Who gets blamed for the 9/11 terrorist attack? Options

[Spirited Away]

i'm sorry if you felt i lumped you with the general american public, but it's true that most of people afraid of getting bombed and what not. i refuse to worry about getting anthrax in the mail or whatever  rubbish i'm fed by the media, who is in turn oppressed by the political climate imposed by bush. as NPR said, "news is no longer news; you turn it on to confirm what you already know."

osama bin laden was already quite well recognised as a crazy bastard, with the bombing of that ship and various other unpleasantries. it would make little difference if people thought it was a way to suppress privacy now, since that is exactly what is happening.

There are many recognized crazy bastards all over the world and there are also unrecognized ones. Would you have guessed that any one of them would attack? I didn't, but I do not dare to disregard the possibility of it either and I think you can agree with me somewhat on this.

If there is such oppression in the media, then it will be general knowledge to ignore what's being said in the news opinion wise and we can just focus on events, which we should be focusing on in the first place. I'm sure you have many different sources for news, do you think that all of them are corrupted? I sometimes browse through European news and sites (such as British and French news) and read American as well as Vietnamese newspapers to get my news and form my opinions based on these different sources. We are NOT limitted to CNN, Fox, NBC, MSN... etc.

An excerpt from this article taken from the CNN.com website:


President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner

We get threats ALL the time. Remember the trend of bomb threats in school after Columbine? I was in PE class (high school) when there was an emergency evac because some idiot sent the principle a bomb threat email. Of course nothing happened, but then there were bomb threats following that one, and nothing happened. The news reported that several schools received bomb threats as a joke.

The excerpt said that the President was warned that there was a possibility of a hijacking. He should have taken it seriously, yes, but what then? Could he have prevented it, you think? The article also CONTINUES that "the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort".

Also, the same article says that Bush DID TAKE PRECAUTIONS:
"It was in May 2001, for example, that Bush asked Vice President Dick Cheney to lead an administration task force to assess the country's counter-terrorism effort."

What more can he do but to assess the situation? What CAN he do without "specific, credible information"?

[ComradeRed]

According to University of Michigan researcher Micaehl Sivak, your chance of being killed by a terrorist attack on any given day is about 1 in 2.6 billion. To compare, your chance of being killed on a rural interstate highway is 1 in 2.6 billion for every 80 yards you drive.

However, delaying airline passengers has cost the economy $20 billion a year, plus the secret police's new $30 billion budget.

So we are spending $50 billion a yearm not to mention what we are doing in other countries, to stop what is really a miniscule chance of death, is the way that the terrorists are winning -- by causing massive disruption.

Whenever someone drives 80 yards on the Ohio Interstate, we don't spend $50 billion trying to make that 80 yards safer -- and for good reason. It's the same deal with terrorism.

Also, remember the dirty bomb? Leading American nuclear engineers say that the dirty bomb would have achieved a result of ... increasing normal background radiation by 25%. The nuclear engineers advise that, if someone sets off a dirty bomb within eye's view of you, you should just calmly walk away.

WMDs are also not a threat. Chemical weapons only work well in gas chambers, and biological weapons rarely work at all. The British military, in 1993, concluded that in wartime situations, it would take one ton of sarin nerve gas to kill one person. By contrast if one ton of sarin nerve gas were detonated in the middle of New York City, the estimated fatalities would be between 300 and 800.

Of course, one ton of sarin gas means setting off at least 200 bombs simulatenously, which the American SpecOps would have trouble doing, let alone Al-Qaeda.

Since 1969, when the state department has begun keeping official count, fewer Americnas have died from terrorism than from lightning.

And remember, lightning never strikes the same way twice.

[*Weird addiction*]

BUSH!!

[*Statistik*]

Why Bush? He had plans u know to protect the world trade center..it's not his fault..he did everything he could to stop the terrorism..it was actually osama's. he had the idea to crash it. so he did it. period.

[PinkTrash]

osama cause he did it.. and bush for being an idiot and most of all the security in places.
terrorists got a 2 dollar knife from the store, and shoke the world up. while the security there costs 2billion dollars a year, to protect everyone.

[PingPong]

osama cause he did it.. and bush for being an idiot and most of all the security in places.
terrorists got a 2 dollar knife from the store, and shoke the world up. while the security there costs 2billion dollars a year, to protect everyone.

u cant blame bush...

u cant expect him to do everything.. cuz one.. it was too early for bush to change anything at the time.. watever cliton put after the election was still on.. like protection or watever...

JW.. y did osama attack us anyways? didnt we help then n paied for then to fight the russians? hmm.. maybe i know,. but its hard to explain..

[islandkiss]

it's proved that saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, well, so far. the government has been trying to link him to the attack in the past 3 yrs, but there's no luck


osama did it.

[inlonelinessidie]

Look Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban killed people. But we didn't do all we could to protect our country.

Read and tell me if we did. Here are some excerpts too:

For months after the attacks, Bush administration officials maintained there was no indication terrorists were considering suicide hijackings. But the report said the FAA's Office of Civil Aviation Security officially considered such a possibility as early as March 1998.

The panel's finding follows earlier disclosure of a 1999 report prepared for the National Intelligence Council that warned of suicide hijackings.

The commission report acknowledged there was no specific intelligence indicating suicide hijackings would occur but said the FAA still had a responsibility to protect the flying public against such a threat.

On Monday, the first day of a two-day public hearing, the commission said U.S. authorities missed some obvious signs that might have prevented some of the September 11 hijackers from entering the country.

