Murderous Terrorists Kill Brits

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

I wouldn't credit anyone for stopping something I have no proof, or even reasonable suspicion of, having happened.

[tw]

. 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.

[Shawnee123]

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

[classicman]

lol@tw





and S123 - - - unless he's right.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What better measure do you have?

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.

[classicman]

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


Oops, wrong thread - as you were.

[Undertoad]

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.

[Clodfobble]

Maybe they're terrible shots?

[Undertoad]

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.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You're right, my bad!

*smooch*

[sugarpop]

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