Why haven't we been attacked in 2 years?

[Iamme]

We sit under a yellow terror alert. Can we credit Bush with no attacks in 2-plus years?

Have we been led to believe that this terrorist network (those that actually possess a striking force) is greaster than it actually is? By containing Al-Quada operatives in Afghanistan and by getting rid of Saddam and his army...have we eliminated 90% or more of the threat?

Or, are we a ticking time bomb?! Are we in for an attack that will dwarf 9-11?

Even if this is the case, one would think that with all these terrorists on the loose, that they surely could have commandeered a...well, I hate to give them hints, but I can EASILY think of one way to wipe out thousands of people in the blink of an eye, with little preperation and materials involved. I could wipe out probably 10,000 or so in a few seconds. This isn't even some diabolical mastermind plot where our water systems, air, electrical grids, etc., fall under attack.

Is it because our heightened alert to terrorism? You really think so? You really think that our extra efforts at the airports are what is doing it? You really think so? You don't think terrorists can figure other ways to hook up with U.S. comnnections let's say, or to infiltrate via boat or at remote Canadien or Mexican enty points?

Looking forward to what you have to say.

[Mr Manifesto]

Just one question: how many times was America attacked between 1993 and 2001 by Al-Qaeda on American soil?



(I actually don't know the answer, but I suspect it's nil).

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Just one question: how many times was America attacked between 1993 and 2001 by Al-Qaeda on American soil?



(I actually don't know the answer, but I suspect it's nil).


You mean besides the original Trade Center bombing?

[Tmy]

If we credit Bush for the 2yrs then we also blame fhim for the 911 attack since it was on his watch?


Do you think AlQueda is playing politics??? If they did strike would that harm Bush? I think people would rally round him again.

Im sure AlQ wants Bush out office. To do so means laying kidna low and making sure BLadin and Saddam stay free.

[Furious]

Just one question: how many times was America attacked between 1993 and 2001 by Al-Qaeda on American soil?

The two embassy bombings in Africa were, technically speaking, American soil. All embassies and the property they are built on belong to the country they represent as I generally understand it.

I presume you meant part of the 48 contiguous states, Alaska, Hawaii, and the other territories.

In that case, none.

[Upchurch]

I don't know the exact numbers either, but I was under the impression that overseas American interests have been more or less under attack before and after 9/11. An embassy here, a car bomb there. More if you consider our soldiers in Iraq being continually sniped and bombed after the war was declared over.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I don't know the exact numbers either, but I was under the impression that overseas American interests have been more or less under attack before and after 9/11. An embassy here, a car bomb there. More if you consider our soldiers in Iraq being continually sniped and bombed after the war was declared over.

1993 was the first WTC bombing. IIRC, a terrorist was caught at the Canadian border with weapons just before New Year's 2000. Before 9/11, all the other (successful) attacks have been American interests in foreign countries. I think Al Qaeda had been trying for one major attack per year.

Clearly, by invading Afghanistan we disrupted at least some of Al Qaeda's operation. However, in May, there was an attack in Saudi Arabia killing 9 Americans which has been attributed to Al Qaeda.

That type of attack is much more in line with Al Qaeda in recent past.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger



You mean besides the original Trade Center bombing?

I would think that is why he picked the date range of 1993-2001, the original bombing was in Febuary 1993

[Furious]

Anyone else getting an image of a sign in the breakroom stating:

Safety is everyone's responsibility. There have been [8] years since the last onsite terrorist bombing. Please follow proper procedures to ensure this streak continues.


:wink8:

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Iamme
and by getting rid of Saddam and his army...have we eliminated 90% or more of the threat?


As we all well know, Saddam Hussein and his army were responsible for 9/11 :rolleyes:

[Iamme]

Furious and Upchurch---I am interested in knowing why the 50 states have not been attacked. Let's face it: How many people, er, how many of us nearly 300,000,000 US citizens shakes in our boots when we hear of some nightclub being bombed over in the Pacific somewhere...or some embasy...even when American lives are lost? Sure, we are concerned. But, are we as anxious as what we would be if we were attacked on American soil in the U.S.? I think not.

