Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Dreamer Tatum

(10,926 posts)
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 02:12 PM Sep 2014

Did 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%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
82 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did you take Al Qaeda / bin Laden seriously before 9/11? (Original Post) Dreamer Tatum Sep 2014 OP
What does it say in the full 9/11 report about warnings? CJCRANE Sep 2014 #1
Neither before nor after n/t reorg Sep 2014 #2
It started with USS Cole Boom Sound 416 Sep 2014 #3
And the embassy bombing in Tanzania Throd Sep 2014 #7
+1 BKH70041 Sep 2014 #4
Neither the Bush administration or the media CJCRANE Sep 2014 #5
And if the media, etc... had said they were a threat.... BKH70041 Sep 2014 #13
In fact they could have stopped it CJCRANE Sep 2014 #16
This message was self-deleted by its author BKH70041 Sep 2014 #25
You have the audacity to question the age of other posters? OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #40
AFAIK Alex Jones was talking about Bin Laden in the summer of 2001. CJCRANE Sep 2014 #41
Were you sentient in 1998? OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #42
I'm aware of the history of Al Qaeda, CJCRANE Sep 2014 #44
The Bush Administration? OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #46
How did you rate the threat of Al Qaeda CJCRANE Sep 2014 #49
This has gone far afield. OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #50
My point is that one can be aware of CJCRANE Sep 2014 #54
What makes you think there was "almost no mention" in the media? OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #55
2004 was after 9/11. Where are the examples from the summer of 2001? CJCRANE Sep 2014 #60
Bill Cohen, testifying in 2004, OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #63
This message was self-deleted by its author CJCRANE Sep 2014 #64
that you cannot be more specific is quite telling reorg Sep 2014 #66
You're ignoring an obvious factor in your presumption. OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #67
following recent discussions and reports, the turn of phrase reorg Sep 2014 #69
If it's important for you to presume intent, go right ahead. OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #72
I'd never heard of them before. Hatchling Sep 2014 #6
I'd never heard of them either. Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #27
I don't think I'd heard of them treestar Sep 2014 #37
Yes I did, So did the Clinton administration and President Gore. Autumn Sep 2014 #8
So, I did not know much about Al Qaeda before 9/11. Xyzse Sep 2014 #9
I thought they were the Crimson Jihad ileus Sep 2014 #10
After 9/11 why take the 17+ Intel agencie$ seriously? leftstreet Sep 2014 #11
+10000000 PeteSelman Sep 2014 #74
Had anyone heard the names Al Qaeda and Osama Hari Seldon Sep 2014 #12
Yes. I had. Throd Sep 2014 #14
Not Time Magazine Hari Seldon Sep 2014 #15
PBS did jakeXT Sep 2014 #17
Your question prompted me to look for it reorg Sep 2014 #23
I had read about him in the July 1998 readers digest. NutmegYankee Sep 2014 #22
It was a fairly common discussion right here on DU before 9/11. ieoeja Sep 2014 #24
Interesting choice of username. You're aware that Al Quaeda translates as "The Foundation"? Electric Monk Sep 2014 #31
Yes. They were both out there Renew Deal Sep 2014 #52
The embassy bombings were a huge deal and in turn geek tragedy Sep 2014 #18
Yup....I was in high school at the time and even I remember those bombings Cali_Democrat Sep 2014 #21
I remember the bombings but don't remember hearing Al Quaeda or Osama Bin Laden mentioned Louisiana1976 Sep 2014 #29
They claimed 'credit' right away IIRC nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #32
Did you find CJCRANE Sep 2014 #19
I had not been paying attention. jwirr Sep 2014 #20
How about those from this site? BKH70041 Sep 2014 #26
Why would some terrorists reorg Sep 2014 #34
Because of what it would indicate. BKH70041 Sep 2014 #36
Did you take the color-coded terror alerts CJCRANE Sep 2014 #39
Those who have the ability to look into the archives at this site could check back and see BKH70041 Sep 2014 #45
I mention the color-coded terror alerts because they were a running joke on DU CJCRANE Sep 2014 #47
No i didn't take them seriously but after they attacked NYC I take them and the fact hrmjustin Sep 2014 #28
Not my job. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #30
It's interesting that "did not wish to select any of the options provided." is currently winning. nt Electric Monk Sep 2014 #33
No movie required Man from Pickens Sep 2014 #35
Oh yeah right after I saw the classified documents, the daily briefings and SomethingFishy Sep 2014 #38
Yes, thanks to the Cole and embassy bombings in the 90s cemaphonic Sep 2014 #43
I took them as a threat in the 90s beginning with the embassy bombings, and then the Cole Uncle Joe Sep 2014 #48
Now that you mention it... OilemFirchen Sep 2014 #56
Yes, "Wag the Dog" came out in 97 and the Republicans accused Clinton Uncle Joe Sep 2014 #58
Yes. They claimed to want to finish the job at WTC and I believed them. Renew Deal Sep 2014 #51
Yes Go Vols Sep 2014 #53
you mean the 19 Saudis with boxcutters? NightWatcher Sep 2014 #57
Don't remember exactly when I was first aware of Al Qaeda dhol82 Sep 2014 #59
I agree with this. DanTex Sep 2014 #82
No. LWolf Sep 2014 #61
Yes, and I knew that Bush was ignoring the threat. Posting on a right wing dominated sabrina 1 Sep 2014 #62
First two words out of my mouth that fateful day was Bin Laden madokie Sep 2014 #65
I know where you're trying to go with this whatchamacallit Sep 2014 #68
Some of us read the "Terror 2000" report and just knew Bush was gonna fuck it up. nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #70
The Terror 2000 report published in 1994? reorg Sep 2014 #73
No...the update. nt msanthrope Sep 2014 #79
Where is the poll answer" Who the hell is Who?" librechik Sep 2014 #71
I wasn't old enough to Jamaal510 Sep 2014 #75
Until "September the Eleventh" 2001, Osama bin Missing was rustydog Sep 2014 #76
JFK was going to end the CIA, Why? Harry Truman regretted the NSA, Why? orpupilofnature57 Sep 2014 #77
Yep, and he was first on my mind when the towers were hit. RandySF Sep 2014 #78
1972. Munich Olympics attack on the Israeli Olympic team. FrodosPet Sep 2014 #80
You forgot customerserviceguy Sep 2014 #81

