Osama bin Laden sees himself as the man who will transform Islam, one of those once in a few lifetimes leaders who renew Islam. The things about the US that pissed him off would have been the same. We had, and still have troops in Saudi, in or near the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. That’s horrible blasphemy to Osama. He’s the worst kind of wacko, one who believes God has sent him on a mission. Yes, he would have done it, and he’ll do it again.
Why would I be worshiping in a mosque? I am an atheist.
Yes, regardless of my feelings for Bush, his administration, and his foreign policy, I don’t believe it would have been significantly different with another President. And as others have said, unless Bin Laden broadcast a video explaining his plans in detail, giving the names and faces of the hijackers for everyone to see, I doubt that pre-emptive measures would have accomplished much. At the time, terrorism wasn’t seen as a domestic threat by the vast majority of Americans, so the measures necessary to prevent the attack would have been met with too much resistance to be implemented effectively.
Fear Itself: You would have been forced to worship in a mosque. You would not have had the freedom to be an atheist. I am a Christian but i have a problem with a state that is run by religion. I don’t think it is a good thing.
conspiracy to commit murder? (even though I take it as an act of war, instead of a crime)
Back to the OP
I’ve heard some talk that BL wanted this to happen on GW’s watch as he whould act impulsivly and launch and attack on Saudi Arabia or something
Fear Itself, I believe sleepytimebaby is trying to say that, following the 9/11 attacks, Al Gore would have disbanned our entire military structure and allow a few hundred militant Islam fundamentalists seize control of the United States and force all nearly-300 million of its citizens in a strictly conservative Islamic nation.
I believe that this is a completely ridiculous notion. Assuming that Gore were president and that the 9/11 attacks were carried out as planned, I doubt that Gore’s actions would have differed that much from Bush’s (at least up until the attention turned to Iraq). No matter who was president there would have been a military action by the commander-in-chief. We were attacked, we must find the enemy and bring him and his associates to justice. The public would have demanded as much; Congress would probably be starting impeachment proceedings if the president took no such action.
The answer obviously is yes. As has been said the attacks had been planned for literally years and were a response to the US involvement in the Middle East which would have continued regardless of who was president. We have unfortunately painted ourselves into a corner with our support of Israel and no one, regardless of party affiliation, is going to have the balls to wash his hands of the whole situation even if it was uncontrovertibly proven that this would be the best choice. We’ve got too much invested monitarily and reputationwise.
I think a much more interesting question is : If GW had not been elected would 9/11 have resulted in the domestic and foreign debacle we now find ourselves in.
The answer to this is a resounding “NO!” and Dinky’s an idiot and an asshole for putting us where we are.
I’m one of the ones who doubts it, honestly.
And I’m not trying to lay the attacks at George’s feet, either.
I just keep wondering about the whole “punish the son for the sins of the father” thing that crops up in Middle Eastern cultures.
Isn’t Geo. Sr. hated mightily for what is looked at as the “occupation force” that is “defiling” Saudi Arabia?
Sure, the planning may have been in the works for some time for the WTC attacks, but what better way to punish the son for the sins of the father?
I don’t know - in the final analysis, it doesn’t matter anyway, we can’t turn back the clock. But I sure do wonder, I do.
Pastor of Muppets raises an interesting question.
I think 9-11 would have happened regardless of whoever was in the Oval Office at the time. The attackers wouldn’t have called it off based on the president at the time, and I seriously doubt anyone would have instituted the security precautions Alex-NC suggested.
Just because Gore won an election? Do you honestly believe that? You have my sincerest pity, you are the victim of a cruel deception by chicken little conservatives who would have you believe that if Democrats are ever elected again, America will be destroyed. Does this really ring true to you? Wake up, woman! Apply just a little bit of critical thinking, and it will become clear that you have been grievously misled by political animals who are using unreasonable fear to garner your support.
American politics is cyclical, swinging from left to right and back again, and in over two hundred years, nothing like what you predict has ever happened, nor will it ever happen in the future. I hate to break it to you, but a liberal Democrat will be elected president at some time in the future, and I say that without fear of contradiction by even the most ardent conservative on this board.
You do yourself and your country a great disservice by allowing others to think for you. Open your eyes, get involved and don’t be led around like a sheep. Sometimes your guy wins, and sometimes he loses, and the republic will not fall just because one or the other political parties is elected.
I suppose you can never discount weird side effects (you know, stepping-on-a-butterfly-while-on-a-time-safari-changes-the-future-type stuff), but I think it would’ve. I might even go as far as to say that Clinton took Al Qaeda more seriously as a threat than Bush did prior to September 11, so MAYBE Gore would have as well (recall that, in addition to the moronic botch job with the medical factory in Sudan, he did have a few training camps rocketed and missed bin Laden by as little as an hour). But that’s admitted hyper-speculation on my part.
