LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

I stole this from http://www.dennismillerradio.com so take it up with them if you don't like the options. I think that the reasons are a bit more complicated than these answers but I'm interested in what people think.

how about a "just give it some more time" answer

If you look at the terrorist attacks against the U.S., there have been traditionally few attacks on U.S. soil. In fact the only ones I could find were from the last 20 years were:

2/26/1993 World Trade Center - Al Qaeda suspected

4/19/1995 - Oklahoma City - 'Domestic' Terrorists

9/1/2001 - NYC / Pentagon / PA


If you look at attacks on the U.S. that aren't on the mainland 50 states, since 2001 we have:

6/14/2002 - Karachi, Pakistan. Bomb outside American Consulate - Al Qaeda suspected

5/12/2003 - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - Western housing compounds - Al Qaeda suspected

5/29/2004 - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Oil company office taken hostage, one american & 21 others killed
6/11/2004 - Riyadh - Americans killed by gun attacks
12/6/2004 - Jeddah, Saudi Arabia - Terrorists storm U.S. Consulate, killing 5 employees

11/9/2005 - Amman, Jordan - Suicide bombers hit 3 american hotels, killing 57 - Al Qaeda claimed.

9/13/2006 - Damascus, Syria - attack by four gunmen on embassy foiled

1/12/2007 - Athens, Greece - embassy hit by anti-tank missile, no injuries



So adding those up, there have been 8 prominant attacks on the U.S. since 9/11. From the WTC in '93 to 9/11, there were only 3 prominant attacks by outside terrorists, 2 by Al qaeda (USS Cole & African embassies) and 1 by Hezbollah. Now the numbers are too low to claim statistical significance, but it looks like there's been a ramp up in terror attacks since Bush took office. There just are very few attacks on U.S. soil period, so your question is basically moot.

Data from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

Are the, at least three, recent foiled attacks relevant to this discussion? i.e. the plot to blow up the Hudson River Tunnel, the planned attack on soldiers at Ft. Dix, and the plan to blow up fuel supply lines at JFK Airport

Add to the list the recent foiled car bombs in London and the Glasgow Scotland Airport car bombing.

Are the, at least three, recent foiled attacks relevant to this discussion? i.e. the plot to blow up the Hudson River Tunnel, the planned attack on soldiers at Ft. Dix, and the plan to blow up fuel supply lines at JFK Airport

You mean the devious plan devised by a 65 year-old baggage handler to blow up JFK with no real set plans and/or explosives to do so?

You mean the plan to attack a military base which houses thousands of soldiers? I am sure that would have worked out well in their favor.

Wasn't the capture of 7 "terrorists" in Miami last year supposed to be a huge victory in the (ugh) "War on Terror?" Turns out those guys could't walk and talk at the same time.

This administration has turned human beings into sheep.

Uh oh, this one could get out of control fast.

Arguably, they don't need to attack us again. If we are talking specifically about Al Qaeda. I think the very notion of "terrorists" to be misleading. Terror is a tactic, not an ideology.

I argue they don't need to hit us again, as we've chosen to live in fear of our own volition.

Granted, those fears have been stoked by those in power, in an effort to maintain and consolidate that power. We citizens are still responsible for our failure to hold our leaders accountable.

Another missing option, would be simply, that attacking American's on American soil is very difficult.

Gosh, do you guys remember when Dennis Miller was funny? Seems like a long time ago doesn't it?

If you look at the terrorist attacks against the U.S., there have been traditionally few attacks on U.S. soil. In fact the only ones I could find were from the last 20 years were:

Don't forget the attacks on our embassies in Africa.

I don't think the goal of terrorists is just to make us afraid. I'd argue that their goal is to destroy western civilization and submit us all to Islamic Law or kill us for being infidels. And I don't mean destroy western civilization just by the erosion of civil liberties, I mean wipe it off the earth destroy. That's why I think we must remain vigilant and I don't believe that they don't need or want to attack us again.

It is very interesting that no one thinks that the Iraq War has done anything to prevent terrorist attacks, thwarted or successful, on US soil. No one's buying what Bush is selling about fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here?

StrykerFSU wrote:I don't think the goal of terrorists is just to make us afraid. I'd argue that their goal is to destroy western civilization and submit us all to Islamic Law or kill us for being infidels. And I don't mean destroy western civilization just by the erosion of civil liberties, I mean wipe it off the earth destroy. That's why I think we must remain vigilant and I don't believe that they don't need or want to attack us again.

I think they're just trying to get our country to stop screwing with their countries. Not that that justifies their heinous acts, but it's easier for our government to push "They hate our freedom!" than it is to say, "Well, we prop up governments and supply weapons, etc., in the Middle East like it's some board game to try to ensure cheap oil, and some of the people there are pissed off about what we're doing."

LaxRef wrote:I think they're just trying to get our country to stop screwing with their countries. Not that that justifies their heinous acts, but it's easier for our government to push "They hate our freedom!" than it is to say, "Well, we prop up governments and supply weapons, etc., in the Middle East like it's some board game to try to ensure cheap oil, and some of the people there are pissed off about what we're doing."

RISK anyone? Only joking of course.

StrykerFSU wrote: It is very interesting that no one thinks that the Iraq War has done anything to prevent terrorist attacks, thwarted or successful, on US soil. No one's buying what Bush is selling about fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here?

