did they know or what(9-11)

do you belive the presidant and other government afissials new about plains being used as weapons and that 9-11 could have been prevented or at least more lives saved.

It's a horrible thing that 9/11 is used as the ultimate propaganda tool and scape goat for the government. I think that no one could have really policed the prevention well enough in the first place and it was one of those damn unfortunate deals in life.

I believe they should be forever vigilent and not put their guard done after this tragedy occurred, however it is becoming the reason for everything behind their actions. That alone completely discusts and sickens me.

I think they could probably have done more to stop it, but their problem was one of criminal neglicence, not of coorperating with terror... I'm pretty sure that nobody wanted this to happen, but people are always calm and think it will never happen to them...

the goverment whas to erogant (hope i spelled that right) they thought it would not happend. because they have so good defence systems.

but it did

it whas terrible, those people died for no reason.

yea it was terrible and can you belive some thought is was all computerized and it was all a big joke. man when i saw it i didnt think it was a joke i knew it was for real and my heart started to pound hard in disbeleaf.

Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
Stuff like that happens all over the world in places like Spain, Iraq, and Israel. It is not because of "arrogance", it is because of sick demented people. People lose sight ot that. I find it funny how one of the most horrific events in America's recent history is used to blame AMERICA, while the people who did it barely even get mentioned anymore. It's disgusting...
I don't know if I agree with that completely. Sure, stuff like this happens all over the world, but in Israel for one I find it hard to believe that something like 9/11 would have been allowed to happen. We're always a target but we're also always on guard, as I think the Americans should probably have been. I don't know the facts here, I'll admit that readily, I just feel that probably more could have been done. The shockwave going through America after it realised it wasn't invincible was felt here too - I think it indeed was previously a problem of arrogance.

Of course Al Queda are to blame for this and not the American security, but Al Queda is not mentioned because there is nothing to discuss about it. This thread has just started with a question: Do you think it could have been prevented - yes and no. I Think that it could have been, and it angers me because although I knew no one that was harmed by the attack, the thought that lives were lost due to neglicence sickens me, and this anger and criticism could much more easily have an effect (and probably has already...) than criticism on Al Queda. I think that if people were indeed negligent here they should be prosecuted...

If I would be to release a virus onto the world, that would destroy 99% of the population ;), who would be to blame?

Me, for releasing it, or the virus for killing all those people? A lot of people would immediately say me, yet I was not the one behind the killings. It was the virus who killed all of those...innocent.. people.

If I would have the chance to save a person, and I didn't, I think I am equally guilty. Declassified reports from the CIA and the White House have openly declared that Bush knew, two months ahead that Al-Qaeda terrorists were going to attack, and was asked what should be done.

The response to such a real threat was inadequate. After all, a lot of people died.

Another point to consider: Throughout the last century we have, both Europe and the US have terrorised the Middle-East. We have done so by dropping poison on populated areas to keep the people in line, we have dropped mines all of the place, still killing killing children each day.
Can we really blame these people for fighting back? Can we claim these people for killing 'innocents' who with their taxes, and with their votes promote and support the vicious governments that have killed their children, husbands, wives and parents?
Can we really blame them? Would you not go mad with fear, anger, hatred, and the urge to brutally murder those responsible if your family was ripped limb from limb by cluster bombs, your children were brutally slaughtered by mines, you neighbours killed by poison clouds?

Would you not hijack a plane and bomb yourself upon your enemy, with the faint prospect that you might see your family back in Heaven, and finally find some happiness?

I'm not saying Americans are evil, or that what they did should be justified, but I am just hoping that even the people who have lost members of their families that we, all members of society, are to blame for what has happened.

By supporting Pro-War governments we are creating terrorists in the future, while instead we should be apoligizing, and trying to help them rebuild the Empire they had build long before we even were in existence. Now, you see, the area in which the primal laws of Civilisation have created, the rules of the Jungle have been re-established, the area were very life first existed, is but minutes away from burned out tanks.

Can we really be so naive to look at this so one-sided? Will we, the people of the civilised world continue to believe that our way is the best, and will we continue our legacy in the world as self-proclaimed Übermenschen who have the right to ruthlessly murder untermenschen? Have we really fallen that high, that we can not even forgive people who have died for their country, families or religion?

All this time we have been trying to destroy the terrorists, but there is not a single expert who will say that is the solution. We should be dealing with the source of terrorism: oppression. We should be sending food to nations in distress, aiding them in slowly forming a democracy by supporting their economy, without asking contracts of Oil in return.
If this is truly about lives, we should leave Oil out of it.

