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

[MisterCornell]

Whether you like Bush or not, you have to admit his administration has done a good job preventing any more terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Despite all the liberals whining about Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, those two are what kept Muslims from inflicting further terrorist attacks on the U.S.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Doboji

In the real world that we live in cultures clash on a regular basis... Humanity is too diverse for these conflicts to be avoided... If the response to this inevitable conflict is for the offended culture (islam) to lash out by delibrately targeting innocent people and killing them, well than that culture simply cannot exist in the world with everyone else. Thats simply reality. At this point I ponder whether it might be wise for us to use the same tactics. I promise we could kill their innocent people a hell of alot easier and more efficiently than they can. I'm not saying do it... but at what point to we say we are more important than them

-Max

western europeans have killed far more innocent people than arabs ever will. BY you reasoning we cannot exist in the same world as everyone else.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Also, I noticed that you failed to mention where the vast majority of UN resolutions concerning Israel originate from. They are drafted by Arab-Muslim countries that seemingly concentrate on doing little else at the UN besides introducing resolutions against Israel. The US is a counter-balance to that bias.

Who cares about counter-balancing unless you are looking out for a country. That's my whole point. If you are not involved, you don't care what happens.

You sound like a New Yorker.

We are involved, in Israel as well as a lot of Arab countries. Being involved is why we were in the Persian Gulf war in the first place.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Whether you like Bush or not, you have to admit his administration has done a good job preventing any more terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Despite all the liberals whining about Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, those two are what kept Muslims from inflicting further terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Actually you would be a fool to admit that.

It has been less than four years since the attack. Now if we don't have any attacks for the next 6 years, I might admit Bush has protected the country. But most experts (including those far more qualified than anybody on this forum) agree that the question of al-Qaeda attacking the US again is not a question of if, but when.

Not too hard when your figurehead is still on the loose almost four years later.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Whether you like Bush or not, you have to admit his administration has done a good job preventing any more terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Proof? And please don't say nothing has happened since September of 2001 as your answer. That is quite a humdinger of a logical fallacy when people suggest that.

 

[Zebo]

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

Maybe, however, the terrorist can, over time, create conditions where a stiff upper lip is not enough. (common sense always prevails, see israels withdraws, command in iraq negotiations with terrorists etc) And we are not even willing to do what israel does to combat terror eg. military draft, shutting down free society replacing it with a garrison state with no freedom of movement, privacy, and be tracked by gov't 24/7. "galvanized" muslims is exactly what Osama wants and trying to get... I'm sure we'll oblidge.

 

[MisterCornell]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Whether you like Bush or not, you have to admit his administration has done a good job preventing any more terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Despite all the liberals whining about Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, those two are what kept Muslims from inflicting further terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Actually you would be a fool to admit that.

It has been less than four years since the attack. Now if we don't have any attacks for the next 6 years, I might admit Bush has protected the country. But most experts (including those far more qualified than anybody on this forum) agree that the question of al-Qaeda attacking the US again is not a question of if, but when.

Not too hard when your figurehead is still on the loose almost four years later.

If it's not a question of if but when, then it seems like keeping the U.S. safe for 4 years since 9/11 is a pretty massive accomplishment. Where you pull this "another 6 years" figure out of your ass is meaningless. A lot of political commentators, as well as those from the John Kerry campaign, agreed after the election that keeping the U.S. safe from further Al Qaeda assaults was Bush's ace in the hole that probably moreso than anything else helped him win the election.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Infohawk
...Not take sides basically, like we do now.

In what way do we take sides? If i'm not mistaken, a lot of Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait come to mind) get a hell of a better deal out of thier relationship with the USA than Isreal does.

And whens the last time an Isreali blew him/herself up in a Muslim city?

when was the last time the palestinians ran a bunch of tanks and helicopters through tel aviv?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Whether you like Bush or not, you have to admit his administration has done a good job preventing any more terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Despite all the liberals whining about Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, those two are what kept Muslims from inflicting further terrorist attacks on the U.S.

more bs statements. Do you have any prove besides corelation?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Whether you like Bush or not, you have to admit his administration has done a good job preventing any more terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Despite all the liberals whining about Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, those two are what kept Muslims from inflicting further terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Actually you would be a fool to admit that.

It has been less than four years since the attack. Now if we don't have any attacks for the next 6 years, I might admit Bush has protected the country. But most experts (including those far more qualified than anybody on this forum) agree that the question of al-Qaeda attacking the US again is not a question of if, but when.

