Why Feb 26, 1993 Shows That Those Who Say jan. 6, 2021 was "No Big Deal" Are Wrong.

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

A common theme among Republicans and some independents is that the event's on Jan 6 2021 should not be taken seriously because it didn't succeed and was so stupid and unorganized that it never had a chance of succeeding. Why even investigate it? Why talk about it? Why think about it? It failed...it's over....end of story.....right? 

Trial Runs Always Look Incompetent

January 6 and our continuing failure of imagination.

https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/trial-runs-always-look-incompetent

Part of the frustration this week is listening to people argue that the January 6 attack on the presidential electoral vote count was NBD. Mona Charen has an excellent roundup of such statements here. It’s depressing.

But is it surprising?

Maybe it shouldn’t be. Because we often suffer from failures of imagination. Let me tell you a story.

On February 26, 1993 Ramzi Yousef and Eyad Ismoil parked a rental van in the public garage beneath the World Trade Center. The van was filled with explosives. Yousef lit the fuse and at 12:17 p.m. the bomb exploded.

Yousef’s plan had been to bring down the North Tower and have it crash into the South Tower.

The plan was almost comically stupid: 1,300 lbs. of fertilizer-based explosives was not going to bring down that tower. And even if it could have brought down the building, this was not like felling a tree, where Yousef could precisely angle how one tower fell in order hit the other tower.

Yousef was the idiot ringleader and the cast of characters around him were like something out of a bad movie.

There was a blind fake “sheikh” named Omar Abdel-Rahman.

There was Yousef’s right-hand man, Mohammed Salameh, a dude with a unibrow who failed his driver’s test in America four times and kept getting into car accidents while helping Yousef plan the attack. Salameh drove a 1978 Chevy Nova—which is itself a ludicrous detail—and in one of his accidents Yousef, who was riding shotgun, was hurt badly enough that he was hospitalized.

But here’s the best part: Yousef wound up ordering the chemicals for his WTC bomb over the phone from his hospital room.

Or maybe the best part is that Yousef thought that 250,000 people worked in the Twin Towers. (The real number was about 50,000.)

Or maybe the best part is that just before the bombing, Yousef dropped a letter into the mail to the New York Times claiming responsibility for the attacks that he thought would have killed 250,000 people by knocking one tower into another like dominoes.

Or maybe the best part is that in this letter, Yousef claimed to belong to the “Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion.” Which is, you know, not actually a thing that exists.

In the end, Yousef’s bomb blew a large hole through some concrete. Six people were killed. The World Trade Center did not fall.1

---

What a bunch of clowns! How could anyone have taken Yousef and his bumbling co-conspirators seriously? They never could have brought down the towers!

That was the general tenor of the response. A handful of arrests were made. The towers were closed for a couple months to repair the damage and do some renovations.

But no larger actions were taken. And the people who viewed this bumbling attempt as part of a larger emerging pattern of Islamist terrorism were, for the most part, dismissed as worrywarts. It was a criminal matter and it was taken care and it was time to move on. In fact, I’d bet a watch that the vast majority of Americans don’t even remember February 26, 1993.

Except that eight years later a different group of terrorists with the same goals, but who were much better organized, managed to bring down both buildings with nothing more than a couple credit cards and some boxcutters.

---

There were signs, in 1993, that Yousef’s attempt to destroy the WTC was more serious than it looked. He’d trained at a terrorist camp in Pakistan. And his uncle was a fellow named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was very much not a joke.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—KSM—was a high-level al Qaeda operative. He provided Yousef with some guidance for his bombing plan, as well as some kickstarter money for the operation.

KSM learned from Yousef’s failure and applied those lessons to his master plan for the 9/11 attacks.

After the 1993 attack Yousef—who would not be arrested until years later—made his way to the Philippines, where he and KSM worked together on an operation to detonate bombs simultaneously on several airliners. This plan, Operation Bojinka, was discovered in 1995 before it could be launched.

