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

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: 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.

QFT

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 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.

This admin is using diplomacy only in situations it knows it cannot use the military. Diplomacy for Iraq was a farce from day 1.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjurIn 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.

He kept pulling on the tiger's tail. Eventually the tiger got pissed off and bit him.

The oil seems to have nothing to do with it.
However, Saddam was pumping oil before we went in; less oil may be now being pumped out than then.

Liberals/Peaceniks were originally stating that is why we went there - when the oil situation did not developed, then they shifted the focus to the missing WMD.

They seem to always want to apologize for Saddam and his behaivor.

The guy supported and encourage terrorism. Call a spade a spade.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
He kept pulling on the tiger's tail. Eventually the tiger got pissed off and bit him.

You've been repeating this a lot lately (in different wordings). Saddam didn't really do that much to the US. Sure, he might have defied some embargoes or opposed no-fly zones over his country but this hardly qualifies as pulling on a tiger's tail.

Liberals/Peaceniks were originally stating that is why we went there - when the oil situation did not developed, then they shifted the focus to the missing WMD.

ALTERNATIVELY, some liberals think this is about oil. Other liberals think it's about WMDs. Some think it's about both. Not sure you can generalize and say they've all changed their tune.

They seem to always want to apologize for Saddam and his behaivor.

I doubt it. I think you are misunderstanding when someone tries to put Saddam in context or explaining that Saddam's bad behavior was not the real reason for the war. This has nothing to do with apologizing for his behavior. It just means people don't think that is why we attacked Iraq.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjurIn 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.

He kept pulling on the tiger's tail. Eventually the tiger got pissed off and bit him.

The oil seems to have nothing to do with it.
However, Saddam was pumping oil before we went in; less oil may be now being pumped out than then.

Liberals/Peaceniks were originally stating that is why we went there - when the oil situation did not developed, then they shifted the focus to the missing WMD.

They seem to always want to apologize for Saddam and his behaivor.

The guy supported and encourage terrorism. Call a spade a spade.

What tiger? The U.S.? How was he pulling our tail? He wasn't a threat. Not at all. He had no military. Just a bunch of thugs with automatic weapons.

The oil was one part of it and they have a lot of oil which makes Iraq strategic for the area. Saddam having control of it and wanting to move to Euros instead of dollars is another thorn in the colonialists' side. Don't forget, Cheney had the oil fields all mapped out and ready for divvying up (which they're starting to do right now) If the Propagandist and Rumsfeld had listened to Shinseki and others, he might have pulled off the Iraq invasion/occupation/installation of puppet regime w/o the bitter resistance and he'd be hailed a hero by most in the U.S. But, that didn't happen.

As for the WMD, that was the focus from the admin the whole time! Doesn't matter what the anti-war people were saying. This admin was selling the war on WMDs alone. They never materialized because the intelligence had been falsified and exaggerated.

Saddam was a two-bit thug and this admin bit hard on the hook and we got pulled into one helluva an expensive mess.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 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.

This admin is using diplomacy only in situations it knows it cannot use the military. Diplomacy for Iraq was a farce from day 1.

What situations can the US not use it's military and do it by force instead? Seems there are very few, if any, places where that would be the case.

It's not that they cannot use military force. It's that they have chosen not to.

 

[NeenerNeener]

If anyone believes oil had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq, then there is no help for them. How naive can people be?

Again...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
This admin is using diplomacy only in situations it knows it cannot use the military. Diplomacy for Iraq was a farce from day 1.

What situations can the US not use it's military and do it by force instead? Seems there are very few, if any, places where that would be the case.

It's not that they cannot use military force. It's that they have chosen not to.

Saudi Arabia
North Korea
Iran

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
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.

You must draw that line to have a meaningful conversation. If you don't draw that line, then virtually every attack in Iraq can be called a terrorist attack on the US. Thus, any discussion that "similar attacks have not occured in the US" is silly. So we must limit it to significant attempts at major terrorism on the US by foreigners. After you get that, you'll see a pattern that is widely spaced out. How long was it between attacks on the world trade center? That is how spaced out bin Laden likes it. So since we are only halfway between his set attacks, it is too early to say wheter or not we have had any impact.

Make another thread in 5 years or so, and then I'll talk again. But until then, have a great day.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: 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...

Well if that is the consensus then I'd say their little attack accomplished its goal rather nicely and it sets an example that terrorism does in fact work.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: 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...