And I'm wondering why there literally hasn't been a barrage of attacks over here. Security is NOT that good. Look what that student just planted on those planes, to show our inadequacies. We talk the talk...but in reality, I do think we are quite vulnerable still. Yet, no attack.

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't know whether our heightened safety measures have had an effect or not. I am pretty sure some of them are solely to make us feel safer, i.e. I don't think anyone is going to hijack a plane with a nail file.

I wouldn't read too either way into the fact that they ahven't atacked us in two years. Al-qaeda's style seems to be occasional large, well coordinated attacks, not constant piddly little attacks. However It can't be to easy to plan these attacks when the U.S. miltary is actively pursuing you. So one could make a good argument either way.

[patnray]

Why? Because attacks within our borders are extremely rare. One can not say that because there have been no attacks in two years since 9/11, that proves we are now safer. Our enemies spent a long time preparing for 9/11. They will continue to probe for weaknesses in our security, but they will not tip us off about their discoveries by small attacks like blowing up nightclubs. They will go for something spectacular, which will take time.

Ask the same question after 10 years...

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I would think that is why he picked the date range of 1993-2001, the original bombing was in Febuary 1993

Can't go back too much further and talk about Al Qaeda. American interests weren't the focus before the first Gulf War - Saudi Arabia and Egypt were the enemy until America put troops on the "holy land".

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I would think that is why he picked the date range of 1993-2001, the original bombing was in Febuary 1993

That's what I thought - but I wasn't sure. I should have said "after" the original bombing in my question, instead of "besides."

Sloppy wording on my part - apologies.

[Furious]

Originally posted by Iamme
Furious and Upchurch---I am interested in knowing why the 50 states have not been attacked. Let's face it: How many people, er, how many of us nearly 300,000,000 US citizens shakes in our boots when we hear of some nightclub being bombed over in the Pacific somewhere...or some embasy...even when American lives are lost? Sure, we are concerned. But, are we as anxious as what we would be if we were attacked on American soil in the U.S.? I think not.

And I'm wondering why there literally hasn't been a barrage of attacks over here. Security is NOT that good. Look what that student just planted on those planes, to show our inadequacies. We talk the talk...but in reality, I do think we are quite vulnerable still. Yet, no attack.

Couple of reason IMO. I will qualify that these are my opinions, and not necessarily reality.

1) Fear of retribution. One of the motivations for the Al Queda attack was the belief that Americans were soft. Previous bombings were not handled with the same outrage and determination as 9/11, which was on American soil. I personally don't fault the previous administrations given the climate, location and amount of destruction at the time, but the handling of Afghanistan clearly indicates USA resolve when something major happens over here.

2) Media attention gets better results in world opinion than actual damage. Mostly ties in with #1. Just do enough to get your message heard. If you blow up a few soldiers and then rant to your local media outlet about the dreaded American imperialism, you'll do way more for your cause than blowing up 3,000 civilians and then hiding uderground releasing audio tapes every six months when no one except some weirdos in Palestine care if you live or not.

3) Rather open society with a decent (though not perfect) attitudes towards different cultures. While certainly of Western WASP majority, it is very uncool in America (and generally throughout the West) to be elitist based on race/religion/gender/etc. Definitely not perfect, but there are very few parts of the world that as are accepting of others as the West. Most immigrants assimilate into Western culture willingly in a few generations. Something like 75% of third generation Mexican-Americans can't speak Spanish is an example. My point to this is, you won't find yourself popular with people of your ethnic background living here if you blow people up.

4) Tying in with #3 is our economic clout. While 9/11 had some drastic effects on the economy and jobs, the U.S. not in an economic disaster. Once again, by no means perfect, but blowing up the WTC didn't toss everyone back into subsistence farming to survive. As a military venture, it was an utter failure and just mobilized the public into a vengeful fury.

5) While fanatical, most extremists really aren't that bright. I know it was supposed to be more symbolic than actually damaging, but four planes into four buildings can't bring any country to its knees. Add in that the U.S. is huge. If every member of Al-Queda could get away with blowing up a building, then maybe there would be generationally lasting effects, but as it stands, it took twenty of them to knock down two and damage one. Intimidation into submission by terrorism is not working in Israel, Chechnya, or Northern Ireland. What the hell were they thinking?

Also, I'll wager it is hard to recruit learned engineering/technical types to create munitions of destruction because those people generally have something to lose. I'm guessing the issue is more bomb making based than people willing to die based. A shoe bomb that requires lighting a fuse in plain sight? Gimme a break.

6) We have pretty understanding neighbors. The places where terrorism is quasi-effective are places where terrorists can find sympathy in close geographic proximity usually based on many years of history. Palestinian bombers have pretty much the rest of the middle east and Northern Ireland bombers have Ireland. Canada and Mexico are pretty cool about either letting U.S. authorities into or cooperating with to root out troublemakers because there are virtually no ethnic or historical problems between those countries.

On a related note, while the U.S. may not have the best reputation among the Western world for its policies, they are nitpicky concerns on the grand scale of things if you start comparing the U.S. to places like Syria or Iran. The U.S. is not even close to perfect, but if push comes to shove, it wasn't like France, Russia or Germany was willing to go to war to defend an Iraq headed by the Hussein administration. The disagreements were over how and when to overthrow the Hussein administration, not whether or not to.

Anyway, just my views.

[Tmy]

Maybe theres not as many suicidal bombing kooks in the world as we believe.

Forget about foreign, look at the locals. There are thousands of kooks who want to "get the government" in a bad way. How many oftehm carry out their plan. Tim McVeigh, maybe a shooting here or there, but now much.

THey way people talk youd think there'd be assination attempts on Clinton and Bush and other politcians on a daily basis. But there isnt.

I think we're all just paranoid.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Furious


1) Fear of retribution. One of the motivations for the Al Queda attack was the belief that Americans were soft. Previous bombings were not handled with the same outrage and determination as 9/11, which was on American soil. I personally don't fault the previous administrations given the climate, location and amount of destruction at the time, but the handling of Afghanistan clearly indicates USA resolve when something major happens over here.


I don't agree. Suicide bombers are really concerned with retribution. Osama is not scared of the US. He considers it a war, and war brings casualties.

And I don't think our resolve is any greater today than it always has been. America is the "sleeping tiger" that can be awakened. No event occurred which was big enough to arouse a greater reaction before 9/11.

WTC I was not caused by Al Qaeda. It was planned and executed in the states. The perps were captured and are currently serving time in prison. So there is really no one else to retaliate against in that case.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tmy
Maybe theres not as many suicidal bombing kooks in the world as we believe.

Forget about foreign, look at the locals. There are thousands of kooks who want to "get the government" in a bad way. How many oftehm carry out their plan. Tim McVeigh, maybe a shooting here or there, but now much.

THey way people talk youd think there'd be assination attempts on Clinton and Bush and other politcians on a daily basis. But there isnt.

I think we're all just paranoid.

I agree with you to a point. However the question of why terrorist attacks don't happen more often is more that a question of "How many people are actually willing to do it?"

I think a lot more people are willing to do it thatn seems apparent. However many of these people never have the means or the opportunity. Some are caught while still in the planning stages. Of the ones that remain, only the ones that are either smart or lucky enough to actually be in a position to carry it out (sucessfully or not) ever make the news. I suspect (though I wil admit taht this is purely an opinion) that that handful represents a very small minority of those who would seriously be willing to commit a terrorist act. They are a small minority of a small minority.

[Tmy]

Look at Isreal. Bombings all the time, and thats whith them on superhigh alert. Methinks theres a very small supply of kookybombers. How hard would it be for someone in the states to make a bomb and blow up a mall, a club, or govt building. Or go on a cray shooting spree. Itd be so easy. Its not thatt the feds are keeping tabs on everyone its that No one really has the gumption to do it.

[Furious]

I don't agree. Suicide bombers are really concerned with retribution. Osama is not scared of the US. He considers it a war, and war brings casualties.

While I agree that they aren't afraid to die per say, I don't think they were expecting quite the response that occurred. Also, there aren't very many countries willing to house Al-Queda for fear of U.S. invasion now, as the Taliban were tumbled and Pakistan became very complicit to U.S. demands.