But KSM learned a lot about airline security while working on Bojinka. He used this knowledge to formulate a plan to hijack airliners and use the planes themselves as bombs. He presented this plan to the al Qaeda high command and, after some bureaucratic back-and-forth, KSM was given the go-ahead sometime in late 1998 or early 1999.

You know what happened next.

---

The point here is that there was a straight line from February 26, 1993 to September 11, 2001. Same target. Same political goals. Same ideology. Even some overlapping personnel.

One of those attacks was so amateurish and ridiculous that it became a punchline. The other changed American life and institutions for a generation.

To look at January 6, 2021 and insist that nothing serious is at stake, that the people involved were too ridiculous, too stupid, too incompetent to ever do any real damage is either a failure of imagination or an attempt to render aid and comfort to democracy’s enemies.

Edited January 6, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[wdefromtx 3,159]

I thought comparing Trump to Hitler or 1/6 to Hitler's failed coup attempt with his cronies was bad.................but comparing 1/6 to the WTC bombing?

 

Some of y'all need to get a grip. I went to lunch with a colleague yesterday and he's a liberal....nice guy. But he was talking about 1/6 and the crap he said, he seemed legitimately terrified that the events on 1/6 were so close to pulling off a real coup. It is a big deal that they tried something stupid and that someone got killed, but it wasn't even close to being as bad as the left make it out to be.

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

17 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I thought comparing Trump to Hitler or 1/6 to Hitler's failed coup attempt with his cronies was bad.................but comparing 1/6 to the WTC bombing?

Some of y'all need to get a grip. I went to lunch with a colleague yesterday and he's a liberal....nice guy. But he was talking about 1/6 and the crap he said, he seemed legitimately terrified that the events on 1/6 were so close to pulling off a real coup. It is a big deal that they tried something stupid and that someone got killed, but it wasn't even close to being as bad as the left make it out to be.

It wasn't just the physical storming of the Capitol that plays into how close we came to possibly irreparably damaging our democracy.  It was the enormous pressure and effort to get Pence not to certify the results of the election and to try and get the House to hand the election to Trump.  This wasn't just some theoretical exercise.  It was a genuine and frightening attempt to hijack an election by someone who could not accept that the majority of Americans no longer wanted him as president.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It wasn't just the physical storming of the Capitol that plays into how close we came to possibly irreparably damaging our democracy.  It was the enormous pressure and effort to get Pence not to certify the results of the election and to try and get the House to hand the election to Trump.  This wasn't just some theoretical exercise.  It was a genuine and frightening attempt to hijack an election by someone who could not accept that the majority of Americans no longer wanted him as president.

That never had any remote possibility of succeeding. Pence certified it as he should have. Did you actually think he would go along with Trump's crazy plan? I didn't. There were reasons certain mechanisms for the transfer of power were put into place and they did exactly what they were supposed to do. Lucky for us our founders had the forethought to plan for someone like Trump and they got it right. 

People act like we got lucky that he didn't succeed, which is not even remotely close to the truth. I guess some of us have a little more faith in the system to prevent such things from happening than others.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

That never had any remote possibility of succeeding. Pence certified it as he should have. Did you actually think he would go along with Trump's crazy plan? I didn't. There were reasons certain mechanisms for the transfer of power were put into place and they did exactly what they were supposed to do. Lucky for us our founders had the forethought to plan for someone like Trump and they got it right. 

People act like we got lucky that he didn't succeed, which is not even remotely close to the truth. I guess some of us have a little more faith in the system to prevent such things from happening than others.

What if Pence hadn’t? Then it goes back to Republican state legislatures that were Trump lap dogs. Then it goes to Congress with each state getting a vote. Republican congressional states are the majority. That was the plan. Many other sycophants serving as V.P. would have gone along. The pressure on Pence was enormous. Trump told the crowd he was a traitor. They built a gallows for him. You have to willfully be ignorant not to know all this.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

That never had any remote possibility of succeeding.