Well if that is the consensus then I'd say their little attack accomplished its goal rather nicely and it sets an example that terrorism does in fact work.

I would imagine most Europeans ALREADY believe that terror was closely related to foreign policy. Most Europeans are ALREADY opposed to the war in Iraq.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
This admin is using diplomacy only in situations it knows it cannot use the military. Diplomacy for Iraq was a farce from day 1.

What situations can the US not use it's military and do it by force instead? Seems there are very few, if any, places where that would be the case.

It's not that they cannot use military force. It's that they have chosen not to.

Saudi Arabia
North Korea
Iran

We could use military force those countries if we so desired. Nothing is stopping us. We choose to go the diplomatic route instead.

 

[PClark99]

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

I don't think this will deter the British for one second. Remember how Britain responded to Germany in the early days of WW2.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
This admin is using diplomacy only in situations it knows it cannot use the military. Diplomacy for Iraq was a farce from day 1.

What situations can the US not use it's military and do it by force instead? Seems there are very few, if any, places where that would be the case.

It's not that they cannot use military force. It's that they have chosen not to.

Saudi Arabia
North Korea
Iran

We could use military force those countries if we so desired. Nothing is stopping us. We choose to go the diplomatic route instead.

HA!

Use military force in Saudi Arabia and world economies will collapse.

Use military force in North Korea and watch the nukes come flying from that nutcase

Use military force in Iran and we might see some nukes but, at the least, we'll run into a huge resistance from an armed force that makes what we saw in Iraq in 2003 look like a schoolyard bully (well, hmm...that's really all Saddam was)

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
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.

You must draw that line to have a meaningful conversation. If you don't draw that line, then virtually every attack in Iraq can be called a terrorist attack on the US. Thus, any discussion that "similar attacks have not occured in the US" is silly. So we must limit it to significant attempts at major terrorism on the US by foreigners. After you get that, you'll see a pattern that is widely spaced out. How long was it between attacks on the world trade center? That is how spaced out bin Laden likes it. So since we are only halfway between his set attacks, it is too early to say wheter or not we have had any impact.

Make another thread in 5 years or so, and then I'll talk again. But until then, have a great day.

I wasn't saying anything about Iraq. We're in direct conflict over there and while you could call the attacks there terrorism (and I do) I'm not referring to that specific region in my list of terrorist attacks.

If you want to take the ludicrous stance that there were no terrorist attacks against the US between the two WTC attacks then go ahead. Pardon me if I laugh at that concept.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

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.

Are we supposed to send them flowers? Good lord, dude. They are angry that we exist. It doesn't matter if we try to be friends. These are people who are hell-bent on destroying us for no other reason that we don't fit into their psychotic ideology. How do you make peace with that? You don't. What you do is kill them before they kill you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
This admin is using diplomacy only in situations it knows it cannot use the military. Diplomacy for Iraq was a farce from day 1.

What situations can the US not use it's military and do it by force instead? Seems there are very few, if any, places where that would be the case.

It's not that they cannot use military force. It's that they have chosen not to.

Saudi Arabia
North Korea
Iran

We could use military force those countries if we so desired. Nothing is stopping us. We choose to go the diplomatic route instead.

HA!

Use military force in Saudi Arabia and world economies will collapse.

Use military force in North Korea and watch the nukes come flying from that nutcase

Use military force in Iran and we might see some nukes but, at the least, we'll run into a huge resistance from an armed force that makes what we saw in Iraq in 2003 look like a schoolyard bully (well, hmm...that's really all Saddam was)

1) Of course.

2) If the nutcase really has nukes and isn't just being a ranting nutcase as usual.

3) I agree a well.

And coincidently, 1 & 3 are why we went into Iraq instead of SA or Iran.

However, none of that means we still could not use military force and probably eventually win the battles, even if they would be brutal and protracted. However, we choose not to do it that way.

 

[conjur]

We choose not to do so because there is *no* choice!

"The only way to win is not to play." so to speak.

And, your little jibe about Iraq speaks volumes. You must have a poster of Rumsfeld over your bed.

 

[11thHour]

Neil Diamond's song about al qaeda was very poignant.

 

[shira]

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.

Puleeeze!

If this happened in the U.S., the right would go from claiming that Bush's policies have "obviously been working" because we HAVEN'T been attacked since 9/11 to saying that we need to do even more of those policies because they obviously DIDN'T work.

It will be right out of the "war on drugs" cookbook: If your policies don't work, just do more of the same policies.

