Why no more terrorist attacks in US?

[[censored]]

I remember after the World Trade Center attacks it was considered a virtual certainty by both conservative and liberal pundits that there would be additional attacks in US. Yet there have been none. Why?

[stealyourface]

conservative answer: Becuase GWB is a great leader who prevented additional attacks.

liberal answer: Because the right-wing manufactured the threat of further terrorist attacks to promote their foriegn policy.

next question.

[ChristinaB]

We decided to make it easy for the terrorists. We brought US targets to their backyard, so that our people could be killed off quick and easy.

And it worked, thousands of Americans have been killed since 9/11. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
We decided to make it easy for the terrorists. We brought US targets to their backyard, so that our people could be killed off quick and easy.

And it worked, thousands of Americans have been killed since 9/11. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying terrorist are really dumb and that going into Iraq was + EV.

[[censored]]

Perhaps it was not clear but I am not trying to bait the idealogues here but rather looking for serious answers to a question I was thinking about today.

[Broken Glass Can]

Several factors:

1) the aggressive pursuit of potential terrorists cells in the country, and of those attempting to gain entry.

2) the aggressive attack on the leadership of terrorist organizations around the world. They have been crippled in ways you don't hear about in the media.

This doesn't mean that we will be 100% effective in the future though, but we are doing a lot more than people are aware of.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember after the World Trade Center attacks it was considered a virtual certainty by both conservative and liberal pundits that there would be additional attacks in US. Yet there have been none. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, I also believe that part of the reason to going to Iraq was to keep the conflict out of the US. Rumsfeld, during the congressional hearings, stated that it was a "forward post" against terrorism. This part of the war has been very successful.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the right-wing manufactured the threat of further terrorist attacks to promote their foriegn policy

[/ QUOTE ]
I never understood how people could be so absolutely stupid to think that the conservatives manufactured the threat of future attacks. The threat was/is real and it was/is obvious. Were we to think that 9/11 was a purely isolated attack and we had no fear of future attacks?

[andyfox]

Not manufactured, but it would be reasonable for leaders to accentuate or exaggerate the threat both for political reasons and because since they would be open criticism (not just political attack) if something happened because they had been either lax or "lax," I don't doubt they pushed the envelope a bit. This is SOP in such situations, as, for example, after WWII when the Repulbicans told Truman they would go along with the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan but only if he "scared the hell" out of the country with his rhetoric. The threat from the Soviets was real, but not as dire or all-encompassing as Truman made it sound.

So my take is that the answer is a bit of both: our homeland security measures have worked, and the threat was probably not as great as it was made out to be. But we'll not know the truth for many years, until classified documents are made public. In that sense, revisionist history is often the more accurate history.

Regards,
Andy

[Dead]

They are lying in wait.

I imagine that anytime there could be a gigantic terrorist attack here that will kill tens of thousands.

[zaxx19]

Wow, I really hope thats not sarcasm...

[Dead]

It's absolutely not.

I think we will be attacked sometime soon, and it will be 10x more devastating than 9/11. Do I want it to happen? Of course not. But I think it will.

[Zeno]

'Nothing happens in a vacuum'. The 9/11 attacks (WTC, Pentagon, and the other target - The Capitol?) were a grand incident on a continuum. Most seem to forget that the WTC were also hit in the early 90's. The anthrax 'attack' is now almost forgotten. 'Terrorist' attacks have been on the upswing for many years both from homegrown and outside forces; from bombing abortion clinics and shooting doctors to the unibomber to the Oklahoma City bombing etc. And that is just on American Soil. Attacks on ‘Americans’ and American targets on foreign lands or on the sea have been commonplace. And that is just the narrow view of terror against America.

In fact, the more I think about it, if you stretch out the continuum – there is nothing surprising about anything that has happen in the last 50 or 100 years, and by extension in the last 10,000 years. Humans are perennially idiotic and haunted by demons of their own making. We play hopscotch from one excuse to another to kill our fellow humans.

Le Misanthrope

[sirio11]

I wonder also what is the answer.

For example, there should be already in the US some terrorists, or crazy people that hates the US for that matter. What stop them to go to the local Mall and kill 20, 30 people? or 10 of them to do this at the same time in 10 large cities to create a national histeria?

Don't know how this administration policies can stop attacks like these.

I don't know the answer why nothing has happened, but maybe they are not that crazy.

[Lestat]

Very interesting question.

