Why hasn't the U.S. been attacked again since 9/11 ?

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Seems like we should have been hit again as retribution for Afghanistan and then for Iraq.
Personally, I think it's because the operation in Afghanistan and the following efforts, have done substantial damage to the Al Qaeda organization.

Why do you guys think we haven't?
Especially those of you who think we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan in the first place.

 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Because the PATRIOT Act, Ashcroft and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have had their intended effect.
 

VioletAura

Banned
Aug 28, 2003
302
0
0
More likely they are just hitting "soft" targets, such as US interest in other countries (ex: Saudi Arabian bombings), because their network was forced underground and the loss of manpower is making planning and executing another attack of that magnitude nearly impossible.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: VioletAura
More likely they are just hitting "soft" targets, such as US interest in other countries (ex: Saudi Arabian bombings), because their network was forced underground and the loss of manpower is making planning and executing another attack of that magnitude nearly impossible.
So would you agree that our actions in Afghanistan were helpful in achieving this?
And that the "war on terror" has been fairly successful?

 

VioletAura

Banned
Aug 28, 2003
302
0
0
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: VioletAura
More likely they are just hitting "soft" targets, such as US interest in other countries (ex: Saudi Arabian bombings), because their network was forced underground and the loss of manpower is making planning and executing another attack of that magnitude nearly impossible.
So would you agree that our actions in Afghanistan were helpful in achieving this?

Obviously. It was about time the US cleaned up the mess it made there, however more work is necessary to keep the Taliban from re-emerging in one form or another.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: VioletAura
More likely they are just hitting "soft" targets, such as US interest in other countries (ex: Saudi Arabian bombings), because their network was forced underground and the loss of manpower is making planning and executing another attack of that magnitude nearly impossible.
So would you agree that our actions in Afghanistan were helpful in achieving this?
And that the "war on terror" has been fairly successful?

I don't think anyone is denying Afghanistan has been successful, but that does not apply to war in Iraq.
Additionally, I think the resources tied up in Iraq would be better used to hunt down Al-Qaeda.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think anyone is denying Afghanistan has been successful, but that does not apply to war in Iraq.
Additionally, I think the resources tied up in Iraq would be better used to hunt down Al-Qaeda.

Some on this board deny Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11. I have heard quite a few libs saying we shouldn't have attacked Afghanistan either. It is refreshing however, to hear that you differentiate the two events, rather than taking a pure "whatever Bush does is bad" attitude that I have seen among many on the left.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think anyone is denying Afghanistan has been successful, but that does not apply to war in Iraq.
Additionally, I think the resources tied up in Iraq would be better used to hunt down Al-Qaeda.

Some on this board deny Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11. I have heard quite a few libs saying we shouldn't have attacked Afghanistan either. It is refreshing however, to hear that you differentiate the two events, rather than taking a pure "whatever Bush does is bad" attitude that I have seen among many on the left.

Yes, it was strange to hear some criticize Bush for going into Afghanistan after Taliban refused to turn over the killers.
I think we were justified going in, and the execution was good, but the problem is we didn't stay focused. I think we are slowly forgetting about Afghanistan, and eventually there will be another reminder.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think anyone is denying Afghanistan has been successful, but that does not apply to war in Iraq.
Additionally, I think the resources tied up in Iraq would be better used to hunt down Al-Qaeda.

Some on this board deny Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had anything to do with 9/11. I have heard quite a few libs saying we shouldn't have attacked Afghanistan either. It is refreshing however, to hear that you differentiate the two events, rather than taking a pure "whatever Bush does is bad" attitude that I have seen among many on the left.

I'd like to see proof that anyone on this board denied Al Qaeda had something to do with 9/11, or did you just pull that out of your ass?

 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
If we don't start getting more troops and support back in Afghanistan and soon, that country is going to fall back into Taliban hands. The media dosn't say much ever about affairs in Afghanistan. Thats the so called "Liberal" media. Why is that? Why do we not here more of what is being done their to find Osama? Or in Pakistan? It seems Bush and his operatives have steared our attention far away from the failings of his attempt at redemption for 9/11.

