How would Ralph Nader have handled 9/11?

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.
No argument here, Nader couldn't have stopped 9/11 any more then Bush could.
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.
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.
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
On 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.
Once again
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
 
No argument here, Nader couldn't have stopped 9/11 any more then Bush could.

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.
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 again
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

I remember this and the article is misleading. What the Taliban offfered to do is have him tried by an Islamic Court in a third country. We all know how that would go "Bin Laden is innocent. The Jews are guilty. Next case.". It would have taken them all of five seconds to decide. If it were the Hauge it would be another matter. There is no way a Taliban picked Islamic Court is going to convict a fellow Moslem of anything when it is against an infidel.They were willing to have ONE American on the court. Nor were they willing to turn over anyone but Bin Laden.
 
Last edited:
I'd actually like to see a timeline done with this premise, but the challenge is getting Nader into the White House.
 
Well, theoretically, wouldn't it be possible that Nader might close some of our military bases overseas down? If some of those happened to be the bases in Saudi Arabia (which, if I recall, was the main reason why AQ hated us) then AQ loses some, or even all (if all of the ones in Saudi Arabia get closed down) of its reason to attack us. We're no longer defiling Holy Muslim land, which just leaves us being friends with Israel, which I have to wonder if that would be enough for them to try and target us.
 
Top