This is a ridiculously naive thing to say.
 

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Pence certified it as he should have. Did you actually think he would go along with Trump's crazy plan? I didn't.

Of course he ended up certifying it as he should have.  The issue is, there was a genuine and concerted effort to pressure him into not certifying it.  People behind the scenes have recounted how Pence wrestled with this and questioned whether he had any actual leeway to do this.  He was at least pondering it.  In the end he listened to the right legal voices and did what was right, but there were plenty of people on Trump's legal team putting the full court press on him to refuse the electors and cast this into the House of Representatives.

I'm thankful he did what was right and legal.  But don't give me this gaslighting bull**** that it wasn't a legitimate threat.

 

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

There were reasons certain mechanisms for the transfer of power were put into place and they did exactly what they were supposed to do. Lucky for us our founders had the forethought to plan for someone like Trump and they got it right. 

People act like we got lucky that he didn't succeed, which is not even remotely close to the truth. I guess some of us have a little more faith in the system to prevent such things from happening than others.

We were lucky. Hell, even if Pence had gone along with it and it somehow got thwarted further down the road, the damage to our country would have been lasting and perhaps irreparable.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This is a ridiculously naive thing to say.
 

Of course he ended up certifying it as he should have.  The issue is, there was a genuine and concerted effort to pressure him into not certifying it.  People behind the scenes have recounted how Pence wrestled with this and questioned whether he had any actual leeway to do this.  He was at least pondering it.  In the end he listened to the right legal voices and did what was right, but there were plenty of people on Trump's legal team putting the full court press on him to refuse the electors and cast this into the House of Representatives.

I'm thankful he did what was right and legal.  But don't give me this gaslighting bull**** that it wasn't a legitimate threat.

 

We were lucky. Hell, even if Pence had gone along with it and it somehow got thwarted further down the road, the damage to our country would have been lasting and perhaps irreparable.

Nevermind the fact that the VP doesn't have any legal power when it comes to certifying the votes. He's only there as a presider and couldn't do anything if he wanted to. 

Also, let's say they were successful in getting states votes objected to and thrown out and it changed the outcome of the election....that wouldn't have even been a coup as well. 

I will say it again, it never had any chance of succeeding. There was so much BS put out by both sides of the media that people actually believe he had a path. He did not. 

[homersapien 11,440]

36 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

That never had any remote possibility of succeeding. Pence certified it as he should have. Did you actually think he would go along with Trump's crazy plan? I didn't. There were reasons certain mechanisms for the transfer of power were put into place and they did exactly what they were supposed to do. Lucky for us our founders had the forethought to plan for someone like Trump and they got it right. 

People act like we got lucky that he didn't succeed, which is not even remotely close to the truth. I guess some of us have a little more faith in the system to prevent such things from happening than others.

Edited January 6, 2022 by homersapien

[TitanTiger 20,510]

9 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Nevermind the fact that the VP doesn't have any legal power when it comes to certifying the votes. He's only there as a presider and couldn't do anything if he wanted to. 

This was the very legal argument being made though - that he actually did have the legal power to do this.  They were making a constitutional case and a means of interpreting the relevant legalities to argue he could do this.  You really haven't done your homework.

 

9 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Also, let's say they were successful in getting states votes objected to and thrown out and it changed the outcome of the election....that wouldn't have even been a coup as well. 

Go home, you're drunk.

A coup doesn't have to come at the point of gun.

 

9 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I will say it again, it never had any chance of succeeding. There was so much BS put out by both sides of the media that people actually believe he had a path. He did not. 

"Both sides."  

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

This was the very legal argument being made though - that he actually did have the legal power to do this.  They were making a constitutional case and a means of interpreting the relevant legalities to argue he could do this.  You really haven't done your homework.

 

Go home, you're drunk.

A coup doesn't have to come at the point of gun.

 

"Both sides."  

