Does anyone else feel that part of the reason that there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11 is because we have sent US citizens to Iraq, making it much easier for terrorists to harm the US there? If we didn't have such a heavy US presence in Iraq, do you think another attack on US soil would've been more likely to happen in the past 3 years?
Is lack of attacks on US soil partially due to US in Iraq?
- Thread starter isasir
- Start date
No, because its far more effective to inflict terror on defenseless citizens than trained combat soldiers. The whole point behind terrorism is to attack few but make the whole fear being attacked. The losses in 911 (round to 3000, say of 300,000,000) is a very TINY fraction of Americans, but yet it reminded that everyone was vulnerable. Now you could die in a car wreck far more easily than by a terrorist, but we don't think of this. Terrorism's goal is to intimidate and dominate others by the fear of force rather than through the act of force itself - simply because terrorists lack resources to acutally kill or dominate everyone because they are a true minority.
Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that we've severly crippled Al Quida...
Oh yeah, and then there's the fact that we've severly crippled Al Quida...
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Not really.
Remember the huge gap between the first WTC bombing and 9/11?
al-Qaeda isn't a military organization; they don't win by taking swift actions. Their war is as much an attack on our finances, our politics, and our liberties.
Read the full transcript of what Osama said a few days back.
Iraqi insurgency is a fight against the occupiers. The beheadings may be the work of al-Qaeda cells, but the overall insurgency, the daily bombings, the attacks on American soldiers are by Iraqis who have been negatively affected by our invasion.
The Iraqi war has only given a new mandate for al-Qaeda to strike the US. The only question is, when and how?
Remember the huge gap between the first WTC bombing and 9/11?
al-Qaeda isn't a military organization; they don't win by taking swift actions. Their war is as much an attack on our finances, our politics, and our liberties.
Read the full transcript of what Osama said a few days back.
Iraqi insurgency is a fight against the occupiers. The beheadings may be the work of al-Qaeda cells, but the overall insurgency, the daily bombings, the attacks on American soldiers are by Iraqis who have been negatively affected by our invasion.
The Iraqi war has only given a new mandate for al-Qaeda to strike the US. The only question is, when and how?
Well, I have always thought that the best idea was to kick the hornets nest and sit back and kill them in droves. Look, by sending troops over there, they are definitely swarming. But, here is the upside, these troops are the worlds best killers - and killing the hornets at greater than 25:1 ratios. I would rather have terrorists and maniacs shooting at Marines than shooting up a mall in Des Moines.
Does it make sense. Does this part of Bush's plan make sense now that the fog of the election has lifted. Do you think it is any coincidence as to why we went to Iraq. It is a convienient central location from which we can draw in all of the idiots in the world.
As far as I am concerned - it worked perfectly and it has been very successful.
Does it make sense. Does this part of Bush's plan make sense now that the fog of the election has lifted. Do you think it is any coincidence as to why we went to Iraq. It is a convienient central location from which we can draw in all of the idiots in the world.
As far as I am concerned - it worked perfectly and it has been very successful.
I pretty much agree with your assessment. However, my one big fear is that this is a short term benefit. The one big problem is that this will make the entire Muslim/Middle East world angry with us which in turn will create more potential terrorists in the future. It will be harder to screen them out of our country (especially since al-Qaeda is very patient) in the future.
It can pay off if we are successful in transforming Iraq and Afghanistan into a modern peaceful prosperous democracy that will serve as a starting point in reforming the entire middle east and dilute the anger against us from there. But we have to achieve this quickly. We can't be seen as occupiers for an extended period of time. We must help Iraq be able to defend itself so our troops can leave that area as soon as possible.
We need to find ways of lessening the hatred and anger the Muslim/Middle East world has against us. We have to help resolve the Palenstinian/Israeli dispute.
Miramonti
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2000
- 28,653
- 100
- 106
They took almost 10 years to execute 2 attacks in the US, both on the world trade center. Why would iraq distract from a handful of leaders/plotters seeking another attack in the US? They can't multitask their multinational agenda?
I don't think this makes sense why there have been no more attacks yet. There will be because civilian casualties at home accomplish more fear in the minds of americans than military casualties abroad.
I don't think this makes sense why there have been no more attacks yet. There will be because civilian casualties at home accomplish more fear in the minds of americans than military casualties abroad.
2Xtreme21
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2004
- 7,044
- 0
- 0
I really have yet to see the actual (not the Bush-stated) link between Iraq and al Qaeda (hell, terrorism in general). It seems to me more that Bush used 9-11 as an excuse to invade any nation that "harbors terrorism." Hell, using that logic, we should attack ourselves and every other sovereign nation in this world... given that the definition of a terrorist is extremely vague in the eyes of the Bush regime.
For defensive purposes, I would much rather put more money and brains in our intelligence as well as more money for defense (not defense in the form of an invasion army..) than to expend nearly all of our troops into a war that's being fought for some large corporations.
For defensive purposes, I would much rather put more money and brains in our intelligence as well as more money for defense (not defense in the form of an invasion army..) than to expend nearly all of our troops into a war that's being fought for some large corporations.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
The fatal flaw in your theory is it assumes we are killing significant numbers of al Qaeda members or al Qaeda supporters in Iraq. There is no evidence this is true. While some of the insurgents are your run-of-the-mill Middle Eastern trouble makers, most are locals "defending" their country against an invasion force. They are a new threat to the U.S., a threat that did NOT exist prior to 9/11, let alone Bush's invasion. (Al-Zarqawi's recent claim of "allegiance" with bin Laden is the result of our presence in Iraq, presenting yet another new threat to the U.S.)