That ratbastyrd Osama is still plotting and executing at his will on his timetable. Either we aren't looking hard enough, or he really is smarter than the white house gives him credit for. Either way, the war in the middle east against terrorism is far from over. We dropped a bunch of bombs,killed a bunch of people, and we have soldiers in a foriegn hostile land getting little support. This country needs t oresolve 2 things. Saddam and Osama MUST MEET JUSTICE NOW! As many bodies we have in the middle east and as much money as we are supposedly throwing at this problem, BY DAMNED, I WANT MY MONEYS WORTH! :|
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Speaking of 9/11 guess who knew what it was going to happen but did next to nothing to stop it?

Yes that's right... George W. Bush
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Since Osama could not bring the real war to the US (too far away) he made the US come to him by the strike on 9/11. The Bush administration knew that Osama was going to strike the US but they probably did not reckon with how effective Osama's strike would be. Osama's strategic aim is to humiliate the US and to promote his own political ideas in the Middle East. Osama is succeeding with both aims at the moment. As he told Robert Fisk in an interview in 1997:

"Q: At the beginning of the war, you said the U.S. might be falling into a trap. What did you mean?

Fisk: If it is bin Laden, he's a very intelligent guy. He's been planning his war for a long time. I remember the last time I met him in 1997 in Afghanistan. It was so cold. When I awoke in the morning in the tent, I had frost in my hair. We were in a twenty-five-foot-wide and twenty-five-foot-high air raid shelter built into the solid rock of the mountain by bin Laden during the war against the Russians. And bin Laden said to me (he was being very careful, watching me writing it down), "From this mountain, Mr. Robert, upon which you are sitting, we beat the Russian army and helped break the Soviet Union. And I pray to God that he allows us to turn America into a shadow of itself." When I saw the pictures of New York without the World Trade Center, New York looked like a shadow of itself.

Bin Laden is not well read and he's not sophisticated, but he will have worked out very coldly what America would do in response to this. I'm sure he wanted America to attack Afghanistan. Once you do what your enemy wants, you are walking into a trap, whether you think it's the right thing to do or not."
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Speaking of 9/11 guess who knew what it was going to happen but did next to nothing to stop it?

Yes that's right... George W. Bush
What an ass...

on one post he says "PROVE anyone on this board said Al Qaida didn't do it"

The next he says "George knew but let it happen".

No shortage of tin foil hats around here...

 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
I guess it's time to pull out my "Against stupidity the very gods themselves strive in vain." quote. There probably won't be another major attack on the U.S. in this country. And that includes that other thread saying there's an eminent attack that might kill thousands. It's astonishing to me that some of you can consider Afghanistan a "success." Yeah, our warlord controls the central city but that's it. Where is this much vaunted democracy we're supposed to introduce. Yes, the Taliban doesn't run the country any more. But you Zingers think that means Al Queda is on the run. Look, this Osama is a six foot plus tall Arab who needs dialysis. How's "closing in on him Bush" doing? This means that there is some piece of civilization (dialysis, remember) where they can operate. Victory in Afghanistan my potatoes. We've established another pest hole government, just like we're going to do in Iraq.

As for the Patriot Act, that's a toy to keep law enforcement amused. Think for a moment. The people who think that it's OK to wipe out other people are very parochial people. They stand out like sore thumbs in the U.S., Patriot Act or no Patriot Act. Checking your grandmother's shoes at the airport doesn't have a thing to do with it.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
Some would say Al Qaeda has plenty of american targets right in their backyard so they don't need to plan attacks in US right now
 

bigdog1218

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2001
1,674
2
0
It was 8 years between the two major terrorist attacks on the WTC, its not like terrorists attacking US soil was common before 9-11. Saying Afghanistan and Iraq are succesfull because we haven't had a major attack here in the past 2 years is premature and wishful thinking.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
I haven't seen the Media say it yet but what's not to say that Bin Laden and Saddam haven't joined up forces and re-grouping? They could be anywhere in the world, not just in that region over there.

 

Flyermax2k3

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2003
3,204
0
0
Because the time is not yet right. Don't worry, it's fast-approaching though. We will be attacked again and then Emperor Bush will be able to put us in concentration camps. That is why he was placed in office, after all. We will be attacked again within the next year, if everything goes according to plan.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Supertool:

I woud deny our sojourn into Afghanistan has been successful. Although we toppled the Taliban and killed a lot of Al Quiada, they are reforming. In fact, I believe 5 or 6 provinces are now controlled by the Taliban. We haven't spent the time and resources in Afghanistan necessary to ensure a free and democratic Afghanistan. (We cut and ran before we finished the job, as usual.) Afghanistan will simply revert to its old ways-selling opium and training terrorists.

