Why Don't We Get Attacked More Often?

[NakaNaka]

Simple question. Difficult answer. I have no clue.

-Phil

Edit: Yes I mean terrorism.

 

[rickn]

you mean terrorist attack on america? because, there is no pattern. they will try and strike when we least expect it. it also takes years to plan and fund terrorist attacks. they want to attack america where it hurts, hit us to cause massive casualities, massive monetary losses, loss of our freedoms etc.

 

[NakaNaka]

Originally posted by: rickn
you mean terrorist attack on america? because, there is no pattern. they will try and strike when we least expect it. it also takes years to plan and fund terrorist attacks. they want to attack america where it hurts, hit us to cause massive casualities, massive monetary losses etc.

But wouldn't it do much more damage if there were a lot of small attacks, like Israel? Imagine if every month there was a small bombing at a mall or gunmen at a football game.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: NakaNaka

Originally posted by: rickn
you mean terrorist attack on america? because, there is no pattern. they will try and strike when we least expect it. it also takes years to plan and fund terrorist attacks. they want to attack america where it hurts, hit us to cause massive casualities, massive monetary losses etc.

But wouldn't it do much more damage if there were a lot of small attacks, like Israel? Imagine if every month there was a small bombing at a mall or gunmen at a football game.

It's been easier for the palenstinians to strike israel because they breed terrorist right there, they got the infrastructure in place and support of their own government to carry out such attacks, not to mention a strong desire to kill for occupied land. AQ wants to hit America where is really hurts us, in whic they cause us loss of freedoms and massive loss of life. Blowing up a few people here and there, that's not their MO.

 

[Infohawk]

They haven't attacked more often than you might expect because the administration has terrorized the populace into thinking the threat of terrorism is greater than it is. Listening to some here, you'd think terrorists are close to making Western civilization collapse. 9/11 was somewhat of a fluke and in large part was due to the administration's failure to pick up on obvious clues that an attack was coming. (Remember under Bill Clinton the millenium bombing was averted).

 

[yllus]

Increased threat of terror in Europe during year-end holidays

In the longer term, according to the [European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center], January 2005 through June 30 will see an increase in the threat level as hundred of "jihadi" volunteers start leaving Iraq.

As reported by UPI on Dec. 13, the Brussels-based security firm confirms that returning foreign fighter from Iraq is cause for concern. The report states that the U.S. attack on Fallujah broke the infrastructure that supported the foreign fighters. Estimates on the number of volunteers who went to fight U.S. forces varies between 1,500 and 3,000.

According to ESISC, about 1,200 of these fighters were killed during the November assault on Fallujah. The report states that the U.S. assault on Fallujah has denied them a base of operation. However, a recent report from Iraq indicates that the insurgency appears to be rebasing in Mosul and other cities.

Bypassing the "blah blah Iraq wasn't worth it" crap, the article is indicating that efforts have been centralized lately in Iraq, with this new invasion of a holy land by Westerners piquing our enemies. Depending on how the election there goes (ie. how legitimate it's viewed by Iraqis), we could see a trickling out of terrorists from Iraq to re-concentrate on areas in the West.

 

[bamacre]

Bin laden is very careful and very cautious when it comes to attacking inside the United States. He seems to be very detailed in his attacks, in almsot every aspect. Like a demented murderer. The movie Seven comes to mind.

"9/11" I think was in direct relation to our dialing 9-1-1 for emergency assistance.

"15 Saudi's" - Bin laden could have found hijackers from any country, I believe the majority of attackers being Saudi was directed in the fact that we hold up a brutal puppet gov't there, it's home to Mecca, we have troops there. Bush and his family are good friends with the Saudi royals.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Like a demented murderer. The movie Seven comes to mind.

Note the success of the administration is terrifying its populace here... What was the killer's motives in Seven? Bin Laden has given reasons for his attacks on America, so I'm not sure it's a good comparison.

 

[NakaNaka]

Originally posted by: bamacre
"9/11" I think was in direct relation to our dialing 9-1-1 for emergency assistance.

What if 9/11 had fallen on a Saturday or Sunday? Do you really think Bin Laden would have hit when very few people would have been at work?

 

[Stunt]

Bush since coming to office has created MORE enemies. There not only is a select few regions with US hatred...but even within your own allies. I condemn this wholeheartedly...but i see it everyday. There is a genuine sense of american imperialism and unilateralism.

I think what 9/11 should have done is initiated a revamp of intelligence protocols with communications as paramount.
International cooperation is the only way to beat the terrorists.

Not Bush's adventures in Iraq and Syria.
All that did was brought the people to the terrorists. (coming over the borders)
Once the troops are gone...wait and see where they go to find americans to kill...

