Why is "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" an accurate guage on the WoT?

[her209]

Why?

 

[tnilC]

Because it feels good.

 

[Todd33]

It's not. It just all they have in a string of failures.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: tnilC
Because it feels good.

Thanks. That makes me feel safer now.

 

[fjord]

With reference to These Al Qaeda--Terrorist shot their wad.

Terrorists by nature try to leverage one or a few terrorism event(s) to maximeize its effect on the psyche of their targets. Thus creating a climate of terror.

In reality terrorists as organizations--are quite limited in their ability to follow through--beyond that.

 

[Vic]

I now believe that 9/11 may have been a success. It seems quite possible that their intention was not necessarily to strike terror but to hit the core of our financial system. To weaken us economically. To cause us to go to war and to rack up massive deficits and debt that would weaken our position globally. To attack our social and political framework. To divide us both internally and from the rest of the world. What better way to win a war that to watch your enemy fight and defeat himself?
If that was the terrorists' goal, then they have succeeded, and they don't need to attack us again. Some here might hate my words, but perhaps they should at least consider them. Deceit and intrigue in international politics is millenia-old, and the predictable brute force ways of American diplomacy could easily have designed as the method of our undoing.

 

[chess9]

You are absolutely right, Vic. Stop that.
God, I hate agreeing with so many people.... I want to be angry too.

-Robert

 

[sandorski]

I don't understand why people bring the point up, but they do and think it means something. Al Queda has other fish to fry then the US and they've been very active elsewhere in the World not seeming to have been thwarted at all. In time we might find out that the Bush Admin has succeeded in stopping some attacks on US soil, but I wouldn't believe them if they tried to make that claim.

 

[DoubleL]

Why is "we haven't been attacked since 9/11"

Humm could be because a lot of people are working their rear ends off and a lot of people are doing things right

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Why is "we haven't been attacked since 9/11"

Humm could be because a lot of people are working their rear ends off and a lot of people are doing things right

Or, it could mean the AQ have been patiently waiting for the right time. Al Queda isn't interested in Invasion, just Shock and Awe.

 

[conjur]

One word:


Anthrax




That was *after* 9/11 but no one talks about it anymore. The culprit(s) were never found and no clue who did it. Perhaps Al Qaeda, perhaps some nutcase.

 

[Vic]

The REAL fallacy in this argument is that the last (non-domestic) terrorist attack on US soil was 8 years before 9/11 (also on the WTC). And IIRC there were none before then. The "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" argument simply doesn't hold up statistically.

 

[Gaard]

Why is "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" an accurate guage on the WoT

It isn't.

 

[classy]

Well if your going say what they did is why we haven't been attacked since, I say they are equally the blame for why we were attacked the first place.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Vic
I now believe that 9/11 may have been a success. It seems quite possible that their intention was not necessarily to strike terror but to hit the core of our financial system. To weaken us economically. To cause us to go to war and to rack up massive deficits and debt that would weaken our position globally. To attack our social and political framework. To divide us both internally and from the rest of the world. What better way to win a war that to watch your enemy fight and defeat himself?
If that was the terrorists' goal, then they have succeeded, and they don't need to attack us again. Some here might hate my words, but perhaps they should at least consider them. Deceit and intrigue in international politics is millenia-old, and the predictable brute force ways of American diplomacy could easily have designed as the method of our undoing.

You give them too much credit for sneakiness. Their motivations were simple, they want to bring Sharia and Islam to the US and they want the US to stop supporting Israel and regimes like those that exist in Egypt. Bin Ladin is on tape when he declared his war against the US saying that we are weak, that we can not handle extended fights and that we will give in their demands. He was cultured to believe this by our actions previous, for example when after the terrorist attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon we abandoned our peacekeeping effort and withdrew from the middle east. His asstertions were confirmed when in Somolia and events that followed we ran away shortly after seeing bodies of americans on television. Osama believes we are weak willed and that through fear and terror he can manipulate our foreign policy to support his own goals.