It could be that they are biding their time in order to pull off another grand attack similar or greater to 9/11. These type of attacks tend to make bigger statements and have greater psychological impact.

Then again, if it's an all out war they want (which I believe is what they claim), it's hard to account for why there hasn't already been additional attacks. I would think they have the resources (people), already in the U.S. and have had ample opportunity to pull off many smaller type of attacks.

So I think the answer is the former. They realize they cannot win an all out insurgent type war inside the U.S. and are simply waiting for a window of opportunity which will allow them to pull off another grandiose attack.

[Utah]

I agree with most of your analysis. It is quite possible and probable that politicians exploited 9/11 and the ensuing fear to push their agenda or to make political gain. It is even possible that the Bush team has failed miserably in its attempt to fight the war of terror (although I would disagree).

I am simply saying that anyway you slice it the threat is very real and obvious. The crashing of multiple U.S. Airplanes is prima facia evidence of that.

[fluxrad]

To be quite honest, I believe it may very well be because GWB is in office...but not for the reason you think.

I don't personally believe that Osama Bin Laden is very concerned about Bush. I believe he sees the President as a cowboy with very little intelligence. Resultingly, I think OBL is glad Bush won the election rather than Kerry (and will thus fight the "war on terror" harder, but not smarter). Case in point: The US ousting of Saddam Hussein. Conveniently, this was a major goal of Osama Bin Laden, to oust Hussein and create a theocracy in Iraq. In the mind of the Al Qaeda leader, that country has taken one step closer to that goal.

So...you've got the guy in power that you want in the U.S. (think: lesser of two evils). He's doing some of your work for you vis a vis taking out Saddam Hussein and removing significant numbers of troups from Saudi Arabia. Why attack the US now and risk creating problems for the current president? If there had been another attack before the election, Kerry very well might have one (or at least the certainty of Bush's re-election would have been very much in doubt, moreso than it was).

Additionally, these attacks take years to plan and execute. Assuming they got started right after 9/11/01 it could very easily take 4 or 5 years to get the next attack off the ground. For all we know, another attack could be coming tomorrow. However, if Bin Laden is smart, he'll wait until a democrat is elected president to attack.

Obviously my argument presupposes that Bin Laden would rather see Mr. Bush be President. However, based on the upswing of anti-american sentiment throughout the world based on Mr. Bush's actions, I don't believe this is a stretch of logic. To put it another way, I think Bin Laden is trying to give us just enough rope to hang ourselves. He'll attack us again when an attack is "correct."

[[censored]]

Dude I honestly think you are letting your dislike of The President affect you here. OBL and his ilk primarily want to put an end to any US interests and presence in the middle east, especially Saudia Arabia. For you to believe that they like President Bush you would have to believe that they think the US would be more likely to have a smaller presence under a Republican President then a Democratic one. Given the history of the parties you could either argue that it is the reverse or more likely that is makes no difference at all.

Additionally it is hard to argue that OBL is better off now than he was pre 9/11.

My guess is that agencies like the FBI, CIA and NSA have drastically stepped up their anti terrorism efforts and this combined with the dismantling of the Taliban have been effective. While I support President Bush I think it is pretty obvious that these things would have occured under almost any President.

I also reject the premise that the US is less safe because of the war in Iraq, although I don't see any evidence to say we are any safer either.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
For you to believe that they like President Bush you would have to believe that they think the US would be more likely to have a smaller presence under a Republican President then a Democratic one.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is where I disagree. Assume that OBL knows that he cannot boot the U.S. by force from the middle east (as we agree, his goal is a theocratic region). So he must determine another way to achieve this goal.

This is where we start to disagree and, more importantly, I believe that Bush supporters are incorrect. It should be obvious that attacks like the WTC are meant not to scare the US out of the middle east, but rather to draw us into the region. At that point, the actual means through which he is trying to accomplish his goal become extremely clear:

Draw the U.S. into numerous conflicts in the region which will invariably create ever-increasing anti-U.S. sentiment (this is easily seen in Iraq where happiness at our ousting of Saddam Hussein has turned to ire over our continued occupation). Bin Laden wants to be able to use that sentiment to foster an anti-U.S./pro-islam movement in the middle east. He is, in essense, trying to use reverse psychology here...hence my "rope" comment.

Now then, if you're Osama Bin Laden, which american party do you believe will most fervently hold a pro-war stance? Which candidate for president do you believe would be more likely to increase American military presence in the region (this is an excellent time to recall our friends at PNAC)?