I can take a guess...can you??

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: NakaNaka

Originally posted by: bamacre
"9/11" I think was in direct relation to our dialing 9-1-1 for emergency assistance.

What if 9/11 had fallen on a Saturday or Sunday? Do you really think Bin Laden would have hit when very few people would have been at work?

No. Maybe he waited until 9/11 occured on a weekday. I have no idea.

 

[3chordcharlie]

The goal of terrorism is to create terror. Terrorists have limited budgets and limited personnel, like every organization.

As long as you're talking about 'al qaeda' terrorism (not bombings like were seen in Israel and now in Iraq) the reason they are infrequent is because the leaders of the organization think they are doing the best job of creating terror (and furthereing their political cause of reduced American involvement in the middle east), given their available resources.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Bush since coming to office has created MORE enemies. There not only is a select few regions with US hatred...but even within your own allies. I condemn this wholeheartedly...but i see it everyday.

It has always been like that. For some reason people just like to pretend that it's a new thing. The #1 'player' will always have hate directed at him.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Bush since coming to office has created MORE enemies. There not only is a select few regions with US hatred...but even within your own allies. I condemn this wholeheartedly...but i see it everyday.

It has always been like that. For some reason people just like to pretend that it's a new thing. The #1 'player' will always have hate directed at him.

Explain this

A July and August 2004 survey by the University of Maryland and GlobeScan, Inc. of 34,330 people in 35 nations found that, in 30 out of 35 countries polled, a majority or plurality would have preferred to see Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry win in the 2004 election. Kerry was strongly preferred by traditional European allies like Norway (74% for Kerry to 7% for Bush), Germany (74% to 10%), France (64% to 5%), the Netherlands (63% to 6%), Italy (58% to 14%), Spain (45% to 7%), and the United Kingdom (47% to 16%). Also other allies such as Japan (43% to 23%), Mexico (38% to 18%), Turkey (40% to 25%) and South Africa (43% to 29%). The only countries where Bush was preferred by a majority were the Philippines, Nigeria, and Poland. India and Thailand were divided. [42] An October poll by a range of major international newspapers show that in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Japan, Spain and South Korea a majority of voters share a rejection of the Iraq invasion, contempt for the Bush administration and a growing hostility to the U.S.; however, while they all oppose the Bush government's politics, they do not express a dislike of American people. Another poll found that Israel and Russia were the only countries surveyed in which a majority favored Bush over Kerry.

How was Bush less liked that kerry by a wide margin. That isn't anti americanism...it's anti Bush. They were even asked if they hated america.

 

[RabidMongoose]

How was Bush less liked that kerry by a wide margin. That isn't anti americanism...it's anti Bush. They were even asked if they hated america.

Which do you prefer - bacon or sausage? Because that has about as much relevance as your post did in regards to what I said when you brought up Bush and Kerry.

Sure, people hate Bush and the US government. However, they've hated it before and they will always direct more hate towards the biggest country. People want to think that Bush has started all of this hate in the world for the US, but it has always existed.

You should be arguing that Bush has caused more hate, not that hate is somehow new.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

How was Bush less liked that kerry by a wide margin. That isn't anti americanism...it's anti Bush. They were even asked if they hated america.

Which do you prefer - bacon or sausage? Because that has about as much relevance as your post did in regards to what I said when you brought up Bush and Kerry.

Sure, people hate Bush and the US government. However, they've hated it before and they will always direct more hate towards the biggest country. People want to think that Bush has started all of this hate in the world for the US, but it has always existed.

I distinctly remember here in canada that Clinton was liked far more and the reputation of the us was in a far better light. Also i see friends who have never been politically inclined start with the bush/america bashing. Something they would not have done with some of Bush's policies.

Anyways, im not saying it never exisited...i agree with you somewhat...as long as you acknowledge that Bush has not helped america's image.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: NakaNaka
Simple question. Difficult answer. I have no clue.

Edit: Yes I mean terrorism.

Originally posted by: rickn
they want to attack america where it hurts, hit us to cause massive casualities, massive monetary losses, loss of our freedoms etc.

There is no immediate need to do it again. Taking out the New York WTC is still having the desired effect, the dollar is in the basement, 3,000 people are still dead and America has lost it's Freedoms.

As soon as the perceived desired affect wears off, I'm sure they will strike again for re-inforcement of that effect.

Very simple actually. That help???

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: NakaNaka
Simple question. Difficult answer. I have no clue.

Edit: Yes I mean terrorism.

Originally posted by: rickn
they want to attack america where it hurts, hit us to cause massive casualities, massive monetary losses, loss of our freedoms etc.

