Why no more terrorist attacks in US?

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

"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.