Why no more terrorist attacks in US?

[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.