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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Shanti - <<Especially those of you who think we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan in the first place.>>

I don't recall ever seeing anyone say this. Can you be more specific on who you are talking about?
 

Flyermax2k3

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2003
3,204
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Shanti - <<Especially those of you who think we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan in the first place.>>

I don't recall ever seeing anyone say this. Can you be more specific on who you are talking about?

It would have been extremely unpopular at the time for anyone to have voiced their opinions against the actions in Afghanistan. Most people were still caught up in the terror of 9/11 anyway...
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Gaard
Shanti - <<Especially those of you who think we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan in the first place.>>

I don't recall ever seeing anyone say this. Can you be more specific on who you are talking about?

It would have been extremely unpopular at the time for anyone to have voiced their opinions against the actions in Afghanistan. Most people were still caught up in the terror of 9/11 anyway...


But somebody must have said something in order for him to make this claim.
 

Flyermax2k3

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2003
3,204
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Gaard
Shanti - <<Especially those of you who think we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan in the first place.>>

I don't recall ever seeing anyone say this. Can you be more specific on who you are talking about?

It would have been extremely unpopular at the time for anyone to have voiced their opinions against the actions in Afghanistan. Most people were still caught up in the terror of 9/11 anyway...


But somebody must have said something in order for him to make this claim.

Why must someone have said this? Is it not logical to conclude that not all people hold the same opinion? If everyone had the same opinion on an issue I would be a little worried about that issue...
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Originally posted by: Gaard
Shanti - <<Especially those of you who think we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan in the first place.>>

I don't recall ever seeing anyone say this. Can you be more specific on who you are talking about?

It would have been extremely unpopular at the time for anyone to have voiced their opinions against the actions in Afghanistan. Most people were still caught up in the terror of 9/11 anyway...


But somebody must have said something in order for him to make this claim.

Why must someone have said this? Is it not logical to conclude that not all people hold the same opinion? If everyone had the same opinion on an issue I would be a little worried about that issue...

I see. So when Shanti makes the claim that 'those of us' who think we shouldn't have gone into Afganny, he's just making an assumption. It doesn't mean that he actually read a post by anyone stating this. I see.

 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
100
91
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
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.

Agreed.

Given the years of planning for 9/11 and the current 'alqueda reorganization' underway the past couple years, another attack can be expected in a few years or more. They are 2/2 in the US, and thats not by coincidence or hasty planning.
 

chess9

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

Nice post, Captain! Sheezh, you guys make me feel sooooo lazy. I think I gotta quit playin' so much chess and start making a contribution HERE! :)

Anyway, no kidding about Afghanistan. U.S. uses large machinery, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, and our well-respected stupidity :), and successfully trashes yet another country. I'm amazed we have any friends in the world.

How can I send my daughter to France next summer with this kind of boorish behavior as the antecedent. The French think we suck as it is..... :)

-Robert
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
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."

Bin Laden is a genius. If only he used this for good instead of evil he would have been infinitely more successful at furthering the causes of his people. Yes he has the upper hand on us now, and I reckon that he has probably won most of the battles fought so far in the war on terrorism, but it's a fight I don't think he can win in the long run. As for why the US hasn't been attacked, I don't think it really has much to do with the secutiry measures we've undertaken. Qaeda ha proven that it can strike regardless of security measures and that is because they are meticulous planers who will wait for the right opportunity. Like many have said, its not a matter of if, just when.
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
we havent been attacked yet because we are still screwed enough from 9-11. they dont need to attack us right now. though as we waste our money on a pointless/meaningless war in iraq, they are planning another brillant attack that will yet again cripple us. it is called strategy, something the u.s. doesnt like to do because that might involve thought.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
If you beileve that Osama Bin Laden wasnt involved in 9/11 I seriously hope you die.
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
If you beileve that Osama Bin Laden wasnt involved in 9/11 I seriously hope you die.

Wow. I would have settled for telling them to get their head examined or to climb out from underneath the rock they have probably been living under.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
I think I missed something in this thread. Did someone say that at the time we were considering going into Afghanistan, nobody said no? That's not true. One Representative in the house said, "No. Why don't we find out the facts first?" And that Rep voted agains the Afghanistan invasion.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I think there are a variety of factors. First off, I suspect that the FBI and others do a good job, overall, even before 9/11.

I also think that terrorists have been deprived of their most devastating weapon- airliners. Not by the so-called security at terminals, but by altered in-flight procedures and passenger reaction to any attempt. A flight of Nuns would rip any would-be hijacker to pieces, or die trying.

Other changes in the way all western govts play the game clearly has an effect, too, in terms of greater watchfulness of possible terrorists and fundage for their efforts. The ridiculous searches of ''random passengers" belies the real profiling going on at an entirely different level.

I'm hoping that 9/11 may turn out to be a one-off, a feat not duplicable under present circumstances. For Terrorists to resort to anything less horrific would be interpreted as a sign of weakness, and they haven't come up with a practical way of duplicating that kind of effect. Obvious in retrospect, the idea of suicide bombers using airliners as weapons was never considered as anything more than a remote possibility, creating an exploitable security flaw.

That doesn't mean they've quit dreaming, far from it, but I'm sure they feel time is on their side, but that the possibilities are now a lot more limited... They're laying low, waiting us out, trying to find an angle, a means, an avenue of attack, something the equal of 9/11.

Invading Afghanistan accomplished very little, if anything. The entire border area with Pakistan has never been run by any real government, other than the local tribes, who regard the border as an inconvenience or asset, depending... Their alliance with Al Qaeda is ongoing, their countryside still relatively secure form outside interference, particularly with the US distracted in another quagmire, Iraq...