Hope I wasn't too overzealous. If anyone feels I have unnecesarily provoked their feelings, please feel free to PM me about it. Note: I do not agree with the terrorist attacks, as I am against murder or violence, in any way.

Mr U

BSD, I never said that I knew what the American government could have done. I'm only going according to tidbits I heard here and there from sources that I didn't think have bias, but I was told, and feel free to correct me in the likely case I'm wrong, that the terrorists' bags weren't even checked when they boarded the plane, that they came in completely unhindered - I know that in this case special precautions have taken place here and I've heard many times from sources that I trust that these attacks would not have been able of taking place in Israel - at least not as easily. That is all I based my criticism on - if Israel could have stopped it then there is no reason why America shouldn't be able to.

I wasn't criticising American security in general. I don't know how American security works in general. I'm not even sure how it worked with the 9/11 attacks but, a question was asked, and I was leaning more towards yes then no... though I voted maybe.

BSD, I'm not saying Israel's security is perfect, but the fact is it is very effective. The attacks that have taken place rather than stopped are a tiny percentage, so small it's hard to believe. Israel is a pretty security-obssesed country, and so I can say that I have a strong feeling that if 9/11 would have happened in Israel then the public would be all over whoever was negligent, which is an idea that hasn't even been considered for the longest time in America...

Of course attack will happen anyway until we find a better way to stop terror, but big attacks usually make a lot of noise with their prepartion, which is why all terrorist attacks in Israel have been on a "small" scale, if you can say such a thing. Considering the position America is in in the world, especially now, they should be at least as vigilant on stopping terror as Israel - it does pay off in the end, even if not completely, and I think that Americans should care more and try and really get to the bottom of this - if someone's criminal neglect was responsible for thousands of deaths then he should be prosecuted...

If I've called Americans arrogant during this conversation then I apologise. It was the wrong word. I don't think it has much to do with laziness either. The problem is that for a long time they have been living in a dream world and thinking that they're invincible - they need to snap out of it. They're not to blame though. The people that are to blame are those that are supposed to be responsible for security and have failed their job. Those can be described as lazy and arrogant.

Still, I disagree with HU about the responsibility for this. Al Queda is to blame for murder - that is a much more serious offense than neglect. The two should never be compared. And regardless of whether or not you can blame the actual perpetrators, they must be stopped.

About Islamic history, it is my understanding that actually it's pretty peaceful considering. Until a bit over a hundred years ago Islamic society was one of the safest places to be in the world. It's only lately that the fanatical Islam is gaining power... But even now, the innocents that are harmed, regardless of whether it's done for a higher purpose or not, are still innocent. Sympathy should always be felt to an extent. If you lose that then you don't see the whole picture. But I think this old argument belong in another topic... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
If we want to get technical about the history of violence in the Middle East, I suggest that you bone up on the history of the Muslims who went out and persecuted and butchered people that didn't recant their faith and become Muslim. Muslims have a long bloody history of murderous and treacherous behaviour, so I feel no sympathy concerning any violence against a people whose entire history is devoted to bringing violence upon people who are different than them.


These EXACT words could be attributed to Xianity also...

As for whether the US government could have stopped 9-11, it's really a moot point as hindsight only really acknowledges mistakes rather than exhibits possible solutions to problems that have already occured.

However, if what Richard Clarke(and others...) says is true, then it does show a lack of focus from Bush's administration on something that the Clinton admin was all too aware of...Bush had his sights set on Iraq from the very start, which was his mistake as it let him and his people be distracted from a real danger, rather than a percieved one based mainly on the rational of 'This guy tried to kill pop...let's get him back...'.

Sure, a government can't act on 'chatter' alone, but when a large portion of it is focused on terrorist plots to hijack planes and crash into buildings then something is obviously going amiss if it is ignored...

Look, of course there doesn't exist a surefire way to eliminate danger, but if you look in hindsight and see that not enough effort had been made then it indeed can "exhibit possible solutions" in the form of stricter security and cautiousness in the future.
I might have mentioned it in the past, but when the war in Iraq was going on, the Israeli government gave out free gas masks to all citizens, even though the risk of an attack by Iraq was close to zero. They were cautious. And as I and I think Ou Be also said, an attack the size of 9/11 should have made enough noise to not be regarded as "chatter" - though the reason it got as big as it was was because the unfortunate way the towers were built rather than meticuolous planning - but still, I don't think an airplane should have been allowed to steer out of its path so easily and men get into the airline with weapons so easily.
What my point has been throughout all of this, and maybe it's crazy to say so, but I'd feel safer leaving in Israel than in America of before 9/11. It was a disaster waiting to happen... though they've probably fixed it now.
Anyway, regardless of all of this, the American people should demand an investigation to see if there was or wasn't neglicence. It makes no sense not to do so.