BTW - on a complete side note, I'm starting to wonder if both GWB and OBL are completely wrong about the middle east. We're starting to see serious pro-democracy movement in places like Lebanon and Iran, probably much to the dismay of Bin Laden. However, the region is continually stepping up its anti-US sentiment. To be honest, it's starting to look like the people may eventually try to take control of their own destinies which may leave both the U.S. and OBL out in the cold. In fact, it's entirely possible that because of their anti-war/anti-terrorism stance the real winners after a middle-east reformation would be "old Europe."

[[censored]]

Why then did these same terrorist groups carry out 3 attacks against the US before President Bush took office?

[Zoelef]

No terrorist attacks ---> Country is safer ---> Bush is a great leader
Terrorists attack ---> Shows how desperate they are ---> Bush is a great leader

United We Stand.

[[censored]]

For what's it is worth I tend to agree that the threat was exaggerated somewhat for Political gain but mostly just out of fear and a desire to not see something similar happen again. That is I think people were geniuly afraid. Also I think the media had much to gain by also exaggerating the threat.

IMO it is pretty obvious that if the Democrates were in power they to would have exaggerated the threat for Political purposes. However, I think Politicians (Dems & Reps) do this not out of some evil intentions but because they believe what they are doing is best for the country. T

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
to oust Hussein and create a theocracy in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is one emerging? Lets face reality.

[ QUOTE ]
if Bin Laden is smart, he'll wait until a democrat is elected president to attack.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree by the next few election cycles(it may take a while for dem to win again) the Democrats may fully be behind the far lefts plan of appeasement...first I suspect a betrayal of Israel our only consistent friend in the region..

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming they got started right after 9/11/01


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you assume that? Wouldnt you suspect the greatest terrorist network in the world with hundreds of millions at their disposal and 1000's of memebers is capable of planniung multiple attacks at the same time?

[ QUOTE ]
I think Bin Laden is trying to give us just enough rope to hang ourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "hanging ourself" you mean completely reform the Arab world making it more free, democratic, and just...you have a point.

The other option, of course, is GWB and the administration have done an amazing job securing and protecting this nation. No doubt that option is so frightening to a liberal that all sorts of fantasies flood his head in order to avoid the obvious.

This post is merely one example of the rich tapestry of fantasy the liberals are now employing to avoid the obvious truth, that GWB has been an effective leader and is worthy of the highest praise for protecting us from thousands of nujob arabs/muslims who want to kill us and take over the world.

[bholdr]

hate to aggree with you, but i do. Also, the terrorists are patient and cunning beyond the understanding of most. the fact that there hasn't been an attack on U.S soil in four years means nothing. Bush's solutions, though effective, are short term ones.


the question, however, is weather or not there would have been an attack witout bush's aggressive (reckless) policies. i think it's a no. also, i think his pre-emptive doctrine is very -EV for the future, in terms of A: creating new terrorists, and B: those terrorists will have greater access to dangerous technologies than those that are now operating.

a real long term solution involves (and i know this makes me sound like a damn, dirty hippy) promoting understanding, diolouge, and renewable, non exploitative recources.

[Zeno]

Another thing to consider is that the US put itself in a very unpopular position with many friends by some of its post 9/11 policies - the Iraq War being the most obvious and visible. Another large-scale terrorist attack on American Soil would provide more legitimacy for that aggressive stance (whether that is actually true or not is almost irrelevant) and a great PR bonus exploitable for those currently in power, especially for my old friend George Bush. The U.S. has been castigated greatly by many political pundits for ‘squandering the sympathy’ of a large portion of the world that we had after the 9/11 attacks and the ousting of the Theocracy in Afghanistan by then invading Iraq. Why deal the U.S. another ace in the PR war?

All this assumes some real levels of planning and sophistication on the part of various terrorist groups and organizations along with a grand and coherent scheme and specified political and PR goals. This may be true of some organizations but not others in addition to the amount of actual coordinated planning and particular agendas. Are all terrorists that well organized and clever and wily?

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
A: creating new terrorists

[/ QUOTE ]


How is a terrorists created?