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
5. Neither the Bush administration or the media
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 02:22 PM
Sep 2014

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)
13. And if the media, etc... had said they were a threat....
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 02:49 PM
Sep 2014

... 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)
16. In fact they could have stopped it
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 03:04 PM
Sep 2014

without drumming up fear...but they did nothing at all.

But that's another story.

Response to BKH70041 (Reply #13)

OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
40. You have the audacity to question the age of other posters?
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 05:41 PM
Sep 2014

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)
41. AFAIK Alex Jones was talking about Bin Laden in the summer of 2001.
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 05:45 PM
Sep 2014

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?

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
44. I'm aware of the history of Al Qaeda,
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 05:58 PM
Sep 2014

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)
46. The Bush Administration?
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 06:08 PM
Sep 2014

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)
49. How did you rate the threat of Al Qaeda
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 06:25 PM
Sep 2014

in summer 2001?

What was your assessment of their operational capacity?

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
54. My point is that one can be aware of
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 06:46 PM
Sep 2014

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)
55. What makes you think there was "almost no mention" in the media?
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 07:17 PM
Sep 2014

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:

During my tenure at DOD, no matter had a higher priority than countering the threat posed to America, our people and our interests by international terrorists. No issue consumed more personal attention by me, many other senior colleagues in DOD, and I believe other Principals. I personally made sure that it also was front and center for defence ministers, foreign ministers, prime ministers and presidents of the nearly 100 countries with which I dealt and whose cooperation could help in countering this threat.

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.

OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
63. Bill Cohen, testifying in 2004,
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 08:57 AM
Sep 2014

about his tenure as Secretary of Defense, 1997–2001.

So... again... in the cite to which you are responding.

Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #63)

reorg

(3,317 posts)
66. that you cannot be more specific is quite telling
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 10:15 AM
Sep 2014

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)
67. You're ignoring an obvious factor in your presumption.
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 10:43 AM
Sep 2014

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)
69. following recent discussions and reports, the turn of phrase
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:37 AM
Sep 2014

"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)
72. If it's important for you to presume intent, go right ahead.
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 12:37 PM
Sep 2014

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)
6. I'd never heard of them before.
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 02:26 PM
Sep 2014

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.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
37. I don't think I'd heard of them
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 05:11 PM
Sep 2014

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)
8. Yes I did, So did the Clinton administration and President Gore.
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 02:38 PM
Sep 2014

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)
9. So, I did not know much about Al Qaeda before 9/11.
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 02:41 PM
Sep 2014

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.

leftstreet

(36,076 posts)
11. After 9/11 why take the 17+ Intel agencie$ seriously?
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 02:43 PM
Sep 2014


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
 

Hari Seldon

(154 posts)
15. Not Time Magazine
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 03:01 PM
Sep 2014
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,131866,00.html

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)
17. PBS did
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 03:25 PM
Sep 2014
But there's some confusion here apparently. Today in the United States, we hear from law enforcement about Al Qaeda.

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)
23. Your question prompted me to look for it
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 03:52 PM
Sep 2014

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:

Posted: August 29, 1998

... 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)
22. I had read about him in the July 1998 readers digest.
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 03:50 PM
Sep 2014
http://www.rd.com/advice/this-man-wants-you-dead-osama-bin-laden/

I had also been following the Taliban takeover in the paper from 96 on, so I was familiar with them.
 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
24. It was a fairly common discussion right here on DU before 9/11.
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 03:52 PM
Sep 2014

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)
31. Interesting choice of username. You're aware that Al Quaeda translates as "The Foundation"?
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 04:21 PM
Sep 2014

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)
52. Yes. They were both out there
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 06:43 PM
Sep 2014

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)
18. The embassy bombings were a huge deal and in turn
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 03:34 PM
Sep 2014

the US bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan. Anyone who was paying attention knew of them.

Louisiana1976

(3,962 posts)
29. I remember the bombings but don't remember hearing Al Quaeda or Osama Bin Laden mentioned
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 04:14 PM
Sep 2014

in connection with them.

BKH70041

(961 posts)
26. How about those from this site?
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 04:06 PM
Sep 2014

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)
34. Why would some terrorists
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 04:31 PM
Sep 2014

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)
36. Because of what it would indicate.
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 05:07 PM
Sep 2014

"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)
39. Did you take the color-coded terror alerts
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 05:36 PM
Sep 2014

in Bush's first term seriously?

How did you feel when they just stopped suddenly after the '04 election?

BKH70041

(961 posts)
45. Those who have the ability to look into the archives at this site could check back and see
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 06:07 PM
Sep 2014

"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)
47. I mention the color-coded terror alerts because they were a running joke on DU
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 06:15 PM
Sep 2014

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)
28. No i didn't take them seriously but after they attacked NYC I take them and the fact
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 04:14 PM
Sep 2014

we are a target seriously.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
30. Not my job.
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 04:15 PM
Sep 2014

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.

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)
38. Oh yeah right after I saw the classified documents, the daily briefings and
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 05:32 PM
Sep 2014

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)
43. Yes, thanks to the Cole and embassy bombings in the 90s
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 05:57 PM
Sep 2014

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)
48. I took them as a threat in the 90s beginning with the embassy bombings, and then the Cole
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 06:24 PM
Sep 2014

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.

Uncle Joe

(58,107 posts)
58. Yes, "Wag the Dog" came out in 97 and the Republicans accused Clinton
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 07:32 PM
Sep 2014

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.

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
57. you mean the 19 Saudis with boxcutters?
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 07:29 PM
Sep 2014

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)
59. Don't remember exactly when I was first aware of Al Qaeda
Mon Sep 22, 2014, 08:36 PM
Sep 2014

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)
82. I agree with this.
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 09:58 PM
Sep 2014

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)
61. No.
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 08:22 AM
Sep 2014

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)
62. Yes, and I knew that Bush was ignoring the threat. Posting on a right wing dominated
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 08:27 AM
Sep 2014

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)
65. First two words out of my mouth that fateful day was Bin Laden
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 10:14 AM
Sep 2014

so yes I took them seriously as did President Clinton and his adminstration.

rustydog

(9,186 posts)
76. Until "September the Eleventh" 2001, Osama bin Missing was
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 08:11 PM
Sep 2014

according to Ronald Reagan a FREEDOM FIGHTER not a terrist.

FrodosPet

(5,169 posts)
80. 1972. Munich Olympics attack on the Israeli Olympic team.
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 09:43 PM
Sep 2014

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did you take Al Qaeda / b...