I personally believe that the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 directly is that because attacking the US on our own soil is probably exceedingly difficult since 9/11. The FBI has stated publicly that they have over a 1000 people under direct daily survielence. In addition individuals willing to devote years of time and effort to commit a suicide attack are probably exceedingly rare. Combining the two factors and I would almost doubt that the US can be attacked again on it's home soil. I believe any future attacks will be against soft foreign based targets, probably in europe.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Vic
I now believe that 9/11 may have been a success. It seems quite possible that their intention was not necessarily to strike terror but to hit the core of our financial system. To weaken us economically. To cause us to go to war and to rack up massive deficits and debt that would weaken our position globally. To attack our social and political framework. To divide us both internally and from the rest of the world. What better way to win a war that to watch your enemy fight and defeat himself?
If that was the terrorists' goal, then they have succeeded, and they don't need to attack us again. Some here might hate my words, but perhaps they should at least consider them. Deceit and intrigue in international politics is millenia-old, and the predictable brute force ways of American diplomacy could easily have designed as the method of our undoing.

You give them too much credit for sneakiness. Their motivations were simple, they want to bring Sharia and Islam to the US and they want the US to stop supporting Israel and regimes like those that exist in Egypt. Bin Ladin is on tape when he declared his war against the US saying that we are weak, that we can not handle extended fights and that we will give in their demands. He was cultured to believe this by our actions previous, for example when after the terrorist attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon we abandoned our peacekeeping effort and withdrew from the middle east. His asstertions were confirmed when in Somolia and events that followed we ran away shortly after seeing bodies of americans on television. Osama believes we are weak willed and that through fear and terror he can manipulate our foreign policy to support his own goals.

I personally believe that the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 directly is that because attacking the US on our own soil is probably exceedingly difficult since 9/11. The FBI has stated publicly that they have over a 1000 people under direct daily survielence. In addition individuals willing to devote years of time and effort to commit a suicide attack are probably exceedingly rare. Combining the two factors and I would almost doubt that the US can be attacked again on it's home soil. I believe any future attacks will be against soft foreign based targets, probably in europe.

Exactly. To hear some people explain it, you'd think bin Laden was the Arab superman version of Rove, with brilliant plans within plots who knew exactly how to suck us into his dastardly plan and had our psychology all figured out to know every one of our moves. Bullsh!t! If bin Laden was so damn smart, he wouldn't have been building a mansion in Kandahar previous to 9/11 for his wives and children. However, he was and, guess what, he doesn't live there now.

btw, thanks for adding some sensibility on top of all the tin-foil.

 

[Gaard]

It hasn't rained since last Wednesday. My weather machine works!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: rahvin
You give them too much credit for sneakiness. Their motivations were simple, they want to bring Sharia and Islam to the US and they want the US to stop supporting Israel and regimes like those that exist in Egypt. Bin Ladin is on tape when he declared his war against the US saying that we are weak, that we can not handle extended fights and that we will give in their demands. He was cultured to believe this by our actions previous, for example when after the terrorist attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon we abandoned our peacekeeping effort and withdrew from the middle east. His asstertions were confirmed when in Somolia and events that followed we ran away shortly after seeing bodies of americans on television. Osama believes we are weak willed and that through fear and terror he can manipulate our foreign policy to support his own goals.

I personally believe that the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 directly is that because attacking the US on our own soil is probably exceedingly difficult since 9/11. The FBI has stated publicly that they have over a 1000 people under direct daily survielence. In addition individuals willing to devote years of time and effort to commit a suicide attack are probably exceedingly rare. Combining the two factors and I would almost doubt that the US can be attacked again on it's home soil. I believe any future attacks will be against soft foreign based targets, probably in europe.

Exactly. To hear some people explain it, you'd think bin Laden was the Arab superman version of Rove, with brilliant plans within plots who knew exactly how to suck us into his dastardly plan and had our psychology all figured out to know every one of our moves. Bullsh!t! If bin Laden was so damn smart, he wouldn't have been building a mansion in Kandahar previous to 9/11 for his wives and children. However, he was and, guess what, he doesn't live there now.

btw, thanks for adding some sensibility on top of all the tin-foil.

"Sticks and stones... "

I did not call anyone a superman, nor bring up any type of strategy that would have required great intellect to pull off.

If you were able to read past pure semantical content, you would see that rahvin (in his own way) confirmed much of what I said (though he may not realize it). Our foreign policy has been manipulated (or changed if you prefer) by 9/11.