And as mainstream America falls for such propaganda, the left shake their heads in disbelief as Bush and company mess up this country even more.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Are we supposed to send them flowers? Good lord, dude. They are angry that we exist. It doesn't matter if we try to be friends. These are people who are hell-bent on destroying us for no other reason that we don't fit into their psychotic ideology. How do you make peace with that? You don't. What you do is kill them before they kill you.

Your premises are flawed. Most muslim anger is not simply due to the existence of the west. OBL himself has stated reasons why he is fighting America. They are fairly common sense (Israel and US intervention in the middle-east). This is another attempt to make all anti-US concerns look irrational. Some anti-western behavior is irrational, but I doubt most of it is. Just like some anti-muslim behavior is irrational. Yours is a false dillemma. There's not just a choice between attacking random Mulsim countires and sending flowers. There is a middle-ground which involves not blindly supporting Israel and not messing around in the middle east whenever we feel like it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Are we supposed to send them flowers? Good lord, dude. They are angry that we exist. It doesn't matter if we try to be friends. These are people who are hell-bent on destroying us for no other reason that we don't fit into their psychotic ideology. How do you make peace with that? You don't. What you do is kill them before they kill you.

Your premises are flawed. Most muslim anger is not simply due to the existence of the west. OBL himself has stated reasons why he is fighting America. They are fairly common sense (Israel and US intervention in the middle-east). This is another attempt to make all anti-US concerns look irrational. Some anti-western behavior is irrational, but I doubt most of it is. Just like some anti-muslim behavior is irrational. Yours is a false dillemma. There's not just a choice between attacking random Mulsim countires and sending flowers. There is a middle-ground which involves not blindly supporting Israel and not messing around in the middle east whenever we feel like it.

I agree completely. America has historically behaved with disregard for local customs, beliefs, and sensibilities. The 9/11 attack was primarily a reaction to U.S. policies in the middle east. This isn't an excuse for 9/11 (it's inexcusable), but it's a valid explanation.

If the U.S. thinks the solution is hunting down terrorists worldwide and exterminating them, we will never have peaceful co-existence with the greater Muslim world: that approach guarantees a widening cycle of violence. The true solution is understanding what it is that we do that creates animosity toward us, and modifying our way of doing business such that we can achieve our global objectives without causing alienation.

I know; easier said than done. But in the U.S. today, it's not even being said.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
...which would further split the US from the rest of the world, which is their ultimate goal.

got a link to "thier" mission statement? :roll:

Originally posted by: 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.

Major one blew up in Toledo just the other day.. Its "under ivestigation"
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindeal...e/cuyahoga/1107858609167440.xml&coll=2

Originally posted by: shira
...The 9/11 attack was primarily a reaction to U.S. policies in the middle east....

Were you the 19th hijacker? Are you a member of Al-Queda?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: shira
...The 9/11 attack was primarily a reaction to U.S. policies in the middle east....

Were you the 19th hijacker? Are you a member of Al-Queda?

OBL specifically said it was because of US support for Israel and the first gulf war involvement. Not only that, it doesn't take a mind-reader to figure out what's bothering a lot of muslims. If Muslims were occupying Christian territories and supporting a country that created a Mulsim state out of say, Florida, do you think Americans would be pissed? Of course they would.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
....
OBL specifically said it was because of US support for Israel and the first gulf war involvement. Not only that, it doesn't take a mind-reader to figure out what's bothering a lot of muslims. If Muslims were occupying Christian territories and supporting a country that created a Mulsim state out of say, Florida, do you think Americans would be pissed? Of course they would.

Heres a few quotes from what "Bin Laden Specifically Said"

[

Originally posted by: Osama Bin Lade to the United States
a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.

(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.

(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.

(xi) That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?

(xii) Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles. All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others.

(a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the 'American friends'. Yet you prevent them from establishing democracies. When the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice democracy and they won the election, you unleashed your agents in the Algerian army onto them, and to attack them with tanks and guns, to imprison them and torture them - a new lesson from the 'American book of democracy'!!!

Still sure you want to alter US policies to make terrorism stop? Careful what you wish for. What OBL lists above is a lot of what the liberals in here keep claiming the Right Wing is trying to do to America. Gambling, Drinking, Promiscuous Sex, Anti-Semitism, Exploitation of Women, Homosexuality, making interest off of loans, etc. All OUTLAWED. Oh and not to mention you would have to convert to Islam.

I'll take war over OBL's terms anyday.