There is no immediate need to do it again. Taking out the New York WTC is still having the desired effect, the dollar is in the basement, 3,000 people are still dead and America has lost it's Freedoms.

As soon as the perceived desired affect wears off, I'm sure they will strike again for re-inforcement of that effect.

Very simple actually. That help???

I normally don't quite agree with Dave, but this is spot on. We are still terrorized by an attack from over 3 years ago. They haven't NEEDED to do anything since. Despite the fact that we haven't been attacked in over 3 years, terrorism and the middle east are still the top focus of our country. The terrorists did exactly what they set out to do, they used asymetric force to terrorize a far more powerful foe.

 

[His Lord Uberdude]

We don't get attacked because of very thorough and diligent anti-terrorism by Bush.

 

[His Lord Uberdude]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Bush since coming to office has created MORE enemies. There not only is a select few regions with US hatred...but even within your own allies. I condemn this wholeheartedly...but i see it everyday.

It has always been like that. For some reason people just like to pretend that it's a new thing. The #1 'player' will always have hate directed at him.

Explain this

A July and August 2004 survey by the University of Maryland and GlobeScan, Inc. of 34,330 people in 35 nations found that, in 30 out of 35 countries polled, a majority or plurality would have preferred to see Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry win in the 2004 election. Kerry was strongly preferred by traditional European allies like Norway (74% for Kerry to 7% for Bush), Germany (74% to 10%), France (64% to 5%), the Netherlands (63% to 6%), Italy (58% to 14%), Spain (45% to 7%), and the United Kingdom (47% to 16%). Also other allies such as Japan (43% to 23%), Mexico (38% to 18%), Turkey (40% to 25%) and South Africa (43% to 29%). The only countries where Bush was preferred by a majority were the Philippines, Nigeria, and Poland. India and Thailand were divided. [42] An October poll by a range of major international newspapers show that in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Japan, Spain and South Korea a majority of voters share a rejection of the Iraq invasion, contempt for the Bush administration and a growing hostility to the U.S.; however, while they all oppose the Bush government's politics, they do not express a dislike of American people. Another poll found that Israel and Russia were the only countries surveyed in which a majority favored Bush over Kerry.

How was Bush less liked that kerry by a wide margin. That isn't anti americanism...it's anti Bush. They were even asked if they hated america.

Why do we care what they think? THis is our country, our election, our choice, and not every U.N. country that comes to mind.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Bin laden is very careful and very cautious when it comes to attacking inside the United States. He seems to be very detailed in his attacks, in almsot every aspect. Like a demented murderer. The movie Seven comes to mind.

"9/11" I think was in direct relation to our dialing 9-1-1 for emergency assistance.

"15 Saudi's" - Bin laden could have found hijackers from any country, I believe the majority of attackers being Saudi was directed in the fact that we hold up a brutal puppet gov't there, it's home to Mecca, we have troops there. Bush and his family are good friends with the Saudi royals.

there are two or three events in the past that have occured on 9/11.

Ground was broken on the pentagon.

Spetember 11 1978 was smack in the middle of the Camp david accords.

I beleive we also overthrough some government in south america on that day in the 1970's. There was a thread around here a while back about this, but i can't find it.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: His Lord Uberdude
Why do we care what they think? THis is our country, our election, our choice, and not every U.N. country that comes to mind.

That's quite an unfortunate point of view.
You really should care how your allies and trading partners feel. These are countries you have extremely complex relatoinships with.

Imagine a company who didnt care about how their customers or suppliers felt...

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: His Lord Uberdude
We don't get attacked because of very thorough and diligent anti-terrorism by Bush.

you mean like his wonderful anti-terrorism policy the year and a half before 9/11? AQ doesn't work on a timeline, they can and do have stuff that is planned for sure. when they will strike, might not be til after Bush is gone. The could still be funding and planning the whole while though.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: NakaNaka
Simple question. Difficult answer. I have no clue.

Edit: Yes I mean terrorism.

Originally posted by: rickn
they want to attack america where it hurts, hit us to cause massive casualities, massive monetary losses, loss of our freedoms etc.

There is no immediate need to do it again. Taking out the New York WTC is still having the desired effect, the dollar is in the basement, 3,000 people are still dead and America has lost it's Freedoms.

As soon as the perceived desired affect wears off, I'm sure they will strike again for re-inforcement of that effect.

Very simple actually. That help???

you're preaching to the choir.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: His Lord Uberdude
We don't get attacked because of very thorough and diligent anti-terrorism by Bush.

Please explain the logic behind that statement...also, I feel the need to post the necessary Simpson's quote.

Homer: Well, I don't see any bears around here, the bear patrol must be doing its job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you honey.
Lisa picks up a rock: No Dad, by your logic I could claim that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer, after a long pause: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.