Why havent there been any more attacks on the US since 9/11?

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-09-04 07:00pm

I'm just waiting for the next time a vanilla hostage taking aircraft hijacking takes place... Imagine the mayhem on board:

"Please, passengers - we are just going to fly to Central Africa and get off. NO! WAIT YOU CRAZY FUCKERS! WE ARE NOT GOING TO FLY INTO A BUILDING DO WE LOOK SUICIDAL TO YOU? JUST BECAUSE WE'RE TERRORISTS DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE A DEATHWISH! WE'RE JUST GOING TO FLY TO AFRICA AND..."

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-04 07:14pm

At this point, and really for the better part of the past decade, you really need a death wish even to conduct a normal hijacking. You've got to land sometime and then the guys in black cloths with the MP-5's come and kill you.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-04 07:16pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Actually it makes sense. If they attack with many pinpricks there highly unlikely to achieve their objectives, not that they have much of any chance period. However the cumulative effect will be to reduce the effectiveness of each attack in causing terror. Thus they only launch a small number of very big attacks in hopes that single massive shocks will work.

Are you sure about that? The Palestinian attacks on Israel tend to only kill a small number of people at a time, yet people are rather upset about them.

It's much the same story with conventional military action. Small attacks generally do less then the same weight of power applied at once.

The target in this case is not a military, but rather, a civilian population's emotions. One big assault is less frightening in some ways than a low-level campaign that never ends and from which there seems to be no escape.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2003-09-04 07:33pm

Darth Wong wrote: The target in this case is not a military, but rather, a civilian population's emotions. One big assault is less frightening in some ways than a low-level campaign that never ends and from which there seems to be no escape.

Especially now that they've so effectively established themselves in the Western consciousness and we all know what Al Queda is. They don't need to do much to perpetuate the state of paranoia we're in.

However I'd imagine that inspiring Islamic extremists globally is also high on the Al Queda agenda, high-profile attacks would serve this purpose better.

StimNeuro · Post by **StimNeuro** » 2003-09-04 08:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Actually it makes sense. If they attack with many pinpricks there highly unlikely to achieve their objectives, not that they have much of any chance period. However the cumulative effect will be to reduce the effectiveness of each attack in causing terror. Thus they only launch a small number of very big attacks in hopes that single massive shocks will work.
Are you sure about that? The Palestinian attacks on Israel tend to only kill a small number of people at a time, yet people are rather upset about them.

The attacks are upsetting because they occur on a continual basis against a nation with a population that is 1/50th that of the United States.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-09-04 08:19pm

Why does everyone think that there hasn't been any terrorism on US soil since 9/11?

Because it was your own government who allowed it/sponsored it to happen.

StimNeuro · Post by **StimNeuro** » 2003-09-04 08:22pm

DocHorror wrote:
Why does everyone think that there hasn't been any terrorism on US soil since 9/11?
Because it was your own government who allowed it/sponsored it to happen.

You aren't seriously blaming the United States for allowing 9/11 to happen for (insert reason) and being able to control which terrorist activites occur in it's borders...

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-09-04 08:26pm

Well I can believe what ever I want to believe. If you don't believe it then thats fine by me.

I have my own beliefs and I like them...

StimNeuro · Post by **StimNeuro** » 2003-09-04 08:27pm

DocHorror wrote:Well I can believe what ever I want to believe. If you don't believe it then thats fine by me.

I have my own beliefs and I like them...

Beliefs without evidence to support them are little more than delusions.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-09-04 08:28pm

StimNeuro · Post by **StimNeuro** » 2003-09-04 08:29pm

DocHorror wrote:And?

And delusions are normally something you keep to yourself instead of trying to piss people off with.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-09-04 08:30pm

And so you're deluding yourself. I thought that was pretty obvious.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-09-04 08:43pm

StimNeuro wrote:You aren't seriously blaming the United States for allowing 9/11 to happen for (insert reason) and being able to control which terrorist activites occur in it's borders...

They allowed it to happen in the sense that their security leaks like a sieve, and that the citizens and government weren't prepared for anything. Security still sucks BTW, but at least people won't allow their planes to be hijacked and used as guided missles.

I don't think anything big's going to happen for the next few years unless they get their hands on a nuke or something like that, it's pretty hard to top what they did on 9/11. However I wouldn't be surprised to see some low level activities such as snipings or sabotage.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-09-04 08:47pm

--The reason there haven't been any more significant attacks on U.S. soil is that the terrorists are incompetent. If all the terrorists were from the U.S. you would be seeing a great deal more damage being done....

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-09-04 09:29pm

aerius wrote: They allowed it to happen in the sense that their security leaks like a sieve, and that the citizens and government weren't prepared for anything.

The perils of living in a free society.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2003-09-05 04:08am

Nova Andromeda wrote: --The reason there haven't been any more significant attacks on U.S. soil is that the terrorists are incompetent. If all the terrorists were from the U.S. you would be seeing a great deal more damage being done....

