Why hasn't there been another 9/11?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>“By surrendering your civil liberties, allowing warrant less wiretaps, and so forth, you’re not helping to beat the terrorists, you’re capitulating to them by doing exactly what they want you to - creating terror where there is none.”</p>

<p>Not sure I agree with that since so many things have been uncovered by such searches. Where there is no terror? Are you serious? You don’t believe in terrorism? Santa Claus, I could see. The tooth fairy? Sure. But was Mohammed Atta a figment of someone’s imagination?</p>

62

<p>Yeah, re-reading that I can see that it might seem like I’m some kind of 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Not so. What I meant by “where there is none” is that terrorist attacks are one of the foremost things in many people’s minds, despite the fact that, as a total proportion of deaths in the world, they make up a tiny amount. Compare that to the amount of money spent on fighting terrorism here, and it becomes slightly ridiculous. The war on terror is costing so much money per Western life that’s it’s insane.</p>

<p>We would be better off as a society if we took all the money spent on fighting terrorism and put it into medical research. That’s undeniable - it’s just that people seem to be less willing to be one of the (larger, but still small) few to die due to terrorism in that scenario than to die of diseases that could be cured via massively increased research in real life.</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>Except if we let terrorism go unchecked there’s a very real possibility they could get ahold of nuclear/chemical weapons…then all of a sudden they are making a much bigger impact.</p>

64

<p>The real reason there is not another 9/11 is Bush has been giving 'em hell.</p>

<p>Bin and others are saying to themselves, lets wait this out. They have this party called the democrats who will apologize for everything, including things they didnt do. A democratic US president will cower under our pressure. A woman democratic president will be even better. Allah speaks!</p>

<p>Don’t believe me, even Bin couldnt hold himself back in the latest communique: the dems have done nothing worth mentioning, so he said.</p>

65

<p>“We would be better off as a society if we took all the money spent on fighting terrorism and put it into medical research. That’s undeniable - it’s just that people seem to be less willing to be one of the (larger, but still small) few to die due to terrorism in that scenario than to die of diseases that could be cured via massively increased research in real life.”</p>

<p>I can deny that and I do. I disagree vehemently, although I will make clear that as a New Yorker, the threat of terrorism is a very real part of my daily life. That said, I respect and appreciate your courteous re-reading of your prior post.</p>

66

<p>Bin: don’t worry, Ahmed, the US has this idiotic political system where
even a good leader has to leave after 4 yr, 8 at the most. Whenever anyone
questions it, the words “design of the founding fathers” will surely put it to an
end, not like our superior governance where your supreme leader is guiding
you all his days. Praise be to Allah!</p>

<p>I say extend the war powers act and make Bush prez for life or at least
until the war on terror is no more.</p>

67

<p>The reason it’s hard to answer the question is because the premise is flawed, and susceptible to manipulation (as has been done in this thread several times.) 9/11 trailed the first attempt to blow up the WTC by 8 years. In between, there were a variety of attacks on westerners (including Americans) elsewhere in the world. Since 9/11 there has continued to be a variety of attacks directed at westerners (including Americans) throughout the world. LaxAttack distorts history by designating some events as “major” and others not, thereby creating an apparent pattern which actually doesn’t exist. The level of planning, expense, and organization needed to pull off one of these events is really very low. “The terrorists” aren’t a coherent, centrally directed organization, but, for the most part, lots of small groups with similar goals and ideology, inspired by notorious events. So their actions will be pretty random, and trying to draw conclusions from the limited data of “terrorist acts” is pretty pointless.</p>

<p>Al Qaeda got lucky with 9/11. They literally succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, due to what was, for them, good fortune. They probably won’t get that lucky again (to our good fortune) but “the terrorists” probably will continue their actions, here and around the world.</p>

<p>Zoosermom: if you’re actually worried about a “dirty bomb” in Times Square, you owe it to yourself to do some reading up on how little a threat a “dirty bomb” actually is. They don’t even make the cut as WMD’s, due to the lack of actual damage one would cause. But the concept is primo as a tool of psychological warfare - and you appear to be a casualty of that from your post.</p>

<p>Yourworld: I’ll assume you’re not being sarcastic; if so, “the terrorists” are definitely winning at your house.</p>

68

<p>kluge says that there isn’t a difference in major and minor attacks yet cannot link to the last time a US embassy was blown up since 9/11. Can’t link to the last time a US warship was blown up by terrorists since 9/11. The fact is that since 9/11 the only “terrorism” that has taken place is failed attacks against US targets. Clearly ALQ has yet to pull off an attack directly against the US since 9/11…</p>

69

<p>Icarus, serve warrant during daylight hours only ? What if they were planning a night attack ?</p>

<p>I dont think we ought to make nice to the terrorists. If feds wiretapped me by mistake I wouldn’t feel offended, as long as they dont use the crossed state speeding tickets I had against me :slight_smile: I am not paranoid. And no upright,law-abiding American citizen should be. Yes I give up a little, if that gives us an edge against terror. You ask the average guy or gal on main street, the response will be the same.</p>

70

<p>Well, LaxAttack - that’s my point. If you define “major” as “exactly the same things as happened before 2001” then, of course, you’re right. (Just a minor nitpick: the Cole and the embassies weren’t exactly “blown up” - merely damaged by bombs, and the combined loss of American lives was less than that from the Oklahoma City bombing.) Here’s a partial list I pulled off the internet with 5 minutes of googling:</p>