-Zeno

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
This is where we start to disagree and, more importantly, I believe that Bush supporters are incorrect. It should be obvious that attacks like the WTC are meant not to scare the US out of the middle east, but rather to draw us into the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't this interpretation is very viable. US involvement in Afghanistan was a complete disaster for Al Qaeda; regardless of what you think of that country's prospects as a free democracy, it certainly isn't an open haven for terrorists anymore. Also consider the 3/11 attacks in Spain which unseated the pro-war Aznar.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is where we start to disagree and, more importantly, I believe that Bush supporters are incorrect. It should be obvious that attacks like the WTC are meant not to scare the US out of the middle east, but rather to draw us into the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't this interpretation is very viable. US involvement in Afghanistan was a complete disaster for Al Qaeda; regardless of what you think of that country's prospects as a free democracy, it certainly isn't an open haven for terrorists anymore. Also consider the 3/11 attacks in Spain which unseated the pro-war Aznar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, the purpose of the AL Quada attacks was to kill Americans, the reason they wanted to kill Americans is because of the influence they believe the US has through out the world. However I think it would be incorrect to draw the conclusion that they thought the attack would remove that influence. Rather they were just killing people.

[fluxrad]

Careful gents, this is dreadfully close to coming back to the "They hate our freedom" idea. This is extremely dangerous thinking since that may be the case for one or two hijackers, suicide bombers, or what have you. It is decidedly not the case for Osama Bin Laden.

Either way, we agree that OBL would like to end US involvement in the middle east. What we don't agree on, however, are the means by which he is trying to accomplish that goal.

[[censored]]

By influence I was referring to military presence, foriegn policy, economic influence and culture. I do not think the terrorist hate our "freedom." I would assume they are indifferent to it.

[EricOF]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't personally believe that Osama Bin Laden is very concerned about Bush. I believe he sees the President as a cowboy with very little intelligence. Resultingly, I think OBL is glad Bush won the election rather than Kerry (and will thus fight the "war on terror" harder, but not smarter). Case in point: The US ousting of Saddam Hussein. Conveniently, this was a major goal of Osama Bin Laden, to oust Hussein and create a theocracy in Iraq. In the mind of the Al Qaeda leader, that country has taken one step closer to that goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think what Osama had in mind all along was... elections. Right.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]

So you think what Osama had in mind all along was... elections. Right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elections != Stable and functioning government.

Show me an Iraq that can exist without a U.S. presence in 5 or so years and I'll show you a country that's relatively immune to the influences of terrorism. Elections are a nice step on the road to that stability...but they are far from the panacea you were told about in the talking points.

[bholdr]

"How is a terrorist created?"

the same way a baseball player is created: by their environment, their upbringing, their social and religious backrgrounds, the political situation, etc...

bush's policies have, IMO, made it more likely that a young man or woman in the middle east will desire or find it nessesacary become a terrorist: by going to war instead of giving dilomacy time to run it's course, by not responding quickly and aggressivly to scandals like the abu garhib prison mess, by committing atrocities and promoting torture, by lowering the standard of living in Iraq, and by creating an atmosphere of "us vs Them" (christian vs muslim- there is no doubt that most arabs see it this way and we're not doing enough to prevent that), etc, etc...

the States' aggressive policies have probably resulted in short-term security, without doing a heck of a lot to address the long-term problems that create incentives for people to become terrorists. it's a pipe dream that we may stop terror in a single generation- we must take the long veiw, to stop possible future terrorists, the most effective weapons will be prosperity, education, and peace.

for example (and i'm not saying that this was possibel) there would be a heck of a lot fewer (islamic radical fundamentalist) terrorists in the world today if, somehow, a palestinian state had been created thirty years ago. i hope we're not making that same observation in thirty years time.

perhape we need to sacrifice a little saftey now for the sake of the future's peace? esp considering the pace at which dangerous technologies are being proliferated and the ease with which terrorists are becoming able to comminucate and network, via the internet, etc, each individual terrorist will be more dangerous in the future than they are now.

[bholdr]

"Is one emerging? Lets face reality."

yes. or, at least, it's a lot closer to happening than when saddam was in power.


"I agree by the next few election cycles(it may take a while for dem to win again) the Democrats may fully be behind the far lefts plan of appeasement..."

"appesement" is a term misused by conservatives to deride non-violent strategies. it's not like the dems want to give osama poland, man.

"Wouldnt you suspect the greatest terrorist network in the world with hundreds of millions at their disposal and 1000's of memebers is capable of planniung multiple attacks at the same time?"

of course, but, even al queda is probably incapable of launching more than one 9-11 size attack at the same time. (however, 9-11 was really four attacks at the same time, so who knows?)

