No argument here, Nader couldn't have stopped 9/11 any more then Bush could.Numerous warnings mean nothing if the CIA can't talk to the FBI by law and all US agencies have files a mile thick. There are MANY terrorist organizations and other threats to the US. Putting the pieces together AFTER the fact is MUCH easier than before it. There were no specific knowledge about what AQ was about to do in any one agency. The information was spread out between a number of agencies including the FBI, INS, FAA and CIA. Unless all that hits one person's desk he doesn't have enough pieces to figure it out. This would not change under Nader.
Or perhaps it's because they are ineffective in the first place. Al-Quaeda exsisted for years before 9/11 and did not launch any attack capable of harming the nation on that level.Al Qaeda's threat at the moment is probably exaggerated but it wasn't in 2002. The reason it is a shell of its former self is that we kicked it out of its safe haven, assassinated its top people , cut off its funds and generally harassed the hell out of it. If it still had a safe haven in Afghanistan it still could do whatever it wants. What would stop it? Certainly NOT the Taliban government.
You could also argue that though we are harming their infrastructure we are serving as an ad-campaign as we kill innocent civilians and invade their land.
Finally the Taliban did actually offer to help us take down the Al-Quaeda
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
Once againOn average is the key. Sometimes it isn't and when you have a foreign government giving sanctuary law enforcement won't work because the foreign government won't enforce those laws. The Taliban gave AQ sanctuary so it was responsible for everything it did.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5