These groups had fairly limited resources before 9-11 and are certainly less "resourceful" now. I wouldn't expect a lot to happen in the U.S. any time soon for political reasons as well. The terrorists have much of the world looking unsympathetically at the U.S. and another attack here would reverse that situation. They are perfectly happy to have American boys in Iraq to kill, sorry to say, but that's the reality.

-Robert
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Heres the New York Time Op/Ed Clip & Post for the day

Here's a foreign affairs quiz:
1. In the two years since the war in Afghanistan, opium production has:
(A) virtually been eliminated by Hamid Karzai's government and American forces.
(B) declined 30 percent, but eradication is not expected until 2008.
(C) soared 19-fold and become the major source of the world's heroin.

2. In Paktika and Zabul, two religiously conservative parts of Afghanistan, the number of children going to school:
(A) has quintupled, with most girls at least finishing third grade.
(B) has risen 40 percent, although few girls go to school.
(C) has plummeted as poor security has closed nearly all schools there.

The correct answer to both questions, alas, is (C).

With the White House finally acknowledging that the challenge in Iraq runs deeper than gloomy journalism, the talk of what to do next is sounding rather like Afghanistan. And that's alarming, because we have flubbed the peace in Afghanistan even more egregiously than in Iraq.

"There is a palpable risk that Afghanistan will again turn into a failed state, this time in the hands of drug cartels and narco-terrorists," Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, writes in a grim new report on Afghanistan.

I strongly supported President Bush's war in Afghanistan, and I was there in Kabul and saw firsthand the excitement and relief of ordinary Afghans, who were immensely grateful to the U.S. for freeing them (a crucial distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan, to anyone who covered both wars, is that you never saw the same adulation among Iraqis). Mr. Bush oversaw a smart war in Afghanistan, and two years ago the crisp mountain air there pullulated with hope ? along with pleas for more security.

One day back then when I was thinking of driving to the southeast, six Afghans arrived from there ? minus their noses. Taliban guerrillas had stopped their vehicle at gunpoint and chopped off their noses because they had trimmed their beards.

I stroked my chin, admired my own proboscis, and decided not to drive on that road.

Every foreign and local official said then that Afghanistan desperately needed security on roads like that one. But the Pentagon made the same misjudgment about Afghanistan that it did about Iraq: it fatally underestimated the importance of ensuring security. The big winner was the Taliban, which is now mounting a resurgence.

"Things are definitely deteriorating on the security front," notes Paul Barker, the Afghan country director for CARE International. Twelve aid workers have been killed in the last year and dozens injured. A year ago, there was, on average, one attack on aid workers per month; now such attacks average one per day.

In at least three districts in the southeast, there is no central government representation, and the Taliban has de facto control. In Paktika and Zabul, not only have most schools closed, but the conservative madrasas are regaining strength.

"We've operated in Afghanistan for about 15 years," said Nancy Lindborg of Mercy Corps, the American aid group, "and we've never had the insecurity that we have now." She noted that the Taliban used to accept aid agencies (grudgingly), but that the Taliban had turned decisively against all foreigners.

"Separate yourself from Jews and the Christian community," a recent open letter from the Taliban warned. It ordered Afghans to avoid music, funerals for aid workers and "un-Islamic education" ? or face a "bad result."

The opium boom is one indication of the downward spiral. The Taliban banned opium production in 2000, so the 2001 crop was only 185 metric tons. The U.N. estimates that this year's crop was 3,600 tons, the second-largest in Afghan history. The crop is worth twice the Afghan government's annual budget, and much of the profit will support warlords and the Taliban.

An analyst in the U.S. intelligence community, who seeks to direct more attention to the way narco-trafficking is destabilizing the region, says that Afghanistan now accounts for 75 percent of the poppies grown for narcotics worldwide.

"The issue is not a high priority for the Bush administration," he said.

If Afghanistan is a White House model for Iraq, heaven help us.