats very seriously, well before 9/11. | |
5 (63%) |
|
No. I typed "TERRA! TERRA! TERRA!" so many times I lost count, then clammed up after 9/11. | |
2 (25%) |
|
I only take threats seriously ex post, and only if doing so suits my political interests. | |
0 (0%) |
|
Doesn't matter; all wrongdoing in the world is the CIA's doing, even now. Go rent X movie, you'll see. | |
1 (13%) |
|
4 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)BKH70041
(961 posts)Nice question and choices. I see you most definitely have your finger on the pulse of the members of DU.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)told the public about any threats before 9/11.
The only person talking about Bin Laden before then was Alex Jones. Various FBI field agents also flagged up concerns up the chain but they were ignored.
(Which makes me wonder how old the OP is and other posters in this thread if they can't remember what it was like pre-9/11).
BKH70041
(961 posts)... there would have been a sizable number who would have claimed they were drumming up fear, using it as a control mechanism, etc... Given what I've observed here over the last year, that would have been the reaction of the majority here.
I suspect choice #3 is the more accurate answer and one to which most should be voting. Like partisans of various persuasions on many issues, it's not as much about what happened as who was in power when it happened.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)without drumming up fear...but they did nothing at all.
But that's another story.
Response to BKH70041 (Reply #13)
BKH70041 This message was self-deleted by its author.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Bill Clinton was well aware of Al Qaeda in 1992, following the Yemen Hotel Bombings. Bin Laden hit his radar soon thereafter, having claimed responsibility for the bombings. At the time, Alex Jones was in high school.
When Clinton ordered missile strikes against Bin Laden in Afghanistan - 1998 - Jones had a pissant radio show on a pissant station in Austin.
(Which makes me wonder what the fuck Alex Jones has to do with this. And diapers and shit.)
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)No one in the MSM was talking about Al Qaeda or Bin Laden at that time.
Do you remember what the big stories were in summer 2001?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)But there were *no* public warnings in the lead up to 9/11 even though the system was "flashing red" behind closed doors.
Can you show me any information that the Bush administration made it known to the public that there was a threat from Al Qaeda?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Were you napping during "Clinton bombed an aspirin factory"?
If you're questioning whether the public was aware of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden prior to 2001, you might refer to the abstract from the 1999 article cited in the... uhm... post to which you are responding.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)in summer 2001?
What was your assessment of their operational capacity?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)But, if it helps, quite seriously.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)Al Qaeda's previous attacks, but how would a member of the public be able to judge their ability in the summer of 2001 when there was almost no mention of them in the media?
How can one take a threat seriously when no one is telling you there is an imminent threat?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)There was constant news of instability in the Middle East including, and specifically, terrorist attacks. And more specifically, Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.
Here's a snippet from Bill Cohen, testifying in 2004:
As your question implies, it is important to understand that the U.S. faced then and faces today numerous threats to our national interests and to our national territory that DOD and other agencies must also address. Some of these other threats put at risk the lives of thousands to millions of Americans and millions of persons in allied countries. It would not have been responsible to have given less attention than we did to these other critical security issues.
Likewise, DOD must ensure the capabilities and readiness of our Armed Forces are effective to meet both current and future threats.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8/cohen_statement.pdf
Much of this was addressed in various media. That you don't remember isn't relevant.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)about his tenure as Secretary of Defense, 19972001.
So... again... in the cite to which you are responding.
Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #63)
CJCRANE This message was self-deleted by its author.
reorg
(3,317 posts)I remember some talk, specifically one newspaper article reporting about a possible terrorist threat against the G8 summit in Genoa July 2001. So, people were aware that such threats were alleged, possible or existed. But such news was overshadowed in this particular case by the protests against the summit and the reaction by Italy's police - daily reports for weeks and months.
What does "taking seriously" mean in this context, anyway, for the average person? That you believed these relatively isolated, if spectacular attacks may continue? That this did result in changes of your routines and attitudes, or that you were just aware of such a threat?