Nonsense. 9/11 was the single most spectacular terrorist attack ever, and is surely the envy of terorist groups everywhere. Al Quaeda have forced the United States, a nation which throughout its history has prided itself on the freedoms accorded its citizens, to curtail those freedoms to the most serious extent in living memory via the PATRIOT Act. The most powerful military the world has ever seen has been unable to capture the Al Quaeda leader after two years, indeed during this time Al Quaeda has even been able to conduct operations. They have inspired and supported Islamic terrorism worldwide. This is not incompetence.

OTOH, name me a successful terrorist act carried out by a US citizen (citizen mind, not a soldier) since the Boston Tea Party. Actually you can't since the thread where we attempted to define terrorism got locked

PrinceofLowLight · Post by **PrinceofLowLight** » 2003-09-05 02:05pm

The Third Man wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote: --The reason there haven't been any more significant attacks on U.S. soil is that the terrorists are incompetent. If all the terrorists were from the U.S. you would be seeing a great deal more damage being done....
Nonsense. 9/11 was the single most spectacular terrorist attack ever, and is surely the envy of terorist groups everywhere. Al Quaeda have forced the United States, a nation which throughout its history has prided itself on the freedoms accorded its citizens, to curtail those freedoms to the most serious extent in living memory via the PATRIOT Act. The most powerful military the world has ever seen has been unable to capture the Al Quaeda leader after two years, indeed during this time Al Quaeda has even been able to conduct operations. They have inspired and supported Islamic terrorism worldwide. This is not incompetence.

OTOH, name me a successful terrorist act carried out by a US citizen (citizen mind, not a soldier) since the Boston Tea Party. Actually you can't since the thread where we attempted to define terrorism got locked

Oklahoma City bombing seemed pretty successful to me. Same with psycho-Christian groups killing abortion doctors.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-05 04:03pm

Darth Wong wrote: Are you sure about that? The Palestinian attacks on Israel tend to only kill a small number of people at a time, yet people are rather upset about them.

Yet after nearly 100 the war still goes on.

The target in this case is not a military, but rather, a civilian population's emotions. One big assault is less frightening in some ways than a low-level campaign that never ends and from which there seems to be no escape.

Emphasis on "in some ways", and I was referring to conventional military attacks against both civilian and military targets. A series of low level attacks may initially be of greater effect then a few huge strokes, but only to a point. Then the people become used to them and become concerned simply with going about their lives. And the worst scenario is to slowly escalate the level of destruction and shock, that lets people get used to it as it goes along.

A few very large attacks have immense shock value in addition to material damage and set a very high threshold for simply having a live out your life attitude, which fucks over the terrorists. because of there low numbers few will reach that level. So the attacks will always have a significant affect beyond simply a body count, even if its not that frequent.

Plus low level attacks generally are going to lock you into a high paced war of attrition, and it is not easily to win such a thing when your a small group of fanatics and the other sides a huge nation state with something of a resource advantage.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2003-09-08 11:21pm

Maybe my mind has been addled my a lifetime of Bond movies, but if a well-funded terrorist group spent a few years planning, whats to stop them knocking out coke truck drivers and exploding every coke machine in town simulanteously or something? Explosives are apparently even *legal* for certain reasons... and I always figured the hardest part about killing someone/blowing something up was the 'getting away scot free' part... and properly mad people don't care about that.

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-09-09 12:56am

DocHorror wrote:
Why does everyone think that there hasn't been any terrorism on US soil since 9/11?
Because it was your own government who allowed it/sponsored it to happen.

*shoots DocHorror in the neck with a dartgun, and drags him off into the waiting unmarked black helicopter*

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-09-09 12:27pm

Suicide bombers require little to no actual military training to carry out their attacks, while true snipers require extensive experience and training that terrorist groups like Al Queda simply cannot reliably provide.

Also, I think that there has been a shift of focus among terrorist groups from targeting the continental US to targeting the US occupation force in Iraq. Having the americans operating in what extremists undoubtedly believe to be their own backyard is certainly not a welcome development, and while I think most extremists would like to conduct attacks on the US, I would also say that they probably would be more immediately interested in "liberating their arab brothers" in Iraq, or something to that effect.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-09 12:31pm

DocHorror wrote:Well I can believe what ever I want to believe. If you don't believe it then thats fine by me.

I have my own beliefs and I like them...

I think you'd find that the ability to plan and execute a massive "terrorist" attack on the US and successfully cover it up for 24 months would actually improve my opinion of George W. Bush.

At least then he'd improve from corrupt and incompetent to just corrupt...

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-09-10 12:04am

Iceberg wrote:
DocHorror wrote:Well I can believe what ever I want to believe. If you don't believe it then thats fine by me.

I have my own beliefs and I like them...
I think you'd find that the ability to plan and execute a massive "terrorist" attack on the US and successfully cover it up for 24 months would actually improve my opinion of George W. Bush.

At least then he'd improve from corrupt and incompetent to just corrupt...

Who's to say he knew?