But I do not believe that it would be difficult to launch another terrorist attack on US soil. Sure, not one nearly on the scale of 9/11, but our borders are still virtually wide open, and weapons and ordinance are not that hard to come by.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gaard
It hasn't rained since last Wednesday. My weather machine works!

:laugh:

 

[dchakrab]

This is simply incorrect.

There are many, many people who are trained and willing to die for their beliefs, and the most persuasive argument used by Bin Laden and his followers is that the US is a threat to the Islamic religion and those who follow it. How many Christians would do the same? Plenty. How many times have you heard on this forum that if it's Right to go to war, we should go to war, and economic considerations aren't important, if it's religiously correct? I've read that more than once.

You think it's impossible to attack the US on it's own soil? It's easy. I could get online, whip up a quick recipe for a chemical or biological agent, and drop it in the public transportation system in Chicago. Or make a bomb and dump it in the middle of community college. It might not kill 3,000 people (though with a chemical agent, this is possible, i suppose) but it WOULD spread shock and awe. It's ludicrous to assume Bin Laden spent his last reserves and all his current sleeper cells in the US on this last attack, and the Anthrax attacks would seem to prove this.

What makes much more sense is the theory that further attacks aren't needed. The capitalist leader of the world is, by capitalist standards, a laughing stock right now...our economy sucks, our employment market sucks, our educational system is feeling the effects, and we're losing a few thousand more lives in Iraq to make up for the 3,000 we lost during the WTC attacks. Most importantly of all, we're converting most of the WORLD to Bin Laden's ideology of anti-Americanism. Al Quaida needs further attacks to turn the Islamic world against other nations, but their work against the US seems to be pretty effective, and pretty complete. Countries like India, which have been neutral to the US and even on friendly terms several times in the past (despite the US's support of Pakistani state-sponsored terrorism) are now seeing waves of anti-American feeling. Countries like Pakistan, which are long-standing US allies and have governments that rule with American support, are now seeing immense anti-American propaganda spreading, undermining their own governmental authority considerably.

To expand on that last example, which do you think Bin Laden prefers? A Muslim Pakistan, allied with the United States, or a Muslim Pakistan completely in revolt against their leadership because of their leaders' ties with the US? How do you think their population reacted when they saw Afganistan, a close neighbour with many cultural and MANY religious ties to Pakistan, invaded and destroyed by the Americans?

Soft targets abroad are easy, of course, but not nearly as effective. If I was shot by an extremist in India, would it make a difference to Americans here? If i was shot walking to college classes in Chicago, in broad daylight, with Muslim Fundamentalist propaganda painted on my forehead, would it have a greater effect? Yes, because it'd be splashed on Fox news and Bush'd be dreaming about which civil liberties to remove next. In contrast, the American Centre in Calcutta was hosed down by AK-47 assault rifles, and several policemen on guard duty were killed, a couple of years ago. How many of you here even heard about that?

-Dave.

Edit: man, too many people post while i'm writing out me thesis-length dissertations...I was referring to the thought that US domestic attacks are too difficult now, and that foreign soft targets are the more likely choice.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Vic
If you were able to read past pure semantical content, you would see that rahvin (in his own way) confirmed much of what I said (though he may not realize it). Our foreign policy has been manipulated (or changed if you prefer) by 9/11.

But I do not believe that it would be difficult to launch another terrorist attack on US soil. Sure, not one nearly on the scale of 9/11, but our borders are still virtually wide open, and weapons and ordinance are not that hard to come by.

I don't disagree that our foreign policy was manipulated, but I do disagree that it was manipulated the way he wanted it to be. I believe his intention was for the US to land troops into Afganistan and that he would do to us what he did to the Soviets. He didn't count on the european support and he didn't count on us putting our troops in the way we did.

I do think Iraq was a gift to him though, it helped him show the Islamic world that we are targeting Islam. Personally I think that rather than invade Iraq we should have put those 130,000 troops into Afgahnistan, BinLadin should have never gotten away from Torra Borra. The soviets never put that number of troops in there, they pussy footed it like we did in vietnam.