<p>2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.</p>

<p>2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.</p>

<p>2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.</p>

<p>2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.</p>

<p>And what you may overlook (as a typical American) is that America isn’t the only Western target. If you can bring yourself to consider the bombings in Spain, Bali, etc. you’d have to recognize that it’s not a neat, tidy picture after all.</p>

71

<p>Kluge (god help me for responding to you – that never turns out well), the reference to the dirty bomb in Times Square was very specifically to the fact that (and if you’re not in NY this may not be clear to you) the media always uses that as the example of terrorism in action, which is why the term was in quotes, not because I think it is the serious threat. However, the threats to the bridges and tunnels were deadly serious, and please don’t imply otherwise.</p>

72

<p>

post 64</p>

<p>It’s interesting that many people think Ben Laden knows enough about US politics to have made such assessments, which he reveals in his video releases - yet seems to have missed the almost universal assessments throughout the press that his video right before the '04 election helped Bush considerably, as did his previous videos. Knowledgeable on a granular level on the one hand, but totally clueless on the other?</p>

<p>Of course Ben Laden knows his videos help Bush - he wants to help Bush. I believe having a president who is so easy to manipulate into war is Ben Laden’s actual desire - he doesn’t want a party in power in the US who actually could resist a war if it’s not a good idea for the US. So one of the reasons we have not had a 9/11 (not the only, just one) is that al Qaeda doesn’t need one since they’ve accomplished what they wanted.</p>

<p>It’s like a spider web. If you touch the spider web and the spider comes running at the spot you touched in an agressive attack, then you control the spider, don’t you? Some (not all) Republicans think that the Democrats are what Ben Laden wants when in fact I think he wants an aggressive Republican because, like the spider, they are easier to predict and control. It’s the war he wants.</p>

<p>Americans so frequently think this is all about us - the terrorists hate our democracy, want to destroy our freedoms, us us us. News flash - these people are just as much concerned about themselves as we are concerned about ourselves. They think it’s all about them. They got the US embroiled in the Arab world and created huge turmoil. That was their goal, and to that extent they succeeded. </p>

<p>The bad news is that for this very reason, I believe that if we start to withdraw from the war, and peace appears imminent, the prospect of peace might indeed bring more attacks. If we withdraw and more turmoil ensues; or if we don’t withdraw and turmoil continues, then I believe there is less need for major attacks. That’s one of the reasons this disastrous Iraq war is such a Catch 22.</p>

73

<p>

</p>

<p>With the exception of the 02 consulate bombing these are not american targets. You’re going to cite the daniel pearl killing as a terrorist act? Are you kidding me!? Then I guess every American that is murdered by a foreign national is a terrorist act. </p>

<p>Can you not see the distinction between an american journalist, failed bombings of consulates (and they were failed, read the articles about them), saudi oil companies…and the complete and utter descruction of two US embassies, the attack of a US ship of war?? If you can’t see that distinction then you’re lost beyond all hope.</p>

74

<p>

</p>

<p>Hmmmm…so this is going to be the new democratic line. If we withdraw and there’s another terrorists attack it’s not going to be because we aren’t fighting a war against them anymore, it will be because they are used to being able to convince President Bush to go to war with them. Nice spin…to bad the American people have and will continue to see through it.</p>

75

<p>Al Qada is going to keep attacking us because they wants us to go to war in the Middle East but the Democrats are going to courageously and shrewdly resist the temptation. Sounds like a plan to me. How many American cvilian casualties are the prepared to take in the execution of this strategy?
I presume they are also going to protect our civil rights and couageously resist the temptation to turn the country into a police state too? How many American civilian casualties are they prepared to take in the name of the rght to privacy?</p>

<p>Lets see. We can’t build a fence on the border. We can’t deport illegal aliens. We can’t tap their phones. We can’t have warrantless sneak and peek surveillance. We can’t arrest and charge them without giving them access to how we gathered the intelligence that led us to them. We can’t put a pair of panties on their heads. We can’t go to war. We can’t hire somebody else to go to war, and we should expect more attacks when we pull out. </p>

<p>That is the best plan the Dems have to offer? And I though W was a dumb ****!</p>

76

<p>At $200 million a day, we have the best protection that taxpayer money can buy. And I think the only solution to ensure that we stay safe is to grant more no-bid contracts, up our daily expenditure to at least $300 million a day and keep sending our troops to Iraq for multiple 15-month tours. God Bless America!</p>

<p>Now, excuse me as I have to go put flag magnets on my SUV and go monitor my oil and military related stocks. :)</p>

77

<p>

That about sums it up. But don’t feel bad: apparently we** can** drive the country 9 trillion dollars into debt and then leave our kids with the mess we made. </p>

<p>P.S. What makes you so sure “you” aren’t “them”?</p>

78

<p>“And I think the only solution to ensure that we stay safe is to grant more no-bid contracts”</p>

<p>Heaven knows I would sleep better knowing I was protected by the lowest bidder.</p>

79

<p>Oh, so you figure you’re not today’s “them.” What makes you so sure the standard of “them” won’t change between now and 2010? The thing is, “them” has always been a shifting concept. The English. Southerners. Japanese. Commies. There’s plenty of room for whatever makes you special to be defined as “them.” How does it go?

</code></pre>

80

<p>And then, in today’s paper:
“A federal judge struck down controversial portions of the USA Patriot Act in a ruling that declared them unconstitutional yesterday, ordering the FBI to stop its wide use of a warrantless tactic for obtaining e-mail and telephone data from private companies for counterterrorism investigations.”
from today’s Washington Post: <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?hpid=moreheadlines">Judge[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?hpid=moreheadlines">Judge&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;