That's because the majority of people recognize reality - that the Iraq invasion and the subsequent occupation have created a fertile ground for growing "terrorists" - normal people that are so incensed by our actions and attitudes that they feel they are under attack and will willing take up opposition.
Iraq has also become a magnet for foreign fighters that wish to engage in combat against the US. However, this also shows that the numbers of adherents to radical Islam is relatively small - intelligence estimates put the percentage of foreign fighters at 5%.
In Bush's speech yesterday he referenced Al Qaeda 30 times, and again, people recognize the fallacy in that. Bush still tries to tie Iraq and Saddam to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, which is patently untrue.

“The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

Radical groups around the world though recognize that just the mention of the word Al Qaeda is enough to send the US running around like Chicken Little, so a smart strategy is to commit a bombing and claim it in the name of Al Qaeda in Oklahoma City and watch the hysterical reaction.

To me, one of the strangest arguments is that if we pull out of Iraq that the terrorists will win and their next stop will be New York City. "Fight them over there before we have to fight them here".
Several points - first, couldn't you make the claim that the terrorists have won by dragging the US military halfway around the world and putting them on THEIR turf? Who has the advantage there? We don't know the people, we don't know the language, our supply lines are quite extended. They on the other hand can blend in with the local populace as needed, join the ranks of our "allies" in the Iraqi Army and police and feed information out as well as actively participate in the killing of US soldiers. One Army spokesman said this is a "significant problem". One day we're fighting the Sunnis, the next we're supplying them with weaponry, relying on their word that these arms won't be turned against us.
It does make it easy for those that wish to do battle with the US to come to the shooting gallery in Iraq rather than trying to penetrate the security cordon of the US.

Military intelligence officials said that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia’s leaders wanted to expand their attacks to other countries. They noted that Mr. Zarqawi claimed a role in a 2005 terrorist attack in Jordan. But Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, said that if American forces were to withdraw from Iraq, the vast majority of the group’s members would likely be more focused on battling Shiite militias in the struggle for dominance in Iraq than on trying to follow the Americans home. (NY Times)

The other blind spot in Bush's analysis is that the war in Iraq is all about the "terrorists" vs. the US, and that is also incorrect. Iraq first and foremost has descended into a religious civil war, one that we are trying to referee and manage. The Iraqi government is incompetent and ineffectual, but given the circumstances I don't think any government could be so. The number one concern of any human being is security, so in the face of ethnic cleansings of neighborhoods citizens have turned to the only organizations that can attempt to protect them and wreak revenge for killings of their family, and those are the militias that are slaughtering hundreds of their former neighbors every day. If we leave, it will continue and likely ramp up. If we stay, it will continue. As another analyst noted, this will only end when they fight to exhaustion and finally reach some kind of compromise.

I think the reasons we haven't had attacks in the US are; 1) the number of adherents to extreme Islam is very small, and the number that may be in the US is extremely small. 2) We have a pretty well established security infrastructure in place, one that doesn't need the violation of OUR civil liberties to be successful 3) Luck. If someone truly wished to launch any kind of terrorist attack, especially a suicide bombing, there is virtually nothing we can do about it. Let's say someone entered a mall and set off a bomb strapped to themselves, there is little that would stop that.
If that did happen it would be a huge story here. Now put yourself in the place of an Iraqi trying to get by in his daily life, in an atmosphere where several of these attacks happen every single day. The fear is palpable and the feeling of despair and hopelessness almost overwhelming.

Lastly, today's story in the NY Times (Al Qaeda's media wing in the US of course) made the following statement which has been my main point of contention ever since we cut and ran from Afghanistan to Iraq...

The broader issue is whether Iraq is a central front in the war against Al Qaeda, as Mr. Bush maintains, or a distraction that has diverted the United States from focusing on the Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan while providing Qaeda leaders with a cause for rallying support.

laxfan25 wrote:the number of adherents to extreme Islam is very small

Well except for the whole

Iraq first and foremost has descended into a religious civil war

Isn't that contradictory for a religion that is supposed to promote peace? Im pretty sure if Methodists starting waxing Baptists in America that would be considered a little on the "extreme" side.

Beta wrote:

laxfan25 wrote:the number of adherents to extreme Islam is very small

Well except for the whole

Iraq first and foremost has descended into a religious civil war

Isn't that contradictory for a religion that is supposed to promote peace? Im pretty sure if Methodists starting waxing Baptists in America that would be considered a little on the "extreme" side.

How about Catholics bombing Protestants and vice-versa? I guess those are both extreme "religions" that are really masking terrorist organizations at heart.

StrykerFSU wrote:I don't think the goal of terrorists is just to make us afraid. I'd argue that their goal is to destroy western civilization and submit us all to Islamic Law or kill us for being infidels.

Would you agree that this goal is impossible, without significant self inflicted help from ourselves?

StrykerFSU wrote:It is very interesting that no one thinks that the Iraq War has done anything to prevent terrorist attacks, thwarted or successful, on US soil. No one's buying what Bush is selling about fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here?

Interesting yes, but not surprising. Mr. Bush's war in Iraq was a mistake. Not just because it was poorly planned and executed, but because it distracted us from our most important objective, which I would argue was to bring Bin Laden and his organization to some semblance of justice.