Not too hard when your figurehead is still on the loose almost four years later.

If it's not a question of if but when, then it seems like keeping the U.S. safe for 4 years since 9/11 is a pretty massive accomplishment. Where you pull this "another 6 years" figure out of your ass is meaningless. A lot of political commentators, as well as those from the John Kerry campaign, agreed after the election that keeping the U.S. safe from further Al Qaeda assaults was Bush's ace in the hole that probably moreso than anything else helped him win the election.

al-Qaeda, according to the experts who spend a good portion of their careers studying the group, does not attack in a guerrilla-like fashion. The simple fact is that our country is huge, and there are no fool-proof ways of securing it. We know this, and al-Qaeda knows this.

If we screen the international passengers too closely, they will fly to Canada or Mexico and cross the border.

If we stop their cargo plane shipments of contraband, they will send it on a container ship (or smuggle it across the border).

If we start profiling a certain type of person, they will recruit a different type of person.

Their methods are not quick and rapid. They are slow and methodical. They have literally a million different ways they can wreak havoc on our country besides slamming planes into buildings, and we're not significantly more protected now than we were then. If anything, the Patriot Act and all our new security is just an added nuisance for them, and not a deal killer.

GWB protected us for four years? More like al-Qaeda has been taking their typical amount of time before striking again.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Whether you like Bush or not, you have to admit his administration has done a good job preventing any more terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Despite all the liberals whining about Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, those two are what kept Muslims from inflicting further terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Actually you would be a fool to admit that.

It has been less than four years since the attack. Now if we don't have any attacks for the next 6 years, I might admit Bush has protected the country. But most experts (including those far more qualified than anybody on this forum) agree that the question of al-Qaeda attacking the US again is not a question of if, but when.

Not too hard when your figurehead is still on the loose almost four years later.

If it's not a question of if but when, then it seems like keeping the U.S. safe for 4 years since 9/11 is a pretty massive accomplishment. Where you pull this "another 6 years" figure out of your ass is meaningless. A lot of political commentators, as well as those from the John Kerry campaign, agreed after the election that keeping the U.S. safe from further Al Qaeda assaults was Bush's ace in the hole that probably moreso than anything else helped him win the election.

]


Dude you're living in a fantasy world if you think Bush prevents any terror attacks. Think about yourself how trivial it would be to commit terrorist acts.. basic stuff like roof of a building with a high power rifle, setting forrest fires, McVeih part II, etc etc etc and you're not even trained like them or willing to die like them with allows for exponential carnage.. The only reason is they choose not to. "why not?"is the only question.

Moreover they really never did attack USA much before!! 4 years spans, 10 years spans, whatever time frame, so your argument is absurd.. sure they had a hard-on for the twin towers since 1991 and attacked it 3x before finally bringing it down but that's it!

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Whether you like Bush or not, you have to admit his administration has done a good job preventing any more terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Despite all the liberals whining about Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, those two are what kept Muslims from inflicting further terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Actually you would be a fool to admit that.

It has been less than four years since the attack. Now if we don't have any attacks for the next 6 years, I might admit Bush has protected the country. But most experts (including those far more qualified than anybody on this forum) agree that the question of al-Qaeda attacking the US again is not a question of if, but when.

Not too hard when your figurehead is still on the loose almost four years later.

If it's not a question of if but when, then it seems like keeping the U.S. safe for 4 years since 9/11 is a pretty massive accomplishment. Where you pull this "another 6 years" figure out of your ass is meaningless. A lot of political commentators, as well as those from the John Kerry campaign, agreed after the election that keeping the U.S. safe from further Al Qaeda assaults was Bush's ace in the hole that probably moreso than anything else helped him win the election.

al-Qaeda, according to the experts who spend a good portion of their careers studying the group, does not attack in a guerrilla-like fashion. The simple fact is that our country is huge, and there are no fool-proof ways of securing it. We know this, and al-Qaeda knows this.

If we screen the international passengers too closely, they will fly to Canada or Mexico and cross the border.

If we stop their cargo plane shipments of contraband, they will send it on a container ship (or smuggle it across the border).

If we start profiling a certain type of person, they will recruit a different type of person.

Their methods are not quick and rapid. They are slow and methodical. They have literally a million different ways they can wreak havoc on our country besides slamming planes into buildings, and we're not significantly more protected now than we were then. If anything, the Patriot Act and all our new security is just an added nuisance for them, and not a deal killer.