Saying “we’d all be worshipping in mosques now” involves completely misunderstanding the attacks. Al Qaeda isn’t trying to conquer the US, for cripes’ sake! I thought that much was obvious.
Seeing as how the hijackers began to assemble in the country at least as early as January 2000, I don’t see how one can say that their plans hinged on the success or failure of any candidate in the November election.
Really? So the WTC 1993, the Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole happened when Clinton was taking things seriously?!?!
Thank God for Clinton and his vigilance. I’d hate to think what would have happened had he just ignored Al-Qaida all those years. :rolleyes:
September 11 would have happened whether Slick Willie had been getting a blowjob, Jane Fonda had been visiting Hanoi, or Reagan had been drooling and forgetting his own name. It was planned, it was executed, period.
I hate to say it, but about the only President whose Presidency alone would have prevented 9/11 would have been if the Prophet Mohammed had come back and beat out Bush, Gore, and Nader.
I think the hijackers might have paused for thought if that had happened.
As to security measures… I do not believe that a “police state mentality” has anything to do with how bright Bush is. Given the circumstances, people screamed for security, and the administration gave us what they could.
There will always be those willing to exchange liberty for security. And persons willing to take the servitude of the masses as payment for it.
In a related vein, does anyone have a complete list of terrorist attacks in the last few years with George W. Bush at the helm? I don’t mean just 9/11, but also the various embassy attacks, hotel bombings (cough), and whatnot. Because if we’re going to dredge up everything that happened under Clinton’s term of office, we should also do the same for George, n’est pas?
(And if you count the near-daily attacks on American forces in Iraq, then the list would be ridiculously long…)
Terrorist attacks on the US and its possessions?
9/11. Maybe Daniel Pearl if you count kidnapping as terrorism. That’s all I can think of. If you can add to that list, I’d like to see it.
** KSO ** wrote:
I would agree with the above. I must admit that I had not thought about it in such a linear fashion. The logic (in Brazil any way) is that Bush is a bull in a china shop, he must have done something to piss some one off, people seem to forget the previous events. Even still, your opinion does not really address the question which would probably be better stated as: Would the sleeper cells still be asleep if Bush was not president? I know this plan was in the works for a along time. It only took a word or two, through well defined channels to “activate” the people involved. What caused this activation? Would this activation have occurred if G.W. were not president?
** Pastor of Muppets ** wrote:
This is what we here at the SDMB boot camp of knowledge call “a damn good question”! I have half a mind to start a thread about it.
** TVGuy ** wrote:
** BINGO! ** I think this is the prevailing attitude around here, and probably what I was trying to test out with this post. I do not think it was President Bush’s fault, per sé – but I think if he were not in office, this would not have happened.
** TVGuy ** wrote:
Very well said.
** Airman Doors, USAF ** wrote:
Yeah, but why, then - and not earlier? Or later for that matter. I say it was to piss on president and his father for being who they are. Not only do I think that, but a whole slew of folks outside the USA think so too. Kind of like “those Americans and that President Bush had it coming to them for a long time”.
?? Al Qaeda attacks the United States because the current Prez is the son of George H. W. Bush who went to war against Mister infidel pseudo-Islamic secular state & notorious killer of good Shi’ite Iranians, Saddam Hussein ??
Doesn’t play well on my radio.
I find the notion that the attacks happened just because Bush was president to be illogical. I mean, yeah, it’s been pointed out that Osama bin Laden (and by extension al Qaeda) hates the United States for our using Saudi Arabia as a base of operation during the first Gulf War. However, if 9/11 was just part of a grunge match between bin Laden and the Bush family, I have a feeling we would have heard as much in one of the Osama-on-location videotapes to air since then. To my knowledge, all we’ve heard on the matter from bin Laden was that 9/11 was an attack on all the American infidels.
On top of that, I have a hard time believing the notion because al Qaeda pumped a lot of resources (time, energy, money, etc.) into carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Those 19 hijackers had to be brought into the United States, trained, and live here for however long it took to train. Delaying the attacks would have been more resource-intensive because they hijackers would have needed to live here longer, keep a relatively low-profile longer, and maintain their pilot training. Not to mention, postponing the attacks to wait on a Bush becoming president would have been illogical since they’re no way to guarantee that a Bush would win an election. The possibility existed that a Bush might never again become president.
Don’t you see? The other phase of the Al Qaeda “Revenge on Bush” plan was that in the event of a close presidental race, the Flordia terrorist cells would infiltrate the voting booths and sabotage the ballots. This gave them time to rig the votes so that Bush Jr would win Florida and assure him of being elected President and completing the master plan. Osama rigged the election to get Bush in office and get revenge on Bush Sr. It all makes perfect sense. 
Maybe I could turn this into a conspiracy book.