I also disagree about the attacks on US soil for the simple reason that even if our borders are pourous the enemy is going to be arabic and the mexican mules aren't going to help some arab across the border unless he speaks spanish. This means any terrorist coming in is going to have to come in legally and because of who they are, they are immediately going to be placed on a watch list and likely monitored day and night.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rahvin
I don't disagree that our foreign policy was manipulated, but I do disagree that it was manipulated the way he wanted it to be. I believe his intention was for the US to land troops into Afganistan and that he would do to us what he did to the Soviets. He didn't count on the european support and he didn't count on us putting our troops in the way we did.

I do think Iraq was a gift to him though, it helped him show the Islamic world that we are targeting Islam. Personally I think that rather than invade Iraq we should have put those 130,000 troops into Afgahnistan, BinLadin should have never gotten away from Torra Borra. The soviets never put that number of troops in there, they pussy footed it like we did in vietnam.

I also disagree about the attacks on US soil for the simple reason that even if our borders are pourous the enemy is going to be arabic and the mexican mules aren't going to help some arab across the border unless he speaks spanish. This means any terrorist coming in is going to have to come in legally and because of who they are, they are immediately going to be placed on a watch list and likely monitored day and night.

Well, you haven't seen me saying that every change was a bad one. Some right moves were made, some wrong moves were made. Afghanistan was good, Iraq was not. What Bin Laden may or may not have intended, however, is simply a matter of conjecture.

 

[0roo0roo]

don't u know? the wtc was hit in 90, 91, 92, 94,95, 96, 97, 98. 99, 2001! almost every year!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: rahvin
You give them too much credit for sneakiness. Their motivations were simple, they want to bring Sharia and Islam to the US and they want the US to stop supporting Israel and regimes like those that exist in Egypt. Bin Ladin is on tape when he declared his war against the US saying that we are weak, that we can not handle extended fights and that we will give in their demands. He was cultured to believe this by our actions previous, for example when after the terrorist attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon we abandoned our peacekeeping effort and withdrew from the middle east. His asstertions were confirmed when in Somolia and events that followed we ran away shortly after seeing bodies of americans on television. Osama believes we are weak willed and that through fear and terror he can manipulate our foreign policy to support his own goals.

I personally believe that the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 directly is that because attacking the US on our own soil is probably exceedingly difficult since 9/11. The FBI has stated publicly that they have over a 1000 people under direct daily survielence. In addition individuals willing to devote years of time and effort to commit a suicide attack are probably exceedingly rare. Combining the two factors and I would almost doubt that the US can be attacked again on it's home soil. I believe any future attacks will be against soft foreign based targets, probably in europe.

Exactly. To hear some people explain it, you'd think bin Laden was the Arab superman version of Rove, with brilliant plans within plots who knew exactly how to suck us into his dastardly plan and had our psychology all figured out to know every one of our moves. Bullsh!t! If bin Laden was so damn smart, he wouldn't have been building a mansion in Kandahar previous to 9/11 for his wives and children. However, he was and, guess what, he doesn't live there now.

btw, thanks for adding some sensibility on top of all the tin-foil.

"Sticks and stones... "

I did not call anyone a superman, nor bring up any type of strategy that would have required great intellect to pull off.

Sorry you took it that way, but my comment wasn't directed at you. If it were I would have said "Vic" instead of "some people."

If you were able to read past pure semantical content, you would see that rahvin (in his own way) confirmed much of what I said (though he may not realize it). Our foreign policy has been manipulated (or changed if you prefer) by 9/11.

What else could be expected of our foreign policy post-9/11?

However, do you really think bin Laden planned on having 150,000+ additional US soldiers inhabiting Arab lands? What rahvin said was correct, but you and I don't interpret his post in the same way. imo, he was saying that bin Laden had hit us previously without any retribution. He did it more than once and saw our reaction. He did not expect a response this time either. He believed his actions could be carried out with impunity.

He was wrong.

But I do not believe that it would be difficult to launch another terrorist attack on US soil. Sure, not one nearly on the scale of 9/11, but our borders are still virtually wide open, and weapons and ordinance are not that hard to come by.

We could do it at the expense of all liberty, by adopting isolation, and standing paranoid at our doorstep. Do we really want that?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gaard
It hasn't rained since last Wednesday. My weather machine works!

:laugh:

Mullah Nasruddin was throwing handfuls of bread all around his house. "What are you doing?" someone asked.

"Keeping the tigers away."

"But there are no tigers around here"

"Exactly. Effective, isn't it?"