and not with Bill Clinton or George Bush? Yes, both could have done more to prevent it, but instead of casting blame on opposite parties, why don't we band together and make our government understand that we want the terrorists captured, prosecuted, and either jailed or killed?
What do you think?
2007-11-27 05:57:21 · 18 answers · asked by Lisa M 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Any realistic and logically thinking American knows that the blame lies with the Islamic terroists who are hell bent on making all infidels submit to their religion. They are always planning more attacks as well and they hate America calling us the great satan and they also of course hate Israel and have no intentions of ever having peace with them either. I want every one of those crazed lunatics to either be put away foever or better yet, killed. I don't love or respect them and hate everything that they stand for which is very clear and obvious to me.
2007-11-27 07:10:10 · answer #1 · answered by toughguy2 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If a ten year old child is murdered in the park at 1am clearly the gunman is at fault, but the question still remains: What was the ten year old child doing in the park at 1am in the first place? The parents of that child share some responsibility.
It is the same with 9/11. I don't blame Bush or Clinton directly, but to say nothing could have been done to prevent it is ridiculous. It was obvious to me that we would get attacked on American soil eventually. It was also obvious to me that airlines were extremely vulnerable to terrorist attack. It was a failure of imagination on the part of the government under several administrations.
2007-11-28 03:59:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, let us think about this. Evil is as evil does, no doubt about that. On the other hand, to not actively oppose evil is to enable it. I am not saying that any American is to blame, however, I do not think any of the Presidents since Jimmy Carter are innocent. It began with Carter allowing the extremists to overthrow the Shah of Iran and then continued as his indecisivness encouraged them further.
Reagan was more focused on the Soviet Union as a threat than anything else and screwed up by putting our marines in Lebanon to be killed with no recourse. However, he did stand up to the Lybian threat and straightened them out.
Bush the first took strong action against Iraq but lacked the will to topple Saddam. That was clearly a lost opportunity. then he allowed Saddam to violate the cease fire agreement repeatedly.
Then Bill Clinton came along. He failed to take action against Osama Bin Ladin himself when he had several golden opportunities. That was a major mistake. It cannot be ignored. It was his Justice Department that hobbled the efforts of the CIA and FBI to work in concert, too.
The current President Bush has taken decisive action and that is a good thing. I have to take issue with his lack of ability to adapt more quickly to events on the ground. While I applaude the fact that he finally figured it out, he took way too long.
I agree we have spent enough time pointing fingers or assigning blame. Decisive action is what is required and reconition of threats much earlier and dealing with them quicker is called for.
I think the next President had better be serious about this threat or we will be forced to repeat the same mistakes at our own peril.
.
2007-11-27 06:21:36 · answer #3 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think most sane folks know who did the dirty deed, and surely realize that playing the blame game is a waste of time, and Yes, we should all remember how we felt on 9-11, and concentrate on destroying the terrorist, and avenging all those senseless murders. If we have to torture the occasional rag-head, to find his buddies, well, that's nothing like the torture they inflicted on all the innocent victim's families.
2007-11-27 06:10:03 · answer #4 · answered by thehermanator2003 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In spite of many accusations, it's clear that the attack was unprecedented and probably no one could have prevented it.
They attacked us in a way that no one had even imagined.
Claims that there were "warnings" are invalid because every month there are 100s of warnings. How do you know which are real and which are false leads. And, most are false leads.
In retrospect, you can pick out a warning. However, prove that it stood above all the warnings. No way can you do that.
2007-11-27 06:05:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely I agree. But it is Bush's fault that he bombed Iraq based on lies and it was completely immoral. It was just as immoral as what the terrorists did on 9/11. Let's be clear about that. I want the terrorists captured, prosecuted and jailed but that's not why Bush went into Iraq. Why is OBL and al-Zarhiri still free?
2007-11-27 06:03:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
I agree to some point, but we also have to have an understanding of WHY the terrorists would want to do this to us. And yes there is a better explanation then "because they hate our Freedom", that is just plain BS.
2007-11-27 06:04:00 · answer #7 · answered by labken1817 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You are a hundred percent right!! It's terrible how this tragedy can't even be given recognition without causing a political uprising! How the terrorists much view us!
2007-11-27 06:03:29 · answer #8 · answered by Brianne 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you but not everyone would.
Some will blame President Bush, Clinton or American foriegn policy.
The problem is radical Islam that many label as "victims".
2007-11-27 06:14:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No doubt, there is no American to blame for the attacks on 09-11-01. And there is no way to convince most thinking Americans any different.
Sure our foreign policies may have led up to the attacks, but that's just too bad.
2007-11-27 06:03:15 · answer #10 · answered by SFC_Ollie 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