That is a prescription for failure. So we shouldn't wear seatbelts because we might get in an accident? Or smoke because we might get cancer .... ? ? ?

That isn't what I meant, and I think you know that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. We can choose to live life, or to live life in fear. The difference between the examples you give, are those are things we have control over. You have control over whether you want to smoke, or not, regardless of whether it will give you cancer. Personally, I hate cigarettes, but I know some people like smoking them. That is their choice. Some people are stupid enough to ride motorcycles without a helmet, even though it might kill them. That is their choice.

But we can't control whether a terrorist attacks us. Yes, we can do things to make our country safer, like having stricter policies about illegal immigration, and making sure chemical plants and nuclear facilities are well guarded, but I am not willing to give up my personal freedoms because I am afraid. A lot more people are killed every year in car accidents than were killed in the WTC on 9-11, but we don't give up driving. We accept there are certain risks involved. Would you rather live in a police state and be safe? Or live free with the possibilty that one day some whacko may or may not kill you? It's probably more likely you'd be killed by a serial killer or an angry alligator than be killed in a terrorist attack on US soil.

Hmm

I think the point is that we can and should provide the best possible homeland security in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution.

That means we shouldnt:

wiretap citizens w/o a warrant (or notification of a FISA court if timing is essential to national security)
or hold citizens in custody w/o a charge or access to counsel
or subordinate first amendment speech and press rights
or conduct military operations on US soil

...all of which were "justified" in those DoJ memos to Bush that were recently made public.

Which accomplished what it was supposed to do.

Sting the bear on it's nose.
The bear then comes out of it's cave, stumbles and thrashes about the whole forest, pisses off all the other critters, and loses it's whole honey stash.
Why sting it again?

That sounds about right, Bruce.

So you guys figure al Qaeda is responsible for the economy, and not bad valuation of toxic mortgages causing several major banking failures leading to a credit crunch?

Hint:
-- cost of entire Iraq war: $3 trillion -- and everybody agrees that is far, far too much
-- cost of bank recovery and economic stimulus bills: $1487 trillion -- and many think it is not enough

Al Qaeda attacks on US interests between 1st and 2nd WTC events, source:

4 October, 1993 Eighteen US servicemen killed in Somalia
25 June, 1996 US military base in Saudi bombed 19 servicemen killed
7 August, 1998 US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed
12 October, 2000 Attack on US warship in Yemen kills 17 sailors

Al Qaeda attacks on US interests after 9/11:

18 June, 2004 US engineer beheaded in Saudi Arabia

I think al qaeda was hoping we would do something stupid, like spending trillions of dollars on a war with a country that did not attack us. If we hadn't had such wreckless policies over the past 8 years, and the housing still manged to crash, we might have been in a much better place to be able to handle it.

And where are you getting the figure $1487 trillion? That number is wrong.

You said, specifically, in this country.

Here are more attacks by terrorists, some linked to al qaeda since 2001:

2002 - June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003 - May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004 - June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
- Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005 - Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

2006 - Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy is foiled.

2007 - Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: more than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

2008 - May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S. soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.
June 24, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.
July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S. troops in three years.
Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the Taliban rages overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.
Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.
Nov. 26, India: in a series of attacks on several of Mumbai's landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema. About 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans.

Here is another list of suspected al qaeda attacks. It's too long to list, so just go and look. There are DOZENS listed.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html

700 + 787?

That is billions, not trillions. Silly man. :p

My original question was about why no attacks in this country, my point was to note that al Qaeda was plenty busy with the desire to hurt American interests and now it is either not interested or not able.

And that includes in Iraq: 3 combat deaths so far this month.

You're right, my bad!

How about a billion an hour this year?

Do you know exactly what Al Qaeda's interests were? I am going to try to put myself in Al Qaeda's shoes for this one.

The first step is ask ourselves what is Al Qaeda's main interests? We know Al Qaeda is made up of a very small minority of Muslims in the Middle East, mostly Saudi Arabia, and their actions are considered radical among the surrounding communities. I have heard many "goals" of Al Qaeda and all of them need one large factor to be accomplished, more members. A small minority of people will not have enough influence to accomplish their goals so they will need more members.

