Why didn't bin-laden assassinate Bush?

  • News
  • Thread starter schwarzchildradius
  • Start date
World Trade Center (symbol of American economic power)the Pentagon (symbol of American military power)and potentially the White House/Capitol Building (symbol of American political power).Their goal was to strike at the heart of America's power and cause widespread chaos and fear. They were not targeting specific leaders, but rather institutions and symbols of American dominance. In summary, the terrorists used intelligence and targeted symbols of American economic, military, and political power in their attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and potentially the White House or Capitol Building. They believed that by striking at these institutions, they could weaken America's power and cause widespread chaos and fear.
  • #1
schwarzchildradius
Bush's schedule was public knowledge and it is easily possible that the jet that went down in Pennsylvania was headed for either the Senate or the White house. The terrorists used intelligence and were not stupid, so why did they opt to strike military beauracrats and soldiers, and Wall Street engines of capitalism instead of a "decapitating" strike at the commander in chief? Did they think that the president was irrelevant to US foreign policy?

__________
"Accept the outcome of a free election" - - Mikhail Gorbechev 1 9 8 9
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Bush's schedule was public knowledge and it is easily possible that the jet that went down in Pennsylvania was headed for either the Senate or the White house. The terrorists used intelligence and were not stupid, so why did they opt to strike military beauracrats and soldiers, and Wall Street engines of capitalism instead of a "decapitating" strike at the commander in chief? Did they think that the president was irrelevant to US foreign policy?

__________
"Accept the outcome of a free election" - - Mikhail Gorbechev 1 9 8 9

Well, he is supposed to be irrelevant, isn't he? No one man is supposed to be all that powerful in this country!
 
  • #3
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Bush's schedule was public knowledge and it is easily possible that the jet that went down in Pennsylvania was headed for either the Senate or the White house. The terrorists used intelligence and were not stupid, so why did they opt to strike military beauracrats and soldiers, and Wall Street engines of capitalism instead of a "decapitating" strike at the commander in chief? Did they think that the president was irrelevant to US foreign policy?

__________
"Accept the outcome of a free election" - - Mikhail Gorbechev 1 9 8 9
The best speculation I heard was that the 4th plane was headed to Washington as well. Bush wasn't there, so the more likely target would have been Congress. That would be far more damaging than taking out the president and I think Bin Laden though nuts was smart enough to know that.
 
  • #4
How would they be able to find and reliably hit the particular building the president was going to be in, at the particular time he was there? The Pentagon plane was supposedly believed to be actually intended for the White House / Congress, which are apparently very hard to find from the air. What if Bush had survived, or changed his schedule? -- then it's useless. And in any case, the President is just one guy; probably worse for OBL if it President Cheney instead. The White House, etc, are national symbols, and include lots of the top people who keep things running... losing an entire administration would be much more of a blow than merely getting a new leader.

Who knows, though.
 
  • #5
That's a good point, it would have been much more devastating to eliminate what 30-100 senators? Yet that does not cripple our military (as much as I'd expect a presidential whacking would).
 
  • #6
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
That's a good point, it would have been much more devastating to eliminate what 30-100 senators? Yet that does not cripple our military (as much as I'd expect a presidential whacking would).

Nope, wouldn't do much...that's why we have chain of command. Everyone get's bumped a notch, and it slows the military down not at all.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by Zero
Nope, wouldn't do much...that's why we have chain of command. Everyone get's bumped a notch, and it slows the military down not at all.

Actually, for the senate and reps. wouldn't there need to be a quorum to pass legislation, including a declaration of war? and to replace senate and reps, doesn't there need to be an election? I had just read an article about this..I can't rmember where..but basicly we would be ruled under marshal law. correct? or?
 
  • #8
Originally posted by kat
Actually, for the senate and reps. wouldn't there need to be a quorum to pass legislation, including a declaration of war? and to replace senate and reps, doesn't there need to be an election? I had just read an article about this..I can't rmember where..but basicly we would be ruled under marshal law. correct? or?

Hmmm...I was saying that killing the president would cripple us less than Congress...for teh reasons you stated.
 
  • #9
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...I was saying that killing the president would cripple us less than Congress...for teh reasons you stated.

Oops@! sorry, misread..at any rate, here's the link to the article for those who have not read it: http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.13208/news_detail.asp
 
  • #10
I order you all to immediately buy and read a copy of "Executive Orders" by Tom Clancy. It begins with a terrorist crashing a plane into the Capitol Building where there is a joint session with the President giving a speech. Everyone is killed - except of course for Vice President Jack Ryan who is running a little late...
 
  • #11
Ted Stevens, senator from my state, is 3rd in line, so I've heard.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Ted Stevens, senator from my state, is 3rd in line, so I've heard.
Yeah.

Presidential Succession
 
  • #13
Originally posted by russ_watters
I order you all to immediately buy and read a copy of "Executive Orders" by Tom Clancy.