Naturally, the authorities, the police and intelligence services had much more specific information and were able to take measures, and did. Hell, they even tapped the phone lines of the group around Mohammed Atta in Hamburg. Such measures were definitely NOT talked about publicly and the public was NOT aware of them going on.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)To wit, that the commercialized world wide web was essentially non-existent at the time, so contemporaneous news accounts were rarely available in digital form. That's why it's a fool's errand to attempt to prove the existence, or lack thereof, of media accounts from the period. You are welcome to disagree, but you'd be wrong. The tiny bit of evidence I provided upthread - an abstract of an article along with the opportunity to purchase it in its entirety, should be a clue.
For the "average person", "taking seriously" is a matter of their own perspective. Insofar as this poll is concerned, you might ask the author or the individual respondents. For me, it simply means (in this context) being aware of world events and, as warranted, a consideration toward the broader implications of those events - either as a movement or taken in isolation.
reorg
(3,317 posts)"taking them seriously" is used to circumscribe the willingness to take military action against whomever it is that is currently threatening us.
If ISIS now poses a threat that must be taken as seriously as we should have taken the threat by al-Qaeda in 2001 - I read that yesterday - the implication is obvious: everyone who opposes military action is willing to put us at risk.
As to your claim that the Web was essentially non-existent in 2000, that's just not true. Your and other examples in this thread show that even now we can still access many news articles written way before 2000. The NYT is online since 1996. I remember well that the Guardian was one of the first papers with an online edition in the mid-nineties, too.
But I didn't ask for links, I pointed out that you cannot point to specific reports or discussions where "al-Qaeda" was a major topic and thought to be a major threat to the general public at large. I believe that those who followed the news were aware that the group existed, that they had carried out some rather spectacular attacks in countries far away, but that they were neither politically nor militarily significant.
It was only later, long after 2001, that we learned that they had been active in Bosnia and Kosovo, which was never mentioned anywhere until reporters dug the stories out because they became interesting in retrospect. They also had been active in other areas threatened by civil war, apart from Afghanistan. A new kind of mercenary outfit, ready and willing to pose a threat as long as they have backers and financiers using them. It's still a very murky affair, just like these ISIS nuts with their rolexes, action movies, drive-by killings and propaganda scripts.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)My participation in this thread is based wholly on the OP itself and my interlocutor's insistence that the media wasn't discussing Al Qaeda and/or Bin Laden prior to 2001. Neither of which, you'll note, have anything to do with current events - rather, a simple poll question.
How could I "point to specific reports or discussions where 'al-Qaeda' was a major topic and thought to be a major threat to the general public at large" without links? I could scan articles and post those images, if I had them. I could post recordings of radio and television conversations if I had them. But why would i want to? Your memory of the time and mine differ, along with the majority of respondents to this poll, for what that's worth. In the end, though, who cares? If there is an agenda behind this poll, I'm utterly indifferent to it.
Hatchling
(2,323 posts)Then they were all over the news and I wondered why we hadn't taken precautions.
I can say no more or I'll end up in Creative Speculations.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I knew of course of the WTC bombing and the embassy bombings, but didn't follow the news enough in those days to know about who did them.
Autumn
(44,743 posts)Bush and Cheney didn't and they created this mess because they wanted to invade Iraq for the oil and remove Sadam. Sadam who kept this tiger in a cage.
Gore gave the bush administration every thing they had on Al Qaeda which was a considerable amount, they ignored it.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)However, it was something that was discussed in Intelligence circles which was promptly disregarded by the Bush Administration.
Before then, as far as I knew, terror threats were taken cared of with increased intelligence gathering and security rather than military action.
I took it seriously for a few years, till I figured that the Bush administration was the bigger threat. They dickered the goodwill and opportunities they had at the first few months after 9/11.
After that, Al Qaeda became much less of a threat since what they pulled off was an extraordinary attack which had very little chance of actually being accomplished, other than the mass ineptitude and bungling of the prior administration.
What they did do however, is instill a culture of fear, which has been pushed on us constantly.
See, I don't disagree with some measures of protection within the country.
In fact, the best thing they could do is spend money on our infrastructure here, making roads more secure, not prone to crumbling.
Hell, if they build and improve infrastructure and planning on it at the event of a meteorological or whatever else natural disaster, the damage from those things are far more than anything a terrorist could do.