Government officials have said the 19 hijackers entered the country legally, but the panel said its investigation found at least two and as many as eight had fraudulent visas. The commission also found examples in which U.S. officials had contact with the hijackers but failed to adequately investigate suspicious behavior.

And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, believed to be the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, exploited the fact that customs officers did not routinely collect fingerprints to obtain a visa, even though federal authorities in New York indicted him in 1996 for his role in earlier terrorist plots. He never entered the country and was apprehended after the attacks.

[ComradeRed]

It's Barack Obama's fault.

Alan Keyes '04 (yeah, right)

[PingPong]

u really trust cnn? wow.. haha

[inlonelinessidie]

u really trust cnn? wow.. haha

What do you trust . . . Fox?

[PingPong]

duh
how did u know? lol

but.. err i dont have that channel

[inlonelinessidie]

^^ Lucky guess.

[cornflakes]

We get threats ALL the time. Remember the trend of bomb threats in school after Columbine? I was in PE class (high school) when there was an emergency evac because some idiot sent the principle a bomb threat email. Of course nothing happened, but then there were bomb threats following that one, and nothing happened. The news reported that several schools received bomb threats as a joke.

Well... shouldn't we always respond to protect American citizens? It is there job. You're also talking about school bombing threats...not a major scale TERRORIST attack.

[cornflakes]

u cant blame bush...

u cant expect him to do everything.. cuz one.. it was too early for bush to change anything at the time.. watever cliton put after the election was still on.. like protection or watever...

1. Oh yea... it's not like Bush's job is to protect America.
2. Yea, I mean as if almost a year wasn't enough. Or... was it because Bush drained the budget surplus?... Gee golly I don't know.

I'm sorry... do you need some ointment for that burn?

[Spirited Away]

Well... shouldn't we always respond to protect American citizens? It is there job. You're also talking about school bombing threats...not a major scale TERRORIST attack.

Uh, yea, if you were to read into CONTEXT, you would've understand the analogy, but I'll explain. Ever heard of the story "The Boy who Cried Wolf"? Well, what I was getting at was something similar.

I agree that threats should be taken seriously, but how seriously? As in, Americans are already griping about losing their privacy and freedom to certain laws/policies after 9/11, what makes you think that the American people as a whole will agree to losing more freedom and privacy for the sake of their safety?

Me? I don't have much of a problem with it so long as it doesn't interfere much with my life. But since I'm only a college student, I don't have much of a life quite yet. Imagine business travelers who venture around the world having a problem with such policies. Not to say that they're (businesses) more important than the rest of us, but they do have more market power and more power as constituents than the average Joe.

Anyway, back to my point with "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". My school wasn't as responsive to the latter bomb threats as it was to the first and other schools acted the same way. In the story, the boy lied and lied to have his fun but not realizing that one day he will actually needs help. Similarly, one day, a bomb threat will be a serious one, but because there were so many hoax, what do you expect the schools to do? Operate EVERYDAY as if they were going to be bombed?

By the by, schools IS ONLY a smaller, BUT VERY ACCURATE, similation of our nation. Meaning, in my analogy, the smaller picture very well describes the bigger picture. The lives of the school children are just as important as the lives of the American people as a whole. Do you disagree with me?

So, sorry for the long explanation. I feel that it wasn't needed, but since you asked...

[*kryogenix*]

I hate how people say Bush drained the surplus. The recession started during Clinton's term, after the internet bubble burst when people realized they overreacted to Y2K and lots of computer related jobs were lost. Next, 9/11 screwed up the economy even further. To say that Bush depleted the surplus would be completely untrue.

[*tweeak*]

what do you mean? what do most people think? or what do i think? or what is the most widely accepted opinion at the moment?

well, all of those would be answered osama, so that would be my answer, i guess

[*tweeak*]

whoops i hate the last post and didnt realize it- didnt mean to double post

read the guidelines- NO polls allowed in debate forum!

[sammi rules you]

to those who are saying bush should have told us there was a threat:
what good would that do? would that have stopped 9/11? cause if it would, then by all means, i blame him too.

[*xcaitlinx*]

osama bin laden and president bush [administration]. yet in polls half of the united states citizens believe that saddam hussein was the one responsible for attacking us on 9/11. hmmmm ... i wonder why? false information from bush *cough cough*

[*xcaitlinx*]

Why Bush? He had plans u know to protect the world trade center..it's not his fault..he did everything he could to stop the terrorism..it was actually osama's. he had the idea to crash it. so he did it. period.

waiting 7 minutes after being informed that the U.S. was being under attacked to do anything does not count as trying to protect us.

[Rachel]

Your mom.


if you really wanted to know, do some research its not that hard.

[Spirited Away]

waiting 7 minutes after being informed that the U.S. was being under attacked to do anything does not count as trying to protect us.

...

So you rather someone act without thinking things over?

Yea...

[ArtificialBlonde]

HHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA... HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

Was there a conspiracy by the Bush Administration that the American people know nothing about? All of a sudden people are blaming 9/11 on Bush.

This is the most RIDICULOUS thing I've heard thus far in this political rabble. Please tell me that you people are kidding.

Even though Bush hasn't done much in your eyes, I can't fathom how the one thing you believe he could have done was causing 9/11. How the hell do you think he managed that?

And Jason, if you don't know much about 9/11 attack, then maybe you should research. Read some old news article and form your own opinions about what happened. The worse you can do by reading old news is learn something, so why not read? Hearsay and forming your opinions from hearsay isn't the best way to learn.

i completely agree with you..bush just happened to be president when the attack happened..and believe me our country would be in a worse state if it weren't for what bush has done for this country..

that is all..