I second this order...it is an excellent book, and as most of Clancy's work, tends to be educational as well. A good read.
 
  • #14
They weren't attacking the Bush Administration, they were attacking America.

If they see Americans as weak-willed, then attacking our leadership may only serve to enrage us. But attacking our citizens, economy, & symbolism would break our backs. Or so they thought.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Phobos
They weren't attacking the Bush Administration, they were attacking America.

If they see Americans as weak-willed, then attacking our leadership may only serve to enrage us. But attacking our citizens, economy, & symbolism would break our backs. Or so they thought.

Actually, they were attacking sound military targets in a successful attempt to strike at our infrastructure. In addition, they acheived their goal of forcing America to react precipitously, in order to unify Arab sentiment against America. They have made us see the world on their terms.


The terorists won, folks...
 
  • #16
Originally posted by Zero
Actually, they were attacking sound military targets in a successful attempt to strike at our infrastructure.
Sound military targets? WTF? I'll give you the Pentagon, but the WTC can in no way be construed as a military target.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by russ_watters
Sound military targets? WTF? I'll give you the Pentagon, but the WTC can in no way be construed as a military target.

Well, compared to the targets that American troops hit...yeah, the WTC sounds like a 'good' place to hit.
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Zero
Well, compared to the targets that American troops hit...yeah, the WTC sounds like a 'good' place to hit.
Breathtaking. They must have loved you in whatever branch of the service you were in.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by russ_watters
Breathtaking. They must have loved you in whatever branch of the service you were in.

Yep..they offered me something like $26,000(before taxes, split over 4 years) to re-enlist!

Breathtaking, huh? Economic power is political power, and hitting the infrastructure of that power seems a sound military target to me. Better that than hitting water treatment plants, so that no one has fresh water.
 
  • #20
Oh, and isn't the WTC a more legitimate target than a wedding reception, or Canadians on an training exercise?
 
  • #21
Originally posted by Zero
Oh, and isn't the WTC a more legitimate target than a wedding reception, or Canadians on an training exercise?
I wouldn't even know where to begin explaining the term "error" to you in a way you would understand.
 
  • #22
Originally posted by russ_watters
I wouldn't even know where to begin explaining the term "error" to you in a way you would understand.

That's because, for you, 'error' can't exist if it contradicts Bush and his cronies. You can'r explain, because if you try to explain away what I said, you will have to lie to do so, and you have more integrity than that?
 
  • #23
I wouldn't even know where to begin explaining the term "error" to you in a way you would understand.
I know you're not talking to me with that post, but ...
that's a worthless post.
 
  • #24
Originally posted by Zero
Oh, and isn't the WTC a more legitimate target than a wedding reception, or Canadians on an training exercise?

I'm pretty confident that the U.S. never intentionally targeted such things during the recent wars. (If I'm wrong, I'd like to see the cite/reference for that.)

Intentially targeting civilians (WTC) is very different than accidental deaths resulting from valid military targets. I'll grant the catch-22 that when one engages in military action, it is expected that some civilian deaths will occur (so there is not total innocence).

Actually, they were attacking sound military targets in a successful attempt to strike at our infrastructure.

Stretching the point a bit I think. I agree that infrastructure can be a military target, but this was more economy than infrastructure and they did it in such a way that as many civilians as possible were killed on purpose.

In addition, they acheived their goal of forcing America to react precipitously, in order to unify Arab sentiment against America. They have made us see the world on their terms.

Agree.
 

1. Why didn't bin Laden assassinate Bush?

There is no definitive answer to this question, as it involves speculating on the motivations and actions of a deceased individual. However, some possible reasons could include the logistical challenges and risks involved in carrying out such an attack, the potential consequences and backlash it could bring, and the fact that bin Laden's main focus was on attacking symbols of Western power rather than specific individuals.

2. Did bin Laden ever plan to assassinate Bush?

There is no evidence to suggest that bin Laden specifically planned to assassinate Bush. However, he did make numerous threats against the United States and its leaders, including Bush, and may have considered the possibility at some point.

3. Was bin Laden capable of carrying out an assassination of Bush?

As the leader of Al-Qaeda and the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden certainly had the resources and capabilities to carry out an assassination. However, the actual feasibility and success of such an attack would depend on many factors and could not be guaranteed.

4. Would assassinating Bush have made a significant impact on the War on Terror?

It is impossible to say for certain, but it is unlikely that assassinating Bush would have had a significant impact on the War on Terror. The United States has a system of succession in place, so even if Bush had been killed, another leader would have taken his place. Additionally, the War on Terror was a global effort and not solely focused on one individual.

5. What other factors may have influenced bin Laden's decision not to assassinate Bush?

Aside from the logistical and strategic factors mentioned earlier, it is possible that bin Laden may have had personal or religious reasons for not targeting Bush specifically. Additionally, there may have been other priorities and targets that he deemed more important in his efforts to attack and destabilize the United States.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
64
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top