You haven't done any homework yourself if you believe his legal claims had any real merit. They didn't, we just had to deal with all the circus show involved to get to the answer most sane people already knew. The fact that you really think he had a shot at pulling it off shows you just bought into all the hoopla that he could. SMH. That is almost as bad as the people on his side that believed him. 

[homersapien 11,440]

48 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

You haven't done any homework yourself if you believe his legal claims had any real merit. They didn't, we just had to deal with all the circus show involved to get to the answer most sane people already knew. The fact that you really think he had a shot at pulling it off shows you just bought into all the hoopla that he could. SMH. That is almost as bad as the people on his side that believed him. 

The fact they may or may not have had legal "merit" is not for you to decide and it largely irrelevant to the actual threat. 

(For example, I don't think that Citizen's United was rightly decided, but that didn't stop it from being so.)

The constitution would allow for (Republican) state legislatures to pursue their case, faulty or not.  Our legal process is such that it would have taken months - if not years - to sort it out. And keep in mind the (Republican) SCOTUS would ultimately have a say - just as they did in Bush v. Gore.

What would be going on in the country while all this all played out? 

The people trying to overturn the election knew that, way better than you do. They would have willfully created a constitutional crisis.  They didn't care if it had legal merit or not. They were focused on outcome, no matter how they achieved it.

That effort was definitely a threat to our countries democratic stability regardless of it's legal "merit".

Edited January 6, 2022 by homersapien

[TitanTiger 20,510]

31 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

You haven't done any homework yourself if you believe his legal claims had any real merit. They didn't, we just had to deal with all the circus show involved to get to the answer most sane people already knew. The fact that you really think he had a shot at pulling it off shows you just bought into all the hoopla that he could. SMH. That is almost as bad as the people on his side that believed him. 

You aren't listening.  It isn't whether I or you think they had any legal merit.  It was whether they could convince Pence they had legal merit.  If they did that, the chaos alone would get them halfway there.  Then it would shift to whether enough state legislatures and the GOP members of the House would buy it.

Even if in the end it somehow got squashed, it would have been devastating to the stability of our government.  You think things are bad now?  You don't want to know what it would have looked like had Pence been convinced to give it a go.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The fact they may or may not have had legal "merit" is not for you to decide and it largely irrelevant to the actual threat. 

(For example, I don't think that Citizen's United was rightly decided, but that didn't stop it from being so.)

Our legal process is such that it would have taken months - if not years - to sort it out.  Meanwhile the constitution would allow for (Republican) state legislatures to pursue their case, faulty or not.  And keep in mind the SCOTUS would ultimately have a say - just as they did in Bush v. Gore.

What would be going on in the country while this all played out?

The people trying to overturn the election knew all that, probably way better than you do.

It was definitely a threat to our countries democratic stability regardless legal "merit".

Not to mention, destabilization and eroding trust in the government was largely the point.  Even if ultimately unsuccessful at putting Trump back in office long term, the desired effect would have been accomplished.  Hell, they got a partial victory on that point already with how many gullible saps they convinced that the election was stolen.

[I_M4_AU 7,986]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It was whether they could convince Pence they had legal merit.

This whole argument is based on the assumption Pence could be convinced Trump had legal merit and it just didn’t happen.  Pence might have mulled over Trump’s idea that Pence could Constitutionally hold up the vote, as any thoughtful person would, but Pence held to his beliefs.

Trump was a desperate man at that point and even called Tuberville to help out (now that is desperate).  Trump knew it wasn’t going to work.  There is also an assumption the rioters were acting on the direction of Trump to storm the Capitol that has yet to be proven at this time.  Trump didn’t take the breach of the Capitol serious enough and left Pence swinging in the wind, but that was the extent, IMO

This should be enough to defeat Trump’s bid for re-election at the primary level, but we shall see.