some belive after 9-11 it was not right to declare war and that there was something else that had to be done. the government did not care and made the decision with to presidant to go to war. just like bombing northern vietnam in vietnam they had to come up with a reason to do so, and there reason was weapons of mass destruction witch they never found. why because it was only a excuse to go to war.

i think bush organised 9/11. did u know that one of the worst blitz bombings happend in london on september 11th

Originally posted by AlmightyOne
no i did not know that. did it happen in 2001 or just on september 11 in a different year?

I second BSD on this one! OH. MY. GOD. Is this the kind of person that comes on this website!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd find it completely hilarious, if I didn't find it so disturbing.

YOU ARE A FOOL. GO SIT IN THE CORNER AND PUT THE DUNCE HAT ON.

Do you know when the blitz was for christ's sake? WWII! Blitz bombing in 2001? I think not.

a blitz bombing in world war two happened on september 11th 1940 somethin. duh! i do know when the blitz bombing happen. i am in the same history class as you smarty pants.

Ok, to bring this back on topic.

I voted yes for a reason. I think bush, the American government and the English government had some knowledge of the attacks, but purely did nothing about them. Also, Bushdid not organise these attacks, but yes, he was aware of them at the time.

Yeah i guess they probly could if they tried

yeah i reckon he could have stopped it. i think he organized it so he could invade Afganistan to get Uranium.

Well, no evidence is being brought up here. This is what the 9/11 commission reports were all about. The deduction was that American Intelligence was "Asleep at the wheel". But is this just a sound byte, or is it the true conclusion?

With the RNC's recent 9/11 talk, all through the last day of the convention speeches, I think they are trying to make us victims all over again. I can't believe that anyone would think of re-electing a president who let it happen when there was a threat assesment about Al Quieda(sp?) using planes to take down buildings in the white house in early August. This threat was ignored. I do believe that this president should have been impeached by now.

Mo Rocca made a funny comment about Bush being all powerful because he stood on a mound of dirt at ground zero with a bullhorn... I just love that. It's like the RNC is trying to make us feel like victims all over again to secure the presidency, all while never apologizing for the mistakes they made. Any apology would be nice.

If you're all past discussing this at this point, that's fine, but I just wanted to add a little something today. I'm bored.

i don't think it could've been prevented. Not that it was statistically due to happen, but how in the world could you predict something like that happening?

Perhaps I'm just a heartless pessimistic jerk, but I'm glad it happened. Reguardless of any precautions America could have taken, I believe something equally horrific would have happened. Where there's a will, there's a way.

It's absolutely tragic the means the message had to be delivered through (I had family at the Pentagon that morning), but anything less wouldn't have gotten the world's attention like all the acts that day. Think of how much hope and patriotism rose out of it. Osama has been around, we knew there was a problem. This gave America a reason to "fix the problem."

Yes, it's too bad that so many people had to die. I'm not saying I'm glad their lives had to be paid, but I am saying that I'm glad America's attention was grabbed. Normal people began to pay attention and think about worldly politics more. Is that a bad thing?

Then again, I'm just some moron wanting to stand up for something, just like every other college-aged kid out there. Don't listen to me, folks; I rarely make sense.

maybe its one of those things where there's good to come out of everything.

I believe that both the George W. Bush and the Clinton administrations had enough information to conclude that Osama was about to attack the United States. The problem was that the multitude of intelligence agencies didn't communicate with each other.

It was actually known that members of Al-Qaeda were being trained to fly commercial and private jets and other types of aircraft in Florida long before the attacks on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission also brought to light the fact that plans detailing possible attacks using commercial jets as bombs had been found. Even if this information had been shared among all of the intelligence agencies it wouldn't have really mattered because George W. spent most of his term enjoying a vacation (either golfing or playing on his ranch). He didn't even take the time to open the morning security briefing that was entitled something like "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the US".

The attacks did give W. an excuse to go on his "holy" crusade in the Middle East. Even though his advisors told him that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. Also, Saddam didn't even have weapons of mass destruction. He was just pretending to have them in order to keep the other countries around him from invading.

I have actually met quite a few people at my college that believe that the war being waged by the US is necessary to slow the coming of the anti-christ. :wtf: