Originally posted by Kane:
BUT... Lets say there was a warning about a week prior to the planes hitting. Everyone that had the ability to leave the place because they thought they could "ride it out" sure in the hell deserved it.



first you say no one deserved it and then you say they did deserve it. qualifying your second statement doesn't exclude the first. which one is it?

Originally posted by Kane:
BUT because there was no warning about 9/11, it makes this a totally different scenario, and the NYC mayor (and all the other city workers) actually could handle a disater. New Orleans didn't have a plan, had warnings, and after the disater couldn't make their own plans to handle it.



we've had YEARS of warnings about terror attacks on US soil. the WTC has been targeted before. the FBI was even tracking the terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC and were extremely suspicious of their actions because of the partial flight school training. the 9/11 committee pointed out several mistakes made by our intelligence agencies which could have prevented the attacks. but the ball was dropped anyway. it may not have been as big of a warning as a hurricane coming at you 15 miles an hour, but the warnings were there. by your logic we deserved 9/11 because we had warnings and didn't prepare for a terror attack of that nature, just as the people of the gulf underestimated or didn't adequately prepare for katrina.

my point is the people who were most affected by this were not people who chose to "ride it out", they were the people who couldn't get out. even if they chose to risk it and stay there's nothing you can say that would make me agree that the people of the gulf deserved the disaster, looting, violence, rape, and death caused by katrina.

'03 Saab 9-5 Aero