So no, I don't really take them that seriously any more.
ileus
(15,396 posts)leftstreet
(36,076 posts)It's all bullshit. Our wealthy ruling elite Overlords don't give a shit about anything but the uninterrupted flow of their profits
These dumbass 'wars' are EXXON vs GAZPROM vs SINOPAC vs BOEING vs SIEMENS vs CITIBANK vs TYSON FOODS vs RENAULT vs KFC vs blah, blah, blah..
And we the people all over the globe sacrifice our money and blood for their profits
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)Absolutely correct.
Hari Seldon
(154 posts)before 9/11?
Throd
(7,208 posts)Hari Seldon
(154 posts)A June 2001 article about Osama Bin Laden and his terror network.
The name Al Qaeda is never mentioned.
I would be interested to see a reference to Al Qaeda that is pre 911
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Yes.
But to you that's something different.
Well, I [really] laugh when I hear the FBI talking about Al Qaeda as an organization of bin Laden. ... [It's really a] very simple story. If bin Laden is to receive Arabs from Saudi Arabia and from Kuwait--from other regions--he is [to] receive them in the guest house in Peshawar. They used to go to the battle field and come back, without documentation.
What do you mean without documentation?
There [was] no documentation of who has arrived. Who has left. How long he stayed. There's only [a nice general reception]. And you go there. And you join in the battle field. ... Very simple organization. Now, he was embarrassed by many families when they called him and ask what happened to our son. He don't know. `Cause there's no record. There's no documentation. Now he asked some of his colleagues to start documenting the movement of every Arab coming under his umbrella. ... It is recorded that [they] arrived in this date and stayed in this house. ... And then there was a record of thousands and thousands of people. Many of them had come only for two weeks, three weeks and then disappeared. That record, that documentation was called the record of Al Qaeda. So that was Al Qaeda. There's nothing sinister about Al Qaeda. It's not like an organization--like any other terrorist organization or any other underground group. I don't think he used any name for his underground group. If you want to name it, you can name it "bin Laden group." But if they are using the term Al Qaeda ... Al Qaeda is just a record for the people who came to Peshawar and moved from there back and forth to the guest house. And moved back to their country. And if they want to follow the number, they must be talking about 20, 30 thousand people. Which is impossible to trace. And I think most of those records are in the hands of the Saudi government anyway, because people used the Saudi airlines, [at] a very much reduced fare. Twenty-five percent of the total fare of a trip to Islamabad. ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/interviews/al-fagih.html
published april 1999; last updated sept. 2001
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/
reorg
(3,317 posts)I am certain I had read pretty much all there was to know about Bin Laden at the time, my memory on when I first heard the term "al Qaeda" is a bit hazy, although I think it was mentioned. It was definitely not a household name, though ...
Here is one of the first reports in the Guardian about the embassy bombings which vaguely mentioned Jihadis OR Bin Laden as suspects
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1998/aug/08/kenya.garyyounge
but this one is explicitly mentioning "al Qaeda" a bit later when suspects were arrested:
... Mohammed Sadeek Odeh, 33, was captured by Pakistani authorities the day of the blast coming off a flight from Nairobi, Kenya, to Karachi. The tipoff: His passport photo did not match his face.
He is the second bombing suspect in two days to be whisked from Nairobi to New York, where a grand jury is building a case against them and bin Laden. Other suspects and informants in Nairobi could be flown here too, authorities said.
Odeh and the earlier suspect, Mohammed Rashed Daoud Al-'Owhali, have told investigators the embassy bombings were carried out by al Qaeda, an international terrorist group organized by bin Laden.
http://articles.philly.com/1998-08-29/news/25724092_1_mohammed-sadeek-odeh-kenya-bombing-embassy-bombings
NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)I had also been following the Taliban takeover in the paper from 96 on, so I was familiar with them.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)When Bush/Cheney mocked Gore during the 2000 election for saying that Jihadi terrorism was the #1 national security issue, the type of people who became early DUers knew what Gore was talking about.