GWB protected us for four years? More like al-Qaeda has been taking their typical amount of time before striking again.

:beer: for your logical thinking.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Whether you like Bush or not, you have to admit his administration has done a good job preventing any more terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Despite all the liberals whining about Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, those two are what kept Muslims from inflicting further terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Seems we have to go through this daily...

Correlation != causation.

Again, I think a nice Simpsons quote sums it up nicely:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Wikipedia

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The results of what the US is doing now won't be evident for years to come, either way. Just as no terrorist attacks are not an indication of success, a terrorist attack would not indicate failure either.

The WoT (including Iraq) is long term. What will be telling of success or failure is what happens 20, 30, 40 years or more in the future.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Whether you like Bush or not, you have to admit his administration has done a good job preventing any more terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Despite all the liberals whining about Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, those two are what kept Muslims from inflicting further terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Well, Clinton did a much better job, then. The last 7 years and 10 months of his administration went without an al Qaeda attack on US soil.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The results of what the US is doing now won't be evident for years to come, either way. Just as no terrorist attacks are not an indication of success, a terrorist attack would not indicate failure either.

The WoT (including Iraq) is long term. What will be telling of success or failure is what happens 20, 30, 40 years or more in the future.

I don't argee with you on tactics but at least your response is a good one.

Tactically there are two ways to fight terrorists.

First one we are not willing to do. If they Kill one US soilder, eliminate the whole town where it occured and the next town will think twice before allowing a terrorist to walk and be hidden in such a clanish envrioment an ouslander will be easily routed.

Second is appeasement combined with big stick. eg. Send some aid like egypt gets.. Militarly get out of muslim nations, stop bashing proud peoples doors in, pushing thier children around maybe killing a couple innocents etc. At the same time form backdoor relations with the ruling elite to attack terror on the down low like we should. CIA front companies in various countries (like in egypt) doing nightly raids of real live and thoughly inflitrated terrorists.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Doboji

In the real world that we live in cultures clash on a regular basis... Humanity is too diverse for these conflicts to be avoided... If the response to this inevitable conflict is for the offended culture (islam) to lash out by delibrately targeting innocent people and killing them, well than that culture simply cannot exist in the world with everyone else. Thats simply reality. At this point I ponder whether it might be wise for us to use the same tactics. I promise we could kill their innocent people a hell of alot easier and more efficiently than they can. I'm not saying do it... but at what point to we say we are more important than them

-Max

western europeans have killed far more innocent people than arabs ever will. BY you reasoning we cannot exist in the same world as everyone else.

Ahhh yes group the Nazis in with alll western europeans... well hey fvck it we all have ancestors who killed people... so by all means we're all guilty... so we should use all means at our disposal then... since everyone's bad and evil anyway... nuke the bastards and be done with it.

-Max

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Doboji

In the real world that we live in cultures clash on a regular basis... Humanity is too diverse for these conflicts to be avoided... If the response to this inevitable conflict is for the offended culture (islam) to lash out by delibrately targeting innocent people and killing them, well than that culture simply cannot exist in the world with everyone else. Thats simply reality. At this point I ponder whether it might be wise for us to use the same tactics. I promise we could kill their innocent people a hell of alot easier and more efficiently than they can. I'm not saying do it... but at what point to we say we are more important than them

-Max

western europeans have killed far more innocent people than arabs ever will. BY you reasoning we cannot exist in the same world as everyone else.

Ahhh yes group the Nazis in with alll western europeans... well hey fvck it we all have ancestors who killed people... so by all means we're all guilty... so we should use all means at our disposal then... since everyone's bad and evil anyway... nuke the bastards and be done with it.

-Max

Umm, ever thought that he meant people other than the nazis? Have you thought about the colonialization of africa, asia, middle, the Americas and other places by the western europeans? just think of the millions and millions of people they slaugthered in these various places. heck the french, just to use an example, have slaughtered so many people, its just mind boggling. their various crimes in Haiti, for example, comes to mind.

but remember, if the local populations show a sign of force, they run like cowards. the French ran like cowards during the drug binged revolt of Haitians

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Doboji

In the real world that we live in cultures clash on a regular basis... Humanity is too diverse for these conflicts to be avoided... If the response to this inevitable conflict is for the offended culture (islam) to lash out by delibrately targeting innocent people and killing them, well than that culture simply cannot exist in the world with everyone else. Thats simply reality. At this point I ponder whether it might be wise for us to use the same tactics. I promise we could kill their innocent people a hell of alot easier and more efficiently than they can. I'm not saying do it... but at what point to we say we are more important than them

-Max

western europeans have killed far more innocent people than arabs ever will. BY you reasoning we cannot exist in the same world as everyone else.

