Tuesday, October 03, 2006

For what reason?

Why haven't we been attacked again?

If you believe, like I do, that our policies and actions have made the U.S. less safe, why do you think we haven't been attacked again?

Is the plan to take the fight to the terrorists working?

I like to think, with very little evidence, that the men and women who actually fight the war on terror have learned many lessons and perform their duties with conviction. That this is the main reason we haven't seen more attacks.

But I really don't know.

I would like every ones input on this.

13 comments:

Flannery Alden said...

Constant Vigilence. There is a huge spotlight on terror and many nations are keeping their eyes peeled. Some of the initiatives may be ridiculous, but they've worked, by gum.

I don't think the US is less safe. I think it is less free.

Phil said...

So the various reports stateing we are less safe are disregarded? Our lack of quality emergency response to katrina isn't evidence of our lack of safety and ability to respond to a terrorist attack.

I agree about the spotlight being on terrorism. I agree we are less free. Is the U.S. safer?

Anonymous said...

When you say "we" are you speaking about the United States homeland proper or The West in general? There have been major attacks in Spain and England since 9/11/01. It is my understanding that Al Quieda(sp?) traditionally makes their atttacks few and far between. i.e. the time between WTC bombing #1 and the bombing of the USS Cole (was it a hotel or U.S. embassy in Egypt that was bombed?) and the 9/11 attacks was a matter of years.

I don't think al Quieda looks to attack the United States homeland specifically. We may be the bullseye of the target, but it's a very big target.

If the President tells me that we thwarted a major attack on the United States, I could only take him at his word.
If the President told me it was raining outside I would stick my head out the window before going for an umbrella.

I believe/hope we have learned enough to stop another major 9/11-esque attack on American soil, but I don't see what could be done to stop a guy (a single individual) who hates us from getting in the country, getting a bunch of gun's and shooting up rush hour or a mall or something.

Why haven't we been attacked again?
Because they have chosen to not attack again, yet.

Phil said...

When I say "we" I mean the U.S.

I think there is something to the, they have choosen not to attack.

But why have they made that decision? Wouldn't it serve their purpose to be attacking our public transportation systems? Saying that, I really have no idea what the "purpose" is.

Anonymous said...

"Their purpose"...I also have no clue. I've looked from many angles and nothing seems to justify the al quieda attacks.

Anonymous said...

According to The Art of War: If your opponent has greater numbers and weapons the way to wage war is through guerilla tactics which, I believe would fit the al Quieda opponent.

Johnny Yen said...

I haven't read the 9/11 Report-- I've read excerpts-- and it seems that it wasn't the skill of the attackers that made it happen: it was the abject incompetence of those who were supposed to protect us. When an FBI agent is begging superiors to allow him to investigate men of Middle Eastern origin who want to learn to fly jumbo jets, but not to land or take off and is ignored... when the only competent person in the whole frigging process was an airport security guy who didn't allow a guy who was completely suspicious to get on a plane.... when the head of the CIA was urgently warning Condeleeza Rice that an attack by Bin Laden is imminent in August of 2001 and was ignored... it was only a matter of time before it happened.

The aim of a terrorist act is to get your opponent to overreact, curtailing the civil liberties of their own citizens, torturing suspects, etc (see "the French in Algeria" for this one). In this, they've suceeded in spades.

BTW "Al Quaida" means "the network." There is no central authority. This is not like fighting the IRA or the Bader-Meinhoff gang, which had centralized structures and authority. This is a loosely affiliated bunch of people whose only commonality is a hatred of the West-- a West that has regularly interfered in their politics, economics and culture. Read David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace." He traces the roots of the mideast's troubles with the West back to the end of World War I, before oil was even an issue.

I thnk that my late friend Mark had it right: these people need economic development-- they need something to lose. The West has, for years, supported governments that have kept that from happening, and we are unfortunately reaping the repercussions. I don't see us encouraging economic and political development in the mideast, aside from the attempt at gunpoint in Iraq.

To answer your question, yes, I agree, with you Phil, that the people who invaded Iraq, diverting resources from the war in Afghanistan, where the terrorists are actually based, and completely botched the relief to Katrina, a disaster in which they had nearly a week of warning, are obviously completely incapable of preventing or responding to another attack.

Anonymous said...

I am in agreement with the anonomous commenter. We haven't been attacked again because Al Queada is patient, has us where we want us AND the U.S. only believes we are the center of their angst and number one target because we typically believe we are at the center of everything.

If you read Suskind's One-Percent Doctrine you can learn about how Saudi Arabia is higher on their list than us as well as all the other targets in all the other attacks that have happened world wide since 9/11.

Al Queada/Osama was/are pleased as punch about the whole Iraq thing as it gave them a whole new training ground for them AND offered ourselves up in what they believe will be a conflict where they will slowly bleed us to death just as they believe they did to the Russians in Afghanistan back in the 1980's (where the CIA happened to help train Osama!).

I believe it's also probable that our and other efforts to thwart some terrorists and plots may have aided in dealing out a set back here and there but I have not seen a whole lot of compelling evidence of such claims outside of the occasional and irrational news events such as the British plot a little while back.

Could be legit, could be politically motivated BS as it always seems to be with this current administration. I think it is a matter of time as our actions in Iraq and our lil buddies' actions in Lebannon this past summer do little but fuel the hate fire...Lord knows what will go down once we start bombing Iran.

Tim

Phil said...

I might argure that Isreal's attacks on Lebbenon were different then our invasion of Iraq. Isreal has to live there. The surounding countries have tried repeatedly to push them into the sea and not 65 years ago a collection of countries tried to exterminate them. I'm not excusing all of their actions but I don't begrudge them their paranoia and hair-trigger.

Phil said...

Would everyone agree that Al Quaida's goal is to get us out of the middle east? At least in relation to us?

Anonymous said...

Tim says Yes, they, the Jihadist, wish us to get the F out of the middle east, along with the "zionist."

Don't forget, regarding Lebannon this summer, that Israel's plan was apporved and co-planned by US and was seen as a 'succesful test' of our impending Iran strategy.

While certainly Israel's troubles are clearly closer to their home never forget they are an extension of the U.S. and all their weapons and military might was made possible by US along with our support. Check this out:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact

Phil said...

And Hamas is an extension of Iran. Hamas is trained, supplied and working with, if not for, Iran. Isreal's allegiance to us doesn't make them anymore or less a target of anyone over there.

Isreal's troubles aren't just "closer to home." Unlike us, they cannot just pull out and leave.

Phil said...

Rereading my comment, I said Hamas when I meant Hezbollah. My bad.