"The other option, of course, is GWB and the administration have done an amazing job securing and protecting this nation. No doubt that option is so frightening to a liberal that all sorts of fantasies flood his head in order to avoid the obvious. "

OR, it could be that it's only been four years since 9-11? that's a very short time frame, they most likely had no plans for another massive attack in that time frame anyway. I think Bush has done a DECENT job of protecting the U.S, but has not focused on some of the most dangerous national security leaks (port security, internet and electronic security, the mexican border, etc) that we have, and has used orwellian tactics in other cases.

"This post is merely one example of the rich tapestry of fantasy the liberals are now employing to avoid the obvious truth, that GWB has been an effective leader and is worthy of the highest praise for protecting us from thousands of nujob arabs/muslims who want to kill us and take over the world."

one could just as easily say that your post represents the typical conservative bush-worshipping 'he's never wrong' BS that charecterizes the republicans right now. if you think that bush has made the country safe just because we haven't been attacked in four years, you've got another thing coming.

oh, and 1500 soldiers are dead and 15,000 wounded. they weren't very safe.

[EricOF]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you think what Osama had in mind all along was... elections. Right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elections != Stable and functioning government.

Show me an Iraq that can exist without a U.S. presence in 5 or so years and I'll show you a country that's relatively immune to the influences of terrorism. Elections are a nice step on the road to that stability...but they are far from the panacea you were told about in the talking points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting how you've contradicted yourself. You now say that elections are a step on the road toward stability yet previously stated it was, at least in the mind of OBL, actually a step toward a Taliban like theocracy.

So, either OBL does not understand exactly what elections mean, or you have yet to make up your own mind about what they mean. Perhaps you should pause a bit, collect your thoughts, and let us know when you have something coherent to say?

As for talking points, don't look now but you've just been caught repeating those of the Islamists themselves. How sad to hear them repeatedly declare themselves pleased with the state of things sine 9-11, and to hear the fatuous echos of the American left.

[EricOF]

[ QUOTE ]
yes. or, at least, it's a lot closer to happening than when saddam was in power.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can begin to get an idea of the prism through which the left sees the world here. Governments in which Clerics are in power through free elections are theocrocies and therefore, to be seen as ethically indistinguishable from the brutal Taliban, the only government to win the al Qaeda seal of approval. But what can you expect from a group that trembles everytime the President prays?

OBL and his ilk are not at all pleased with what has occured in Iraq since Saddam fell, which is why they are fighting so hard against it. Perhaps they thought things would be easy for them there, but they have been sorely dissappointed.

[thatpfunk]

I've felt that they are basically waiting. If they are going to attack they have to do it "right." The next attack has to be at least as big as 9/11.

Two things:
1) I do not think it is possible for the US govt to stop a major terrorist attack. There are too many terrorists available to attack too many extremely vulnerable targets. I have always envisioned the next attack to hit multiple high traffic targets that is intended to frighten the American way of life (think every disneyland, sporting events, something of that nature).

2) If the US had stopped a very serious threat that was beyond the infancy stages we DEFINETLY would have heard about it. There is no way all the completely embattled agencies would not be tooting their own horn after saving thousands of lives...

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
So, either OBL does not understand exactly what elections mean, or you have yet to make up your own mind about what they mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, was, and has always been that elections mean little, if anything. Please feel free to use them as a bellwether of the glorious pro-west revolution the middle east is currently experiencing.

Then when the next plane hits the next building, or the next bomb explodes...act surprised.

[Zeno]

Interesting response.

According to your assessment (certaintly implied in your posted response) is this an accurate statement of your views:

U.S. Foreign Policy has in the past, at present, and probably for the foreseeable future, fostered the creation of terroists.

-Zeno

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]The Bush Administration started reading the memos titled "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S."?

People at flight schools (and everyone else) is actually paying attention now?

Maybe we should consider how many years (more than 4) the 9/11 plan took?

Maybe Osama got what he wanted. U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia, the entire [censored] world hates us now, we're going bankrupt (his stated goal) and there is a further destabilized Middle East in which his religious conservative beliefs will surely flourish.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
2) If the US had stopped a very serious threat that was beyond the infancy stages we DEFINETLY would have heard about it. There is no way all the completely embattled agencies would not be tooting their own horn after saving thousands of lives...

[/ QUOTE ]This is incorrect. The CIA does many great and wonderful things that we will never know about. They don't care how popular they are because they are not up for election. Not even one revealed source is worth good publicity.