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

That never had any remote possibility of succeeding. Pence certified it as he should have. Did you actually think he would go along with Trump's crazy plan? I didn't. There were reasons certain mechanisms for the transfer of power were put into place and they did exactly what they were supposed to do. Lucky for us our founders had the forethought to plan for someone like Trump and they got it right. 

People act like we got lucky that he didn't succeed, which is not even remotely close to the truth. I guess some of us have a little more faith in the system to prevent such things from happening than others.

 

Well:

#1) our presidential election process largely Doesn't operate in the way or fashion that the founding fathers set it up or intended it to run, so what they intended isn't very relevant. The founding fathers original framework was also very vague and left a lot of holes for different interpretations. Go look up how U.S Presidential elections were originally intended to function. its interesting. While the founding fathers were a collection of very smart and driven men, they set up a very imperfect and incomplete system of government that can and has been easily exploited and taken advantage of.

#2) There were 100+ Republican lawmakers who supported Trumps claim and would not have objected to Pence rejecting the certification. Part of the reason it didn't happen was because the Republicans didn't have a super majority of congress. 

#3) You've clearly missed the point of the original article because it wasn't comparing the motives and goals of 2/26/93 to 1/6/21, it was comparing Americas reaction and lack of follow-through post events. Neither event had any real chance at success, but some of the same people who were involved in the WTC bombing were also involved in the events on 9/11...America allowed them a 2nd chance and they took it and learned from their first go around. 

Same with 1/6..people like you don't want to hold Trump or Republicans accountable for it because you say it never had a chance of success...

#4 ) Laws and the U.S. Constitution are only worth what the powers that control the U.S. government deem they are worth. 

On 1/6 the President of the United States, parts of his inner circle and advisors, a hundred+ Republican's lawmakers and 10's of millions of Republican voters ALL supported his unlawful and unconstitutional plan to void and or stall the US election.  It wasn't stopped because of laws or the constitution..or "safeguards ..it was stopped because Trump didn't have ENOUGH support in the federal government to make it happen. 

That's it.

When you say it was laws that stopped him you are wrong...laws did nothing...having enough people in government who were willing to stand up and enforce or follow those laws is what stopped it. 

 

#5) 

You seem to agree that Trump was a mistake and what he and Republican's tried to do on 1/6 was wrong, 

Then why do you continue to be against the media and government holding them responsible for what they did and tried to do?  

Why do you want to shield and defend Republicans from accountability?

Why do you continue to try and "Both sides" this as if Democrats did anything at all to cause Jan6 to occur? Why is it wrong for someone to believe that Republicans are wrong for what they did on 1/6 and that it should be fully investigated and covered in the news? Why should we just sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn't happen? 

Other than trying to protect "your side" I don't really understand what your motive is. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This whole argument is based on the assumption Pence could be convinced Trump had legal merit and it just didn’t happen.  Pence might have mulled over Trump’s idea that Pence could Constitutionally hold up the vote, as any thoughtful person would, but Pence held to his beliefs.

And I'm thankful for him being a man of principle when the moment called for it.  But don't act like it wasn't possible or that there's no way he could ever have been convinced otherwise.

 

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Trump was a desperate man at that point and even called Tuberville to help out (now that is desperate).  Trump knew it wasn’t going to work.  There is also an assumption the rioters were acting on the direction of Trump to storm the Capitol that has yet to be proven at this time.  Trump didn’t take the breach of the Capitol serious enough and left Pence swinging in the wind, but that was the extent, IMO

This should be enough to defeat Trump’s bid for re-election at the primary level, but we shall see.

There was ample reason to defeat Trump at the primary level in 2016 but people abandoned their principles to make him the nominee anyway.  I have little faith that the rank and file GOP members have learned any lessons.

[DKW 86 7,440]

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

14 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

 

Yes, yes, we know DK. Jan 6 is a nothing-burger, but Chris Cuomo inappropriately talking with his brother is a historic event that should never be forgotten. 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,986]

56 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And I'm thankful for him being a man of principle when the moment called for it.  But don't act like it wasn't possible or that there's no way he could ever have been convinced otherwise.

