My theory of why similiar attacks have not occured in the US

[Doboji]

If they attack the US, support for bush and the war will be galvanized and the whole country will reunite against terrorism.

In the UK however it's likely that the British will galvanize in the opposite direction. In the coming days we will see how effective the terrorists are.

This could be a huge turning point.

-Max

 

[BarneyFife]

If this happened in the US, I can see them rounding up every person of middle eastern descent. I'm not saying its right but that would be the reaction.

 

[Czar]

depends
if another attack were to happen in the US it would show that the war against terrorism isnt working, might help push people against Bush

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Except that to divide the leaders of the world would be much better than having them join together. If they attack the US, God only knows what this admin would do in response (maybe invade another country) which would further split the US from the rest of the world, which is their ultimate goal.

 

[dullard]

Major attempts at terrorism have occured in the US every 6-8 years. It has been 4 years since the last attempt. Why in your opinion would the terrorists change that pattern? I say lets wait until 2010 to find out if what we are doing actually has an effect.

 

[judasmachine]

the most devestating thing they could do to them and us is to blow up all the grain towers spread all over this country, especially here in the midwest. if they did that, they'd have large militas going after them. but yeah i think they're actually too smart to do something like that.

 

[csiro]

According to the analyst, the reason why it did not happen in the US is because Al Qaeda is having problems getting people into the US.

 

[imported_Tango]

They just wanted to let the world know that they can strike everywhere in the world, whenever they want. In this case during the G8, the day after London won the games 2012... it's a way to make clear they are an organization with global reach.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: csiro

According to the analyst, the reason why it did not happen in the US is because Al Qaeda is having problems getting people into the US.

Last I heard they were walking across the Mexican border with the rest of the human tide Dubbya refuses to do anything about.

 

[Infohawk]

Europeans have a lot of Muslism already among them. I'd imagine it is very hard to monitor all of them. The US has far fewer.

I have some doubts that further terror attacks would unite the country as much as the last one. Perhaps people have learned their lessons? I'd be interesting to see how many people still think Iraq has a 9/11 connection. That would show how many suckers we still have and how many would just lash out against any Arab for further attacks.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Doboji
If they attack the US, support for bush and the war will be galvanized and the whole country will reunite against terrorism.

In the UK however it's likely that the British will galvanize in the opposite direction. In the coming days we will see how effective the terrorists are.

This could be a huge turning point.

-Max

This was spelled out in Imperial Hubris by MICHAEL SCHEUER, he makes a similar case as you. The British were the logical targets.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dullard
Major attempts at terrorism have occured in the US every 6-8 years. It has been 4 years since the last attempt. Why in your opinion would the terrorists change that pattern? I say lets wait until 2010 to find out if what we are doing actually has an effect.

Every 6-8 years? Based on what? It was happening with much greater frequency than that before we started fighting back. The first WTC bombing, USS Cole, Oklahoma City, African Embassy bombings, 9/11, etc etc... And don't draw this line about IN the US vs OUT of the US. It doesn't have to happen inside our borders to be an attack on the US.

Personally I think what we're doing is working now. We have terrorists flooding into Iraq by the hundreds to fight the infidels. You could make an argument that if they didn't have Iraq they would be making more attempts at the US mainland or US targets abroad. As it is we essentially have an army with a big stick in the hornets nest and a giant can of raid and it's all happening in someone else's back yard.

Now, if Dubbya would just seal the Mexican border we'd be safer still.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Europeans have a lot of Muslism already among them. I'd imagine it is very hard to monitor all of them. The US has far fewer.

I have some doubts that further terror attacks would unite the country as much as the last one. Perhaps people have learned their lessons? I'd be interesting to see how many people still think Iraq has a 9/11 connection. That would show how many suckers we still have and how many would just lash out against any Arab for further attacks.

Sometimes I think the administration has lost focus on what they are doing. I KNOW that some americans have. This is a war on terrorism, NOT a war against the guys who purpetrated 9/11. Sadam may or may not have had a hand in 9/11 but he definitely has had a hand in terrorism.

 

[laFiera]

well, couple of uk friends are already saying it happened because of the iraq war and uk shouldn't have join usa in that....of course, only two people but that seems to be the consensus...

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Europeans have a lot of Muslism already among them. I'd imagine it is very hard to monitor all of them. The US has far fewer.

I have some doubts that further terror attacks would unite the country as much as the last one. Perhaps people have learned their lessons? I'd be interesting to see how many people still think Iraq has a 9/11 connection. That would show how many suckers we still have and how many would just lash out against any Arab for further attacks.

Sometimes I think the administration has lost focus on what they are doing. I KNOW that some americans have. This is a war on terrorism, NOT a war against the guys who purpetrated 9/11. Sadam may or may not have had a hand in 9/11 but he definitely has had a hand in terrorism.