And unlike so many easily brainwashed nimrods, we remembered that mocking when the GOP propagandists filled the airwaves on 9/12 with "bet you're glad your guy didn't win now." Yeah, much better having the guys who thought 9/11 was not a threat be in charge.
I think a better statement would have been, "bet you're upset now that your guy won so he could fuck up this badly."
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)It's usually translated to English as "The Base" but "The Foundation" is an equally valid translation.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/aug/24/alqaida.sciencefictionfantasyandhorror
Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)Especially after the Cole. I don't have time to find old news stories now, but search the news from 94-98. You'll find stuff.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the US bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan. Anyone who was paying attention knew of them.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)it was a huge deal.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)in connection with them.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)the color-coded terror alerts useful?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)BKH70041
(961 posts)Those who have the ability to look into the archives at this site could check back and see how often Al Qaeda was mentioned prior to 9/11 and document via links. To me, that would be an indicator of just how much they were on like minded individuals radar screens at the time. If it wasn't a hot topic of discussion at this site, then I'd have to question those who now claim they had heard of them and knew them to be a concern back then.
reorg
(3,317 posts)carrying out an attack every two years or so in far-away countries be a "hot topic" and on anybody's mind constantly?
However, I remember discussing the irrational response to the embassy bombings by Clinton at the time, who decided that shooting missiles at an Aspirin factory in Sudan might achieve something.
BKH70041
(961 posts)"Did you take Al Qaeda / bin Laden seriously before 9/11?"
"Yes. I took the threats very seriously, well before 9/11" is an option from which to choose, and one that over half are picking at this point.
If it was something that a sizable number were taking seriously at the time, I think at least someone would have brought it up in a "Hey, this Al Qaeda group has been saying and doing things and I take their threats very seriously. Let's talk about it" fashion.
Let's see if anyone can document it happening here prior to 9/11.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)in Bush's first term seriously?
How did you feel when they just stopped suddenly after the '04 election?
BKH70041
(961 posts)"Those who have the ability to look into the archives at this site could check back and see how often Al Qaeda was mentioned prior to 9/11 and document via links."
At this point, answering this would be telling. There are a sizable number claiming they knew of Al Qaeda and thought of them as a serious threat. Not just any old threat, but a serious threat. While members and board dynamics change over time, if it was known at the time it seems at least one person would have brought up the topic of Al Qaeda.
You've been here since 2002 which means you missed the first year this site was open for business. Also, like me, you do not have a star which means (as I understand it) we do not have advanced search capabilities. Maybe a star member will read what I'm asking and be willing to accommodate my request. If you have a friend here with a star who would be willing to take the time, that would be nice and appreciated.
I vaguely recall the color-coded alerts, but that's about it. If I looked it up it might trigger some things I have since forgotten.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)in Bush's first term.
Since then we have learned that they were often timed for political effect and the justifications for the alerts were based on unreliable information gained by torturing detainees.
The terror alerts stopped after the '04 election. Attorney General John Ashcroft stepped down after the election, claiming that crime and terror had been defeated.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)we are a target seriously.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I hadn't even heard about them. But if it was my job, or part thereof, to know about potential foreign threats, I probably would have.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Just ask Robin Cook. Oh wait, you can't - he died in mysterious circumstances 4 weeks later.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4326039
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)after I was briefed by Richard Clarke I certainly did take Al Qaeda seriously!!
Completely loaded and unfair question. No I didn't take Al Qaeda seriously. Because I wasn't allowed enough information. See I am just a peon. I don't get briefings, I am not told the truth, and there is no fucking way anyone who didn't have access to classified intelligence, daily briefings and all the information available could make a sound judgement.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)Also, my dad spent most of his career in aviation security, so terrorism is something I take seriously. Yes, there are those who exploit the (irrationally inflated, in the US anyway) fear of terrorism to promote a militaristic agenda, but there are also thousands of people worldwide quietly and without fanfare working to neutralize terrorist threats before they happen.
Uncle Joe
(58,107 posts)I remember viewing this Frontline episode which aired in 1998 when they interviewed Osama Bin Laden.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html
I remember the Republicans accusing the Clinton Administration of being the "tail wagging the dog" when he tried to raise the issue of Al Qaeda and take Bin Laden out with cruise missiles.