 

There was ample reason to defeat Trump at the primary level in 2016 but people abandoned their principles to make him the nominee anyway.  I have little faith that the rank and file GOP members have learned any lessons.

Pence is a man of principle, that’s the whole point.  It pure speculation that he could be convinced otherwise.  I don’t know Pence other than his actions that are public and they told me he wasn’t falling for Trump’s BS.

Trump will face more learned competition this time around.   I believe his rivals will let Trump bluster his way to defeat as not too many people I know of wants to suffer through 4 more years of an old man yelling at clouds.

[autigeremt 6,686]

Craziness.....but hey, whatever. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Pence is a man of principle, that’s the whole point.  It pure speculation that he could be convinced otherwise.  I don’t know Pence other than his actions that are public and they told me he wasn’t falling for Trump’s BS.

I will agree with you there. I don't agree with Pence on a lot of things, but I can't argue that he doesn't stand fast in his beliefs and principles. He's one of the very few close Trump associates who has never been directly accused of lying, breaking the law, or defrauding peoples. 

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Trump will face more learned competition this time around.   I believe his rivals will let Trump bluster his way to defeat as not too many people I know of wants to suffer through 4 more years of an old man yelling at clouds.

It may be true that many Republicans don't care for Trumps attitude and speeches, but in many cases those same people DO love his policies, beliefs, and his fight at all costs, never surrender attitude. 

If Republicans believe Trump is the best hope to win the 2024 election for the R's then they will grab their noses and checkmark his name just as many of them did in 2016 and 2020. 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Pence is a man of principle, that’s the whole point.  It pure speculation that he could be convinced otherwise.  I don’t know Pence other than his actions that are public and they told me he wasn’t falling for Trump’s BS.

Trump will face more learned competition this time around.   I believe his rivals will let Trump bluster his way to defeat as not too many people I know of wants to suffer through 4 more years of an old man yelling at clouds.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,986]

21 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

It may be true that many Republicans don't care for Trumps attitude and speeches, but in many cases those same people DO love his policies, beliefs, and his fight at all costs, never surrender attitude. 

If Republicans believe Trump is the best hope to win the 2024 election for the R's then they will grab their noses and checkmark his name just as many of them did in 2016 and 2020. 

Both of these statements are true IMO. If Trump makes it out of the primaries it greatly depends on who will the Democrats will run in 2024.  That, in turn, will depend on how the midterms end up.  Whether the Democrats can be more centrist if the midterms go to the Republicans, or will they double down on the extreme left.  It will be an exciting couple of years.

[DKW 86 7,440]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Yes, yes, we know DK. Jan 6 is a nothing-burger, but Chris Cuomo inappropriately talking with his brother is a historic event that should never be forgotten. 

Difference being: 1-6 is what people THINK it was. Actually only one person died due to what happened. She was a protestor that was shot by a COP. 

What Andrew Cuomo did was DEADLY. He literally sent 12-15K elderly to their deaths.
What CC did was aid and abet AC by providing insider info on what the press was seeing and then gathering info to shame the accusers.

See the difference? THINK vs ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by DKW 86

[TitanTiger 20,510]

55 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Pence is a man of principle, that’s the whole point.  It pure speculation that he could be convinced otherwise.  I don’t know Pence other than his actions that are public and they told me he wasn’t falling for Trump’s BS.

He was a man of principle that was still open to doing what Trump asked.  It took people like Dan Quayle telling him point blank that it was a batshit crazy idea to finally convince him.  Don't kid yourself that he knew exactly the right thing to do and did it without any qualms or hesitation.

 

55 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Trump will face more learned competition this time around.   I believe his rivals will let Trump bluster his way to defeat as not too many people I know of wants to suffer through 4 more years of an old man yelling at clouds.

From your lips to God's ears.  

I used to have more faith in the American people.