tyler wright
Active Member
Why do some people blame G.W. for what happened 5 years ago at 9/11? It it what they call a surprise attack. Wich means we had no clue it was gonna happen. Why blaim G.W.
Why blaim him?
- Thread starter tyler wright
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Dan Miller 3
Active Member
G.W. was only in office for a short period of time. It was actually all Bill Clinton's fault.
Mark Grumpy
Well-Known Member
because he is the guy sitting in the chair. Some people will always blame the guy in the position of power, some will blame him because of political affilliation and some simply reiterate what the last guy said.
It's kind of like Ford laying off a few folk right now (or planning to); it is Bill's fault, or was up until last week anyway, because he is/was the guy that is perceived to be in charge, whether he really is or not. (just an example)
grump
It's kind of like Ford laying off a few folk right now (or planning to); it is Bill's fault, or was up until last week anyway, because he is/was the guy that is perceived to be in charge, whether he really is or not. (just an example)
grump
Bill Ellis
Well-Known Member
The only people to blame are the ones who did it. If you believe it is acceptable to blame someone else for what the terrorists did, then you can take the blame if I get a speeding ticket?
I agree with Bill-E because the people who attacked us used our freedoms against us, and the fact that they did their homework and found out the the FBI & CIA were not allowed to communicate with each other - the patriat act changed all that. And, because we have now realized that the attacks on us, whether here or abroad, have all been organized and timed to make them look like individual attacks; but we are now on alert it will be harder for them to attack us. Taking a more agressive stance will also help.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
I believe that the next attack will be an orchestrated one, much like the last, and also be one which we didn't see coming and are not prepared.
Maybe 20 or 30 sleeper cells killing 1000s of school teachers and school children in public school in dozens of quiet communities around this country all at the same time one peaceful morning.
Or maybe bio-terrorism by placing a chemical agent into the water supplies feeding several large metropolitan areas.
I hope not...but how can we protect ourselves against such a thing? We are a big country and it seems to me that it will be impossible to stop people that are willing to die to make a point.
TJR
Maybe 20 or 30 sleeper cells killing 1000s of school teachers and school children in public school in dozens of quiet communities around this country all at the same time one peaceful morning.
Or maybe bio-terrorism by placing a chemical agent into the water supplies feeding several large metropolitan areas.
I hope not...but how can we protect ourselves against such a thing? We are a big country and it seems to me that it will be impossible to stop people that are willing to die to make a point.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
C B
Active Member
Shoot the messenger. Frightened people need someone to blame and to hate.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
CB, what do you mean by that?
Is that meant to explain:
a. Why Islamic fundamentalists blame and hate us?
b. Why many blame and hate Bush for 9-11?
c. Why many blame and hate Islamics and want to see them all killed?
Or,
d...all of the above?
TJR
Is that meant to explain:
a. Why Islamic fundamentalists blame and hate us?
b. Why many blame and hate Bush for 9-11?
c. Why many blame and hate Islamics and want to see them all killed?
Or,
d...all of the above?
TJR
C B
Active Member
Well first I was answering the question but you are quite correct that all of the above can apply. That's the easy part. The hard part is doing something about it.
Eric Pennal
Well-Known Member
TJR,
Haven't you heard? We're fighting the terrorists over in Iraq so we won't have to fight them here. There won't be any more attacks in the U.S.
Haven't you heard? We're fighting the terrorists over in Iraq so we won't have to fight them here. There won't be any more attacks in the U.S.
Dre L
Well-Known Member
I say the next attack will be Osama Bin Laden videotaping his vacation in D.C. and asking a white house guard to take his picture in front of the gates.
Phillip Clark
Member
I think it's funny that people blame President Bush for the attacks. Why not blame everybody that allowed them to learn how to fly and allowed them on the airplane?? or better yet, why not blame the people that were on the plane for not taking out the terrorists before they took control of the plane?? What was the ratio of non-terrorsts to terrorists on that plane...don't you think the other passengers could have taken them down?? I'm not blaming anyone for what happened on that tragic day except for the terrorists themselves, I just wish that people in this country would stop pointing fingers at people, like President Bush, when something bad happens to this country. Yes, he is in power, but one man can only do so much, it takes everybody to help make this country safe.
C2
C2
WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs
Well-Known Member
The 9/11 report puts blame on a lot of organizations within our government. I do find it interesting that in a PPB, Presidential Press Bulletin a terrorist threat on US soil was highly likely in the next few months. The PPB was issued in August 2001.
Mike Wilson
Well-Known Member
Be Always Vigiliant... Be Always Aware...