In their weird dementia, I think they were hoping the U.S. would balk at the idea of a possible prolonged Vietnam type war in Afghanistan (it worked against the Soviets after all) and eventually pull out of Saudi Arabia.

They were hoping for a Mogadishu and instead got a Pearl Harbor.

[Furious]

Originally posted by Tmy
Look at Isreal. Bombings all the time, and thats whith them on superhigh alert. Methinks theres a very small supply of kookybombers. How hard would it be for someone in the states to make a bomb and blow up a mall, a club, or govt building. Or go on a cray shooting spree. Itd be so easy. Its not thatt the feds are keeping tabs on everyone its that No one really has the gumption to do it.

I guess I'll have to add in to my list that the U.S. is reasonably good at targeting those responsible for the attacks as well (Or at least much better about indiscirminate killing than Israel) due to a public that is very obsessed with not killing innocent civilians. I think that feeds into my earlier points of little sympathy for people who bomb the U.S., as there is a definite effort to minimize innocent death when the U.S. does anything militarily (although people argue about whether it is enough, not many argue that the U.S. doesn't give some effort.)

Again, I think there isn't much to gain taking what amounts to little potshots on mainland American soil versus attacking American interests overseas, where the American public might actually be willing to just give up those interests.

I certainly don't want to minimize the awfulness of 9/11 or the response to it. But as far as bringing America down, it was an utter failure strategically and as an Al-Queda political sympathy objective.

Timothy McVeigh felt some very real personal liberty concerns that were echoed by many Americans at the time, but completely delegitimized his political viewpoints by intentionally killing massive amounts of innocents. A lot of the world and even some Americans are sympathetic to the idea of the U.S. leaving Muslim holy land, but Osama's message is completely lost in the face of 3,000 dead. He definitely crossed the line in world public opinion.

[Luke T.]

Terrorist organizations have sponsor nations. Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq.

These sponsor nations have been put on notice. Note the saber rattling we have made toward Iraq, North Korea and Syria lately. They saw what we did to Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11. They have probably put the leash on their little terrorist pals for the time being.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Terrorist organizations have sponsor nations. Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq.

These sponsor nations have been put on notice. Note the saber rattling we have made toward Iraq, North Korea and Syria lately. They saw what we did to Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11. They have probably put the leash on their little terrorist pals for the time being.

The actual sponsors of terrorism probably had brown stains in their pants after the US showed willingness to even strike at a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Besides, according to the Bush administration, the terrorists flocked to Iraq to attack our soldiers, so there's fewer terrorists to sponsor.

BTW, I'm not going to argue that Iraq wasn't a sponsor of terrorism, because Iraq did support the Palestinian terrorists.

[patnray]

Why? Because attacks within this country are relatively rare. Therefore one cannot say that the lack of attacks in the past 2 years proves anything. Our enemies were not interested in small scale attacks, like blowing up a nightclub. They wanted something spectacular. They spent a long time probing for security weaknesses and planning the attack. I'm sure they are again probing, looking for weaknesses they can exploit. But they won't tip their hand on small actions. They will wait patiently, assembling what they need and making plans. I certainly hope our security, and especially our intelligence, improves enough to thwart their plans. But it is too early to know.

Ask again after 10 years...

[Derfel Cadarn]

Originally posted by DrChinese


WTC I was not caused by Al Qaeda. It was planned and executed in the states. The perps were captured and are currently serving time in prison. So there is really no one else to retaliate against in that case.

What about this bloke?

Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one terrorist not captured from the first WTC bombing was living free in Baghdad prior to the US invasion. He's the only named conspirator still at large.

Or this guy:
Ramzi Yusef aka Abdul Basit, the mastermind of WTC bombing #1. When finally captured in the Phillipines, found to be also associated with Abu Sayyef (terrorist group known to be linked with al Qaida)

So how can you glibly say that WTC I was not caused by Al Qaeda? 9/11 was also trained for, and executed in the US. Does that fact also mean that Al Qaeda didn't do it? Where are you getting your so called facts?

-DC

[American]

I credit liberals who mope, cry, protest, and whine...

Without them, conservatives could never have taken over so much in so little time to command the best, most lethal forces ever to amass in our history.