Now the question is how can Al Qaeda get more members? Without direct US intervention it is really hard to convince people that US imperialism is negative enough for radical action so a direct intervention by the US is needed.

How can Al Qaeda get direct US intervention? 9/11.

So, following the logic, after 9/11 we would expect the United States to use direct military action in the Middle East and with that direct military action more members should have joined the resistance cause.


While I do believe the financial reasons Sugarpop brought up is valid, I would think the self-interests of these people were the primary factor for 9/11. This also explains why no other attacks on US soil has happened by Al Qaeda since. Copy cats using terrorism for other rasons are a different factor and the lack of their actions can be attributed to increased security. If someone did want to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, which is easily possible BTW, it is extremely harder to do now since 9/11 has happened.

I didn't say that, but since we're on the subject... there's nothing like an irresponsible government throwing money around to distract everyone from Wall Street shenanigans, and make even normally astute people believe Medoff could produce normally unbelievable returns.

But until 9-11 none of them made the bear come out. Mission accomplished.
I'm not saying there are, or aren't, groups that wish they could do the same, but I wouldn't credit anyone for stopping something I have no proof, or even reasonable suspicion of, having happened.

. Once we eliminate wacko extremists (the dumbest extremists) definition of Al Qaeda, then the question becomes obvious. Most organizations entitled Al Qaeda are only domestic groups fighting for their own country. Ie participants in civil war. Iraq was never about Al Qaeda. Iraq was a civil war created by America.

A mythical Al Qaeda terrorist has no interest in attacking America. But when your government is chock full of routine liars, then Al Qaeda is hiding under every bed - sleeper cells just waiting to attack.

Since they could not find any real Al Qaeda, then even torture is necessary to find (invent) mythical attacks on the Prudential Building and the Golden Gate Bridge. We must even hold in secret 700 innocent men in Guantanamo. Mythical terrorists don't attack America. No wonder terrorist attacks are down.

Of course, the threat would be even less had we stopped trying to inspire so many into becoming terrorists.

With few to no terrorists, America had to protect the few real terrorists so that Americans would fear. And again the question that extremist fear to answer - "When do we go after bin Laden" - the real terrorist threat.

Who more than George Jr protected bin Laden? We have met the enemy and he is us? Mythical terrorists do not execute attacks.

Cheney is still warning us of the terrorists hiding under out beds.:headshake

lol@tw





and S123 - - - unless he's right. :eek:

As my joke indicates, it is very hard to measure a negative outcome.

How many cavities didn't you get because you flossed better this year?
How much heart damage did you avoid because you started working out last year?
How many terrorist incidents didn't occur due to changes in US security?

If you want to talk specific policies, I'll guess along with you, but we won't know for sure.

How many jobs were saved - not created? The hedge has begun.


Oops, wrong thread - as you were.

It's a good point dar. (I'm gettin schooled in this thread) What amazes me is how little it would take to disrupt the economy further. A single sniper in Wash. D.C. area meant the whole area went into paralysis for a while. Ten snipers, one in each major city, could reduce economic activity 5%, easy and cheap. I don't get why they don't do something like that.

Maybe they're terrible shots?

I blame the camps; if they spent less time on those monkey bars, and more time shooting Jihad-Cola cans, they could get it together.

Yes, if terrorists really wanted to hurt the United States they would attack the water and food supply. What would you do if there was a possibility that anthrax was in the water supply or biological weapons were released in random grocery stores? Riots of unseen sizes would occur in less then a week.

That would have been possible pre-9/11 (the latter is still possible today) and it would require even less planning. You would need a few people to work at water treatment plants and a steady source of biological weapons and you would be set. As my Water and Wastewater Treatment professor told me, he could wipe out an entire city if he wanted too.


For the reason, I still believe the main point was to get the United States to have direct conflict in the Middle East so Al Qaeda membership would grow.

They couldn't count on the US attacking the Middle East, but they were assured a #1 (with a bullet?) spot on the list of many splintered terrorist groups for interested Islamic Radicals to sign on with.

Although the snipers would have an economic effect, we have too many of our own homegrown snipers for them to stand out in the big publicity picture.

:D *smooch*

madoff, it's MADOFF, as in, he MADE OFF with my money! :D

Yeah, you're right. I was think of an OB/GYN I know. :o