QFT

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Czar
depends
if another attack were to happen in the US it would show that the war against terrorism isnt working, might help push people against Bush

I think that would exactly be the case. Esp. since one of the right's favorite memes is "hasn't happened here since 9/11". It would show that this administration hasn't done much to secure the homeland, other than waste money doing things that have no effect.

 

[aswedc]

Sometimes I think the administration has lost focus on what they are doing. I KNOW that some americans have. This is a war on terrorism, NOT a war against the guys who purpetrated 9/11. Sadam may or may not have had a hand in 9/11 but he definitely has had a hand in terrorism.

Sometimes I think the administration has lost focus on what they are doing. I KNOW that some americans have. This is a war on terrorism. But that alone is not enough. We need to have a "war to eliminate terrorism". What causes terrorism? Anger. You cannot eliminate anger with military force. Especially expanding military force. In fact you only create more.

 

[Saint Nick]

martial law?

 

[11thHour]

No need to over analyze things. Its harder to get in the country now, and planning will take longer. But when it eventually happens, it most likely won't be something that can be cleaned up in a few hours. Besides, they're having a field day in iraq and afghanistan, so no need for them to break up their party just yet.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Europeans have a lot of Muslism already among them. I'd imagine it is very hard to monitor all of them. The US has far fewer.

I have some doubts that further terror attacks would unite the country as much as the last one. Perhaps people have learned their lessons? I'd be interesting to see how many people still think Iraq has a 9/11 connection. That would show how many suckers we still have and how many would just lash out against any Arab for further attacks.

Sometimes I think the administration has lost focus on what they are doing. I KNOW that some americans have. This is a war on terrorism, NOT a war against the guys who purpetrated 9/11. Sadam may or may not have had a hand in 9/11 but he definitely has had a hand in terrorism.

In his own country, perhaps, by being a tyrant. There are plenty of other countries with similar events occurring but we didn't invade them. Why pick on Saddam? Because he was an easy target and he's sitting on a boatload of oil.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Czar
depends
if another attack were to happen in the US it would show that the war against terrorism isnt working, might help push people against Bush

I think that would exactly be the case. Esp. since one of the right's favorite memes is "hasn't happened here since 9/11". It would show that this administration hasn't done much to secure the homeland, other than waste money doing things that have no effect.

could be, but its too hard to say what would happen, like with UK now

I was discussing this with a few of my eve corp mates since alot of them are from the UK and most seemed to be just shocked but some were really angry and wanted some actual action against whoever did this.

The most shocking though were comments made by one of the few americans in the corp. He is currently serving in Iraq, around Tikrit
"We just replaced the Saddam-friend Police Chief in Tikrit with a new, honest guy, so the Sunnis are rioting in the streets right now. I had to turn my convoy around today instead of going through Tikrit so we wouldn't get bogged down in it. AK fire everywhere. "
I wont quote anything else he said out of respect but lets just say I'm seriously worried about how disconnected the soldiers are from the local population and lack of respect they have. For some being in Iraq helps people to connect to what is going on, but for others I'm afraid it just fuels their anger

 

[UNCjigga]

By your twisted logic, the terrorists should be targeting France and Italy. In my mind they are the most likely to give in and negotiate with terrorists, pull troops (in Italy's case), denounce America, etc.

 

[irwincur]

if another attack were to happen in the US it would show that the war against terrorism isnt working, might help push people against Bush

Yeah, because anything less than perfect results is an utter failure. I think that the current gap we are in shows that there had been at least some success. But, some people here just like to wallow in failure and weakness.

You do realize that we need to stop them every time, they just need to get lucky once. It is pretty much a guarantee that there will be another attack here, the question is, how many have we stopped.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
By your twisted logic, the terrorists should be targeting France and Italy. In my mind they are the most likely to give in and negotiate with terrorists, pull troops (in Italy's case), denounce America, etc.

Good point, except you mean Spain and not Italy right?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: aswedc

Sometimes I think the administration has lost focus on what they are doing. I KNOW that some americans have. This is a war on terrorism, NOT a war against the guys who purpetrated 9/11. Sadam may or may not have had a hand in 9/11 but he definitely has had a hand in terrorism.

Sometimes I think the administration has lost focus on what they are doing. I KNOW that some americans have. This is a war on terrorism. But that alone is not enough. We need to have a "war to eliminate terrorism". What causes terrorism? Anger. You cannot eliminate anger with military force. Especially expanding military force. In fact you only create more.

You might have a case if we were only using military force. But imilitary force is being combined with political force and diplomatic pressure to force countries to change, so your statement seems a bit short-sighted and not quite all-encompassing.