So you think that capturing Bin Laden wouldn't have stopped 9/11? Well what about capturing Sheik Muhammed? Which occured after Bush enacted "The War on Terror". Bush reached out to countries all over the world with known terrorists that live in their countries to turn terrorists over to the United States. Sheik Muhammed was wanted for conspiring against the United States in a 1995 plot to blow up Airlines headed to America and the death of journalist Daniel Pearl who had his head cut off with a bouie knife. He was also revealed to be the "Mastermind" of 9/11. Please tell me, would democrats have enacted a similar war of terror, yeilding the mastermind of 9/11?
2007-02-19 09:40:29 · 6 answers · asked by Austin Powers 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No one said it would stop terrorism. He still has to pay for his crimes. So, because it won't stop terrorism are we supposed to stop searching for him or his remains? Does that make his crimes null and void? Is that what you're saying?
2007-02-19 09:44:19 · answer #1 · answered by Groovy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't know of any Democrat saying catching Bin Laden would have prevented 9/11. It was Bush who made Bin Laden a priority AFTER the bombing, hence Afghanistan. He then shifted gears and Bin Laden is still at large.
Democrats would not have enacted a "war on terror" because that it is an abstract concept. Are you going to become the terror police of the World? Where is this war fought? In sovereign nations whose citizens do not want you there?
The best way to fight terrorism is to understand WHY they are terrorizing you. It is not because you aren't Muslim, it is because of your foreign relations policies.
You do realize that the British considered American freedom fighters terrorists right? Especially the members of the Boston Tea party, and they did wage a war on terror and look what happened to the British Empire. History has a tendency to repeat itself.
2007-02-19 10:07:29 · answer #2 · answered by David M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interestingly OBL was on the top of the list when the Clinton Admin. passed off to Bush Admin. Bush had him on 3 spot of his list if at all. OBL was and may still be a Bush family friend. As for 9/11 it was in the works for some time and might well have taken place with or without OBL. But one thing for sure is the because of the relationship there was no way it was going to be stopped.
2007-02-19 09:58:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There already was a defacto war on terror. It took 9/11 to raise the stakes and put alot more emphasis on it. People were after bin laden, his assoicates and other al qaeda people. We knew about them before 9/11.
I doubt getting Bin Laden before 9/11 would have stopped it. They were already in planning for a few years and somebody would have continued the plan even if OBL were captured in the late 90's.
2007-02-19 09:46:10 · answer #4 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't remember saying that capturing Bin Laden would have stopped 9/11. What I *do* think is that terrorists work behind the scenes and under the radar; they don't all put on matching uniforms and join a Terrorist Army from a Terrorist Country that we can easily fight. The way we were handling them until 9/11 was pretty much successful--we were doing it behind the scenes and under the radar, ourselves. To think we can go to WAR on them, when they aren't armies or countries, is kind of like thinking you can scare away fire ants with a machine gun.
2007-02-19 09:50:06 · answer #5 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush reaction -- Duh Duh Golly gee let's invade Iraq.
2007-02-23 08:33:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