Efforts by the Saudis and Pakistanis to curb terrorism are the best long term solution. It's where the ideological basis is preached openly, the source of terrorist inspiration and leadership. Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza offers another festering sore, too, one that must be healed if our grandchildren are to be free of terrorism... It's not the kind of struggle that can be won with military force, short of genocide on an incredible scale...
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Jhhnn, for wht it's worth -- and it's worth everything you paid for it -- I think what you said is dead on accurate.
 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
I think what has not been taken into consideration is that its only been a little over two years since the last successful domestic attack. Almost eight years had elapsed since the bombing of the twin towers before 9/11. It's called terrorism for a reason; the US is not under military siege where one would expect an attack daily, weekly, even yearly. The nature of terrorism is to communicate through fear, and right now we are being extremely receptive.

I find it illogical how anyone could surmise that waging all-out warfare upon another region of the world would have any effect on domestic terrorism. As illustrated by the backgrounds of the hi-jackers of the two airliners, these terrorists we are struggling against have the ability to sustain themselves independently from the resources of their organizations. In fact the term organization doesn't even apply to how these people operate. More than anything they are bound by their common interest in Islamic fundamentalist ideology. Needless to say, that is not something you can eliminate with bombs or even an invasion. In fact, the only thing that has prevented the attempted attacks since 9/11 is US Intelligence. As the brave men and women of our Intelligence and law enforcement organizations truly defend our own soil against jihad, we irrationally send our military to war against an ideology.

We all compulsively say ?we support our troops? out of fear of being compared to the idiots that spit on our soldiers when they returned from Vietnam, but we turn a blind eye to the fact that no one even knows why we are sending to die in the first place. Our government has given has more excuses for why we are now in the business for preemptively attacking and occupying other countries than there are months in a year, but still the only thing we can do to support brothers, sisters, husbands and children in uniform is say we support them. Talk is cheap.

Was the campaign in Afghanistan even effective? I say no, it could never have been. The members of Al Qaieda that weren't driven into the mountains simply walked into neighboring, sympathetic countries. Osama was never found. We killed a couple thousand fundamentalists, a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of like-minded muslims scattered throughout the entire planet. The worst part about it is that we abandoned Afghanistan for the hopelessly pointless war in Iraq, allowing the taliban to gain footing in the region again. Perhaps that indicates the lack of strategic value that Afghanistan had towards the war on terrorism to being with?

It's hard to disagree that attacking Afghanistan was warranted; it was evident they were unabashed about their support for the movement that Al Qaieda represents. Afghanistan was something tangible to lash out against, something to help satisfy the need for revenge that every one of us felt (and in most cases, still feel.) We had just about eliminated any practical target we could find (i.e. makeshift training camps) in the country when we found ourselves faced with a pretty much insurmountable conundrum; do we persist with the hunt literally into the mountains of Afghanistan where all military advantage would be lost (you have to image that fighting a war in a cave would be a PITA) or do we face the American people's thirst for revenge empty handed (no Osama)? Instead, option C was thrown together; the war in Iraq. What a fascinating time we live in.


***EDIT: good post Jhnnn, been typing my own message for so long I didn't catch yours. I suppose its obvious I'm in agreement with you, hope what I've offered is not too redundant.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
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.

Wow, it's on Fox News now that Osama and Saddam have linked up.

 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
that sounds like it's straight out of tabloid, something tells me you saw it on O'Reilly :D

All kidding aside, that's a bitter pill to swallow to think that in a war that proved Iraq had next to zero ties with Al Qaieda we may have forced togatehr our two greatest enemies.
 

beyoku

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2003
1,568
1
71
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
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?

I guess I'm proof,
1 - he never claimed credit for it EXCEPT on a video tape release by the CIA that everybody including you knew was fake.
2 - we had so many advanced warnings and did nothing.
3 - we were planning to go into afghanistan BEFORE 911.
4 - The single # of intellegence flaws and shrotcommings is STILL unbelievable. So many people had to just sit by and activly let it happen, UNLESS osama had that many people on the inside (inside includes, FBI, CIA, whitehouse, darpa, etc etc.)
5 - The fbi has proved that the people that were on the planes had fake id's. PLUS some of the highjackers that were posted on TV are actuall alive and well and complaining, living in Saudi Arabia. - SO we really dont know who was on the planes.
6 - I think we actually dropped all charges on Zacharias Mousawi (spelling) - intead of letting his call some of the alQueda people to the stand?
7 - by the way we americans are so dumb that most of us think saddam did it?
If osama did it, i think that he would just say it - HE IS A TERRORIST - They claim "responsibility" for their cause. So far i really havent seen any evidence showing that osama did it. I dont think the govt has made any attemt to show any, it was just like "osama did it" - and every body just ran with that.

What he actully said though is something in the manner of "america is now feeling what my people have been feeling for X number of years" He then gave praise to the people that did it. BUT this is just and opinion. I could really care less cause like is said - most people think saddam did it.
 

beyoku

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2003
1,568
1
71
Originally posted by: Tabb
If you beileve that Osama Bin Laden wasnt involved in 9/11 I seriously hope you die.

What is it now - 60 - 75 % of americans will fall out dead ! ?
 

AEB

Senior member
Jun 12, 2003
681
0
0
we arent being attacked because bush drove fear into the terrorists. bush doesnt mess around and they know if they attack us we are going to attack them right back
 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
That's kind of a rediculous comment AEB. How could these terrorists possibly be afraid of Bush, what could he possibly do to them that hasn't already be done? Kill them? These are the same guys who blow themselves up as collateral damage to their "cause".
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: AEB
we arent being attacked because bush drove fear into the terrorists. bush doesnt mess around and they know if they attack us we are going to attack them right back

Yeah right, so we didn't have any attack after the 1st WTC bombing in '93 because Clinton drove fear into the terrorist, until Bush came along who terrorist didn't afraid?