The Republicans also said that Clinton was just doing it to take attention away from the Lewinsky Scandal, I remember that as well.
Thanks for the thread, Dreamer Tatum.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I remember a whole MOVIE devoted to the subject, c. 1997...
Uncle Joe
(58,107 posts)of wagging the dog, when he either warned against the growing threat or attacked al Aqaeda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog
Wag the Dog is a 1997 black comedy film[2] produced and directed by Barry Levinson. The screenplay by Hilary Henkin and David Mamet was loosely adapted from Larry Beinhart's novel American Hero. The film stars Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro, with Anne Heche, Denis Leary, and William H. Macy in supporting roles.
Just days before a presidential election, a Washington, D.C. spin doctor (De Niro) distracts the electorate from a sex scandal by hiring a Hollywood film producer (Hoffman) to construct a fake war with Albania.
The film was released one month before the outbreak of the Lewinsky scandal and the subsequent bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan by the Clinton Administration.[3]
(snip)
The Republicans and corporate media had nothing but Monica on their minds.
Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)Go Vols
(5,902 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I gave AQ credit for the USS Cole bombing, but that's as much credit as I'll give them. I don't think they crippled NORAD. Sorry, I'm a tinfoil nutjob, I guess.
It was all an excuse to invade Iraq, and they're trying to sell us another prepackaged war.
dhol82
(9,351 posts)but I do know that when I heard about the planes hitting the towers the first words that popped into my brain were, 'it's Osama Bin Laden.'
He was a known quantity to any number of people prior to 9/11.
Remember running around afterwards and saying hell, if I knew about OBL how come the White House didn't?
Especially after the hearings when they asked Condi about the August 6 PBM. My jaw dropped to the floor and I firmly believed that this was the end of the Bush administration. How wrong I was.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I think there was a cover of Time or Newsweek or something that said "The man who declared war on America" (don't quote me, but it was something like that). He was definitely a known quantity. More to the point, if you and I had heard of him, people who's jobs it is to figure out who's trying to commit terrorist acts shouldn't have been taken by surprise. From what I've read Condi and the rest of them downplayed the risk of Osama and terrorism in general and were focused more on Russia and missile defense and things like that.
I believe that if Gore had been president, then there wouldn't have been a 9-11. Obviously I can't prove this, and who knows what would actually have happened, but Clinton's people were on to Al Qaeda, and Bush's people were both ideologically driven and incompetent.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I didn't take Al Qaeda/bin Laden that seriously after, either, although I grieved for the victims.
I took stolen elections, incompetent politicians, capitalistic desire for empire, the MIC, and American bullies that thrive on military intervention seriously. I still do.
Of course, I was, and still am, a lone wolf when it comes to allowing fear and revenge buttons to exist in myself, let alone to be pushed.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)forum the summer before 9/11 I remember Right Wingers telling me that Clinton was just making 'shit' up when he warned about the threat of terrorism and Bush was right to ignore the Clinton warning.
9/11 could have been stopped, would have been stopped if we had leaders who wanted to stop it.
Clinton had stopped several terrorist attacks including two that would have been worse than 9/11.
That illegal war is what created the situation in the ME today. And doing more of the same will only guarantee MORE OF THE same.
madokie
(51,076 posts)so yes I took them seriously as did President Clinton and his adminstration.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and it's lame.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)Doesn't even mention al-Qaeda, nor Mr bin Laden.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)librechik
(30,663 posts)never heard of him. And it should have stayed that way.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)know anything about them whatsoever.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)according to Ronald Reagan a FREEDOM FIGHTER not a terrist.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)RandySF
(57,589 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)My step father told me that WWIII was not going to be in Europe against the Russians, it was going to be in the Middle East, and we would be right in the middle of the mess.
My department Senior Chief told me basically the same thing in 1981. It was not hard to believe him when we were anchored miles off the coast of Haifa. A post office was blown up, and we had diver killer underwater bombs going off several times a day while being circled by IDF patrol boats.
I spent many hours on anchor watch that week, looking for chain climbers as much as anchor drag.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)No - wasn't even aware of them before 9/11. Because I think that's where a lot of us were.