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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[[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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ 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.