Ahhh yes group the Nazis in with alll western europeans... well hey fvck it we all have ancestors who killed people... so by all means we're all guilty... so we should use all means at our disposal then... since everyone's bad and evil anyway... nuke the bastards and be done with it.

-Max

who said anything about nazis? The spanish probably kill far more people than the nazis did, although over the course of a century and not a few years, and noone really bothered to record it.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Doboji

In the real world that we live in cultures clash on a regular basis... Humanity is too diverse for these conflicts to be avoided... If the response to this inevitable conflict is for the offended culture (islam) to lash out by delibrately targeting innocent people and killing them, well than that culture simply cannot exist in the world with everyone else. Thats simply reality. At this point I ponder whether it might be wise for us to use the same tactics. I promise we could kill their innocent people a hell of alot easier and more efficiently than they can. I'm not saying do it... but at what point to we say we are more important than them

-Max

western europeans have killed far more innocent people than arabs ever will. BY you reasoning we cannot exist in the same world as everyone else.

Ahhh yes group the Nazis in with alll western europeans... well hey fvck it we all have ancestors who killed people... so by all means we're all guilty... so we should use all means at our disposal then... since everyone's bad and evil anyway... nuke the bastards and be done with it.

-Max

Umm, ever thought that he meant people other than the nazis? Have you thought about the colonialization of africa, asia, middle, the Americas and other places by the western europeans? just think of the millions and millions of people they slaugthered in these various places. heck the french, just to use an example, have slaughtered so many people, its just mind boggling. their various crimes in Haiti, for example, comes to mind.

but remember, if the local populations show a sign of force, they run like cowards. the French ran like cowards during the drug binged revolt of Haitians

are you talking about the one in 1803 after napoleons navy had been wiped out at trafalagar?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: raildogg

but remember, if the local populations show a sign of force, they run like cowards. the French ran like cowards during the drug binged revolt of Haitians

Right... nice bit of nationalist hate there. The French took over a huge chunk of the world by running at any sign of force. Uh-huh. :roll: And of course when the US runs from Somalia at a sign of local force, it's a cause for a heroic celebration and a movie that makes us proud.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Doboji

In the real world that we live in cultures clash on a regular basis... Humanity is too diverse for these conflicts to be avoided... If the response to this inevitable conflict is for the offended culture (islam) to lash out by delibrately targeting innocent people and killing them, well than that culture simply cannot exist in the world with everyone else. Thats simply reality. At this point I ponder whether it might be wise for us to use the same tactics. I promise we could kill their innocent people a hell of alot easier and more efficiently than they can. I'm not saying do it... but at what point to we say we are more important than them

-Max

western europeans have killed far more innocent people than arabs ever will. BY you reasoning we cannot exist in the same world as everyone else.

Ahhh yes group the Nazis in with alll western europeans... well hey fvck it we all have ancestors who killed people... so by all means we're all guilty... so we should use all means at our disposal then... since everyone's bad and evil anyway... nuke the bastards and be done with it.

-Max

who said anything about nazis? The spanish probably kill far more people than the nazis did, although over the course of a century and not a few years, and noone really bothered to record it.

You're right... there is a moral equivelancy here... Bin Laden = USA.... so why do we bother faking it... lets start playing like the bastards we are... shouldn't take much effort to reduce the whole middle east and africa to smoldering ash piles.... I say we do it... we're as bad as them afterall.... lets just accept who we are and act accordingly...

-Max

 

[ntdz]

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

That's how Europeans would react. We are more patriotic here in the USA though, we'd react with more vigor and agression most likely. We'd rally behind Bush as well.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: raildogg

but remember, if the local populations show a sign of force, they run like cowards. the French ran like cowards during the drug binged revolt of Haitians

Right... nice bit of nationalist hate there. The French took over a huge chunk of the world by running at any sign of force. Uh-huh. :roll: And of course when the US runs from Somalia at a sign of local force, it's a cause for a heroic celebration and a movie that makes us proud.

They didn't become pussies until after WW1/WW2. They got decimated by Germany twice, and ever since then they are against wars bigtime.

 

[OFFascist]

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

Actually I heard a story about some muslims being killed and left for dead in the desert cause some Mexicans dont want them making waves.