...For you never know what may be lurking over your shoulder...
Marine, Marine, Marine, For AMERICA!!!
...For you never know what may be lurking over your shoulder...
Marine, Marine, Marine, For AMERICA!!!
That is a simple answer. The government taught us to do whatever the hijackers say and we will be safe. Fight back and we will die.
Tom
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
Couldn't be more correct. Today, it would obviously be a different story. Lessons Learned.
One of the big factors in the timing, I beleive, was the fact that there was a recent change in power. Yes, I realize that the date was set before the election, but I think that even if Algore had won, it would have occured. There is a time where the cabinet has yet to fully gel with the rest of the goberment. This had to have played a role.
My conspiracy theory of the year....
C B
Active Member
R Shek - You point out an interesting point about timing. Also remember that the Bush transition team was also delayed by the overly long election legal battles that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Further, there was an international crisis of sorts when the Chinese downed one of our aircraft and held the crew captive for a time. On the domestic front, Jim Jeffords handed control of the Senate over to the Democrats. All this in 8 months. But I do agree with you, had Algore won, I find it hard to believe 9/11 wouldn't have happened as well. After all, the 90s were filled with terrorist attacks (First World Trade Center attack, attack on US diplomats in Packistan, Khobar Towers, US Embasy bombings in Peru, Kenya, and Tanzania and of course the bombing of the US Cole).
Bill V
Well-Known Member
I've not personally heard a single person blame GWBush for the attacks. I've heard people try to blame Clinton, or BushSr., or both--rightly or wrongly on both. I've heard a lot of people (again, rightly or wrongly) blame GWBush for the way he has responded to the attacks 9/11. And I've heard a lot of GWBush apologists (wrongly) get upset at those people and claim that they're blaming GWBush for the attacks, when that couldn't be further from the truth.
C2, your statement about the passengers on the planes is ridiculous nonsense. Never before had hijackers taken a plane and used it as a weapon. Those people in those planes had no reason to suspect that would happen. In most hijacking situations to that date, the plane has landed, the hijackers held hostages and made threats, and the situation often came to a conclusion where some if not all of the hostages survived. Outside of hijacked planes crashing unintentionally into habitated areas, I don't believe a hijacking had ever previously led to loss of life of civilians outside the plane. There was no reason for them to suspect that this would be any different--and therefore, they're best chance of survival was to sit quietly, do nothing, and wait for things to take their course. The passengers of Flight 93 would likely have done the same thing, and rightly so, if they had not received outside information that prompted them to do otherwise.
C2, your statement about the passengers on the planes is ridiculous nonsense. Never before had hijackers taken a plane and used it as a weapon. Those people in those planes had no reason to suspect that would happen. In most hijacking situations to that date, the plane has landed, the hijackers held hostages and made threats, and the situation often came to a conclusion where some if not all of the hostages survived. Outside of hijacked planes crashing unintentionally into habitated areas, I don't believe a hijacking had ever previously led to loss of life of civilians outside the plane. There was no reason for them to suspect that this would be any different--and therefore, they're best chance of survival was to sit quietly, do nothing, and wait for things to take their course. The passengers of Flight 93 would likely have done the same thing, and rightly so, if they had not received outside information that prompted them to do otherwise.
Johnny O
Well-Known Member
I think it was more a failure of communication and bueracracy, and a failure to recognize the seriousness of the threat and take proactive action. Can't profile, that would be bad.
Put it this way, if you watched "The Road To 9/11" the last two nights, let's say either Clinton or Bush ordered some missles into Bin Laden's camp, the rest of the world and the UN would have been all over them for killing some "innocent goat herders". Both administrations knew this, and did nothing.
Plus, regardless of what measures we take, a well-organized and well-financed organization will occasionally succeed. For example, the Brits may have stopped the bombing of aircraft a few weeks ago but the Muslims still bombed our embassy in Syria yesterday.
Put it this way, if you watched "The Road To 9/11" the last two nights, let's say either Clinton or Bush ordered some missles into Bin Laden's camp, the rest of the world and the UN would have been all over them for killing some "innocent goat herders".
Both administrations knew this, and did nothing.Plus, regardless of what measures we take, a well-organized and well-financed organization will occasionally succeed. For example, the Brits may have stopped the bombing of aircraft a few weeks ago but the Muslims still bombed our embassy in Syria yesterday.
Last edited by a moderator:
TomT
Well-Known Member
The only people to blame are the liberal "politicaly correct" groups that keep our government from taking care of business. We wouldn't want to hurt a poor terrorist would we?
