Why no more terrorist attacks in US?

[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.