Of course that was before this (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/15/1448214). For refuting the Bush Administration so many times during the 04 election, the CIA's days as a nonpolitical may be in danger.

[thatpfunk]

I don't believe it. The people in power right now would be tripping over themselves to brag about the American lives they saved. Anything that has been stopped never passed the infancy stages of planning.

[BadBoyBenny]

I think what you call the long term the neoconservative would consider the mid term. I think Bush's long term plan follows his belief that only democratic governments will cure the conditions that foster terrorism. I think that in the short term, Bush's plan was to bring the fight to the terrorist's doorstep and occupy them so there were no attacks on the homeland in the short term. In the mid term, this will probably be used in rhetoric that creates terrorists, however in the long term they will be won over by the decadence afforded by the global markets.

Not sure if he's right or wrong, but I do think he took a look at the big picture before making his decisions.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. Foreign Policy has in the past, at present, and probably for the foreseeable future, fostered the creation of terroists.

[/ QUOTE ]
no, that's a massive oversimplification.

[bholdr]

I couldn't disagree more...

Lao Tzu, a second century chinese political philosopher, said it best:

"fill their bellies and empty their minds."

his philosophies united china in a little less than a decade. the dynasty he helped create lasted about the same ammount of time. he was castrated and tortured to death.

[ QUOTE ]
In the mid term, this will probably be used in rhetoric that creates terrorists, however in the long term they will be won over by the decadence afforded by the global markets.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure, that's a valid proposal, but people want more than 'decadence' out of life.


[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if he's right or wrong, but I do think he took a look at the big picture before making his decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

of course he did, but i think he came to the dead-wrong conclusions.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
You can begin to get an idea of the prism through which the left sees the world here. Governments in which Clerics are in power through free elections are theocrocies and therefore, to be seen as ethically indistinguishable from the brutal Taliban, the only government to win the al Qaeda seal of approval. But what can you expect from a group that trembles everytime the President prays?

[/ QUOTE ]

where the heck do you nutty neocons get this stuff? PAY ATTENTION TO THE NEWS!!! the goal of a big portion of iraq's new parliment is to create a constitutional institutionalization of islamic law. there is a difference between electing a cleric, and forming a document intended to establish a particular religion as the very SOURCE of a nation's law. for example: we live in a constitutional-fedralist-republican-democracy. the islamists in iraq want to create a ISLAMIC-constitutional-parlimentary-demorcacy, which would be a theocracy, "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided". unless you disagree with mr webster about the definition od 'theocracy', i'd say you have some more homework to do.

geez. go take a political theroy course, and come back when you know what you're talking about. bye /images/graemlins/grin.gif

BTW, disagreeing with bush's mideast policy does nott make one a member of "the left".

[bholdr]

GET OUT OF HERE YOU TROLL!!! THIS IS A FORUM FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO DISCUSS POLITICS, NOT JUST FLAME THE OPPOSITION!!!


are you hack, btw? i think maybe you are...

[Hack]

He is not Hack. Okay?

[bholdr]

HACK!!! nice to see you, old buddy!! where've you been? i do soooo miss your posts here in the politics forum. (no, seriously)

[Hack]

My wife and I just had our second child in February, so we've been kinda busy. Why? Did you think I had been banned? /images/graemlins/wink.gif Nope, I stopped posting voluntarily. I lurk maybe one hour a week on here.

Take care, bud.

Hack

[bholdr]

i enjoyed our exchanges. congrats on the kid. i'm considering becoming an hour/week lurker too. i keep losing poker time to this forum, and even more to OOT. GL.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
no, that's a massive oversimplification.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. I agree. Thanks.

-Zeno

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember after the World Trade Center attacks it was considered a virtual certainty by both conservative and liberal pundits that there would be additional attacks in US. Yet there have been none. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

As Zeno pointed out, there have been terrorist attacks since the WTC, and there likely will be more. But if you are asking why no more from Al Qaeda, we'd have to know:

a) what they hoped to accomplish by the first attack;
b) if these goals were successful; and,
c) what would be accomplished by further attacks.

Al Qaeda has proven their ability to strike dramatically within the US, proven their ability to provoke a reaction, and proven that the US is, so far, unable, or too distracted, to bring them to justice. I'm not sure what Al Qaeda would gain from further strikes now, although that is not to say that some other organization won't jump on the terrorist bandwagon. I'm not even sure whether Al Qaeda is one of the major players in the terrorist scene, or whether the major players have anything to gain from striking the US.