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Q. What's the difference between George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden?
A. OBL plans his attack.
Al Qaeda has demonstrated their ability to plan, to bide their time, to be patient. There are gaping holes in our homeland security. Bush is spending $225 billion attacking Iraq. He has done virtually nothing at home, failing to secure our ports, commercial air cargo, or our borders with Canada and Mexico. The only reason we haven't been attacked again here is because al Qaeda has not chosen to do so. They may well be counting on our complacence, the deluded belief that we have them neutered.
no. you should read the commission's report. a copy costs only 10 bucks. heck, you can check it
out of the library for free.
our intelligence and law enforcement people had clues, knew names, affiliations, what not, but they
lacked the imagination to conceive of such a plan as was hatched on 9/11. there was also the fact
of endemic institutional 'walls' and legal misunderstandings that produced inaction. it may have been
possible that if they had pursued certain hijackers on immigration violations that the attack could
have been averted. usama may have been scared off, called off the dogs, etc. but not likely.
moussaoiu was in custody because his flight school instructor alerted law enforcement people
about the weird questions/comments he was making and the poor justification he gave for being
in the school.
but with all this said, richard clarke stated that even if his strident suggestions had been put into
effect it would not have prevented the attacks.
"What's the difference between George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden?" Funny! Too clever associating the President with a murderous terrorist. How do you do it?
"No furher argument/evidence needed? " Nope, it's in the news stories and many other reports that are availiable on the internet. Bush even talked about it in the debates.
"No furher argument/evidence needed? " Nope, it's in the news stories and many other reports that are availiable on the internet. Bush even talked about it in the debates.
Are some of us forgetting that there were several attacks between the first WTC and 9/11 and since 9/11? There are people in the rest of the world who have been attacked by them.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Bush has caused the death of far more innocent people than bin Laden, using the same sorts of dishonest rhetoric to do it. Had Bush limited his use of force to legitimate terrorism targets, I would never consider such a comment. Bush lost any semblance of moral high ground, however, when he invaded Iraq.
Nice blame Iraq on Bush and not Saddam. I'd rather Saddam take responsbility for his own actions that caused this conflict.
good obvious point. but don't bother. saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism without equal who
used u.n. declarations against his desire for wmd as toilet paper. 9/11 pushed responsible people
to action.
Your first mistake is in assuming that all the terrorists are idiots. The ones "swarming" to Iraq are
the least of the terrrorist problem. They are providing an excellent distraction away from the
planners and moles who will try to infiltrate the system and wait for a later opportunity to
do damage elsewhere. Iraq is where the real terrorists will send their second string agents,
because they know its a trap. But they also know that the natiives will be more likely to
blame the US for any losses, which raises anti-American sentiment in the region in general.
Our troops have not been sent over there as killers, they were sent as protectors, which means
a lot of them are fighting with one hand tied. And sending troops overseas has not protected
us from the letter bombs, sniper attacks, and Anthrax scares that also have occured since 911.
No, I'm afraid this part of Bush's plan still doesn't make sense. You want to draw terrorists away
from the US... So you create a region of greater instability in the Middle East, competely ignoring
the growing nuclear power next door (that BTW isn't all that fond of your country either), and
fill the country with the national guard and reserve troops that you would normally want at home
to cover your bases. Then invite in every crackpot and malcontent who can make it over to come
to the party; while keeping the borders open enough that the ones that manage to survive the
pogrom can make it back out after learning a few real terrorist techniques.
the least of the terrrorist problem. They are providing an excellent distraction away from the
planners and moles who will try to infiltrate the system and wait for a later opportunity to
do damage elsewhere. Iraq is where the real terrorists will send their second string agents,
because they know its a trap. But they also know that the natiives will be more likely to
blame the US for any losses, which raises anti-American sentiment in the region in general.
Our troops have not been sent over there as killers, they were sent as protectors, which means
a lot of them are fighting with one hand tied. And sending troops overseas has not protected
us from the letter bombs, sniper attacks, and Anthrax scares that also have occured since 911.
No, I'm afraid this part of Bush's plan still doesn't make sense. You want to draw terrorists away
from the US... So you create a region of greater instability in the Middle East, competely ignoring
the growing nuclear power next door (that BTW isn't all that fond of your country either), and
fill the country with the national guard and reserve troops that you would normally want at home
to cover your bases. Then invite in every crackpot and malcontent who can make it over to come
to the party; while keeping the borders open enough that the ones that manage to survive the
pogrom can make it back out after learning a few real terrorist techniques.
You're right. Al Qaeda is about having patience and using intelligence to plan a successful attack. Obviously with America now aware of what Al Qaeda is capable of, if they do wish to attack on US soil, they'll need to be even more careful in their planning.
Some people say that al qaeda has been diminished severely by US forces, while others think they've gotten more support due to Iraq. I guess it's one thing to get 10 guys in Iraq to join you in suicide bombs, but another to be able to recruit someone like Mohamed Atta to plan a large scale attack.
Part of me was mildly surprised that Election Day (thankfully) didn't yield any suicide bombers, especially after what happened in Spain.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter