<p>This is the only “political” thread I’ve ever started, and I’m not anxious to air my opinion, because I don’t have one. I am very curious, though, about what this group thinks.</p>
<p><a href=“News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com”>News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com;
<p>The President told us: because of his administration’s exemplary War On Terror.</p>
<p>The Islamic extremists are smart and have realized that any major attack before the next Presidential election will almost surely result in another Republican White House. For reasons that Im sure you know, that would not be a good thing for them.</p>
<p>I think it’s been proven that they have tried to launch subsequent terrorist attacks but have been foiled. Surely we’re not going to be free of terrorist attacks in the futre but some of the policies that have been put in place post 9/11 have foiled attacks both on and outside of US soil.</p>
<p>Cangel, I have been hearing this question batted around since the week after it seems, and the most reasonable and sustaining answer I’ve heard so far is that terrorists have PLENTY of time, they can choose to strike whenever they’re good and ready; and a matter of years is not all that long to them. To Americans, six years is a long time; to just about any other culture, it’s merely yesterday. </p>
<p>Another explanation that keeps coming up is that once terrorists are embedded here, they become attracted to our way of life and economic opportunity, and therefore become less intent on attacking. This works if you consider the underlying conditions of terrorism (lack of political voice, perceived social injustice, religious persecution, economic deprivation, etc.) as well as the core motivations - religious, political, financial, territorial and criminal. </p>
<p>It’s certainly not a matter of our security - it’s rather obvious that the borders are very porous, security is inconsistent, disorganized, etc. But that doesn’t matter because there is no such thing as absolute security. I do think it is certainly more difficult to attack than it was prior to 9/11, but it is by no means impossible. If someone wants to find a way to attack, they will be able to do so. Most people that I hear from seem convinced that the next attack is a matter of WHEN, not IF.</p>
<p>The most sensible answer I’ve heard is that the war on terror cannot actually be won; it can only be controlled and contained, and to achieve any appreciable control will take two generations, AND, it will call for statesmanship, ambassadorial relations with other countries at all levels, psych ops, and about 100 other things. Obviously, force on force, the American military cannot be beat - that’s a fact. So terrorists aren’t fighting that way, so, disrupting networks, erroding support, etc. has to happen. Which is way beyond what you asked for but…</p>
<p>I agree with late2school but it’s also interesting that before 9/11 there was a major attack against us interests ever couple of years and after 9/11 there has not been an attack against a major us interest (such as a facility in the us, an embassy…etc). Without a doubt I think there will be more attacks in the future but I think it is possible to limit the scale of these attacks. If you can somewhat contain the attacks, or the scale of them, then I think you’re doing as good a job as can be expected…</p>
<p>Your comments make a lot of sense, LTS. But porous borders or not (and I certainly agree that they are porous), our location gives us some protection.</p>
<p>Submitted too fast. I certainly agree that we are vulnerable, and that there will be other attacks.</p>
<p>Look at what our response was to a single day.</p>
<p>Badly written laws. (Patroit Act)
Greater power concentrated in the hands of a single individiual.
An inadvisable war and occupation.
A scared and cowered population.</p>
<p>We seem to intent on proving the Islamist’s point on how fragile our standards really are.</p>
<p>There hasn’t been another 9-11 because the original is still paying off.</p>
<p>lol @ dadguy…that’s not what the terrorists want, they want us out of the middle east in every respect. In fact I would argue that everything you listed has prevented another 9/11 not because the terrorists are tired of attacking us but rather because those instruments have foiled numerous terrorists attacks that were planned (but, thank god, weren’t able to go forward).</p>
<p>One again, the Islamist’s point isn’t to show how fragile our standards are but rather to get the US out of the middle east in every respect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but how many of these have been major concerted 9/11 scale plots to wreak havoc on US soil/interests? I only know of the thwarted attempt on Los Angeles in 2002 (following on the heels of 9/11) and the foiled transatlantic plot in 2006 (which to my limited understanding still has an undetermined link to Al-Qeada).</p>
<p>There HAVE been more attacks; it’s just that some of the security measures have made attacking the US directly more difficult, so they’ve atacked our allies instead. Eventually they’ll figure out a way to get directly at the US again too.</p>
<p>One thing we will never see again is the successful commandeering of a US airliner. Any future attempted hijacking will end like United flight 93 - with the passengers rising up to seize back control of the plane. Quietly obeying the hijackers is now seen as obvious folly. The days of successfully hijacking a plane are over.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I realize that there have been more attacks, but to my knowledge they havent been major, or like you said, have been targeted at our allies. Clearly these other attacks have not had, as the author of the article put it, the effect of rousing the present-oriented, slow-to-anger American dragon. If they had, then the country would not be so divided about the War on Terror. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe theyve already figured it out, but are biding their time until a more diplomatic Administration is in the White House.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Americans got pretty angry very quickly over 9/11, and nearly all of us supported and continue to support the efforts to blast Al Qaeda out of business and staight to hell. Hence the war in Afghanistan enjoys wide support. It was the misplaced aggression against Saddam and Iraq that has divided the country so bitterly. And those critics who said that attacking Iraq would be a mistake, and a distraction from the real war, and open up Iraq as a new base for Al Qaeda, and would recruit tens of thousands of angry young Muslims to terrorism against us, have unfortunately been proven entirely correct.</p>
<p>Americans have no problem in seeing and uniting against a REAL enemy. But we always get bitterly divided over wars that have no clear purpose, that have no end in sight, and that are directed at an enemy that never really threatened us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) There’s nothing the United States can do to prevent attacks against our allies so comparing our policies and attacks against other countries is bogus. </p>
<p>2) All of these countries, after attacked, have taken giant measures to prevent further attacks. Britain, Spain, and now Germany (due to the recent foiled attack) are now confronting the radical muslims inside their borders.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to you</p>
<p>It’s hard to fathom that a government that has shown itself to be incompentent in so many areas is suddenly the model of efficiency (sp?) in thwarting terrorist attacks.</p>
<p>Osama Bin Laden declared his fatwa against the US in the early 1990’s–it took Al Qaeda 10 years to pull off a large scale attack inside the US, why would we be suprised that another one hasn’t occured in the 6 years since. It bothers me when people try and use the fact that another large scale attack hasn’t happened as evidence that the ‘war on terror’ is being prosecuted effectively. Nobody can difinitively prove any sort of causality there. </p>
<p>The truth is that defending against terrorist attacks is largely a game of luck. When a terrorist plan ‘comes down the pipeline,’ either someone’s intel catches on and foils the attack, or they don’t. The outcome is dependant first and foremost on luck, and second on skill in the lower/middle levels of the Intel and CT services. Policies made by Presidents and Senators have a very limited impact on whether terrorist attacks are successful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well it just strikes me as odd that during the 90’s these plans would come down the pipeline every 3 years or so and nobody would catch them…since 9/11 every one of the major attacks against US targets has been thwarted. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Errrr…93/95/98/00 were all major attacks against major US targets (WTC in nyc, us military base in dhahran, us embassy attacks in africa, uss cole). Since 9/11 there hasn’t been an attack like what happened in 93/95/98/00.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Almost as hard to fathom that terrorists who have launched major attacks against the US every couple years since 1993 all of a sudden haven’t hit any major US target in 6 years. Coincidence I guess though right?</p>