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

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2003-09-04 12:42am

Why does everyone think that there hasn't been any terrorism on US soil since 9/11? I've been reading blogs around the web, conservative and liberal alike, and the conservatives seem to think that there hasn't been any because of fear of retaliation since Bush promptlyy invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq after it happened; more or less taking strong decisive action. (The terrorists want you to vote Democratic! Heh.) I think that is somewhat of a silly presumption, but the notion of Bush being an unpredictable cowboy invading nations that piss us off isn't really too far off the mark, IMO.

I'm wondering if it could be because of the feds staying on their toes since this happened, and they could have even prevented countless attacks that we'll never even know about. However I doubt the Dept of Homeland Security has anything to do with it, since articles I've read seem to indicate that it's just a big waste of money...

Thoughts?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-09-04 12:57am

If they are willing to fly into a building, I dont think they are scared by retaliation by the US. I think there has not been another 9/11 attack for multiple reasons.

1. It is not easy to pull off a stunt like this. Its is possible, but for it to be really big takes a lot of financing and planning.

2. Increased vigiliance on the part of the US intelligence agencies and other gov't agencies tasked to protect the US. ( Coast Guard, Customs, etc )

3. Hijacking planes is bound to fail next time cause everybody on the plane will attack the highjackers tooth and nail.

4. It is possible we killed quite a few future candidates in Afghanistan.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-09-04 01:08am

By the very nature of the beast, we can not know how many terrorist attacks have been thworted.
They wouldn't tell us, even if it was down to a single number on a single report.
I think that they shot their bolt, and we not only are stopping the winding or the boy, but realy hurt the archer as well.
I also believe that many supporters of said scum, have scaled back or flushed their connections.
The mass arrests, and deportations didn't hurt either, whatever the stink it raised.
The new guidelines allowing the FBI to use the same simple bugs on a mosque, as are commonplace in mob cases, helps too.
Hell, the FBI is now in a differnt mind set.
They are no longer just trying to get evidence for a federal conviction, they are proactively trying to STOP shit now.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-09-04 01:14am

Just makes you wonder, how much shit was JUST about to happen, only to be aborted by some last minute troublesome patriot, reporting a suspicious thing.
I wonder if there are any abandonded weapons caches, with some money in 'em too!
God help us if Shep finds one!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-04 01:16am

Actually, you're just lucky that Al-Quaeda is not as ruthless as you feared. It would be trivially easy for a terrorist group to spread 20 or 30 snipers throughout the US, spreading fear and terror with random shootings (much as that one asshole did last year in Maryland, working alone).

However, Al-Quaeda seems to have its own twisted honour code. They only go after big targets, even though it's much more difficult to do so. They've even gone after warships in the past (see USS Cole).

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-09-04 01:20am

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, you're just lucky that Al-Quaeda is not as ruthless as you feared. It would be trivially easy for a terrorist group to spread 20 or 30 snipers throughout the US, spreading fear and terror with random shootings (much as that one asshole did last year in Maryland, working alone).

I've discussed this possibility with others, and everyone agrees that 20-30 snipers would cause a lot of fear among the populace. But Al-Quaeda types seem to only want "high value" targets which is good for us. It is harder to pull it off.

Even smaller truck or car bombs could do massive economic damage if set off in the right places.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-04 03:17am

Al Qaeda has delusions of what terrorism is. The point of terrorism is to terrorize people. Look at Israel: I don't care how safe the busses may actually be, but I sure as hell wouldn't ride one unless I had to.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2003-09-04 03:44am

1. The people planning and organizing terrorist activities are otherwise occupied by simply trying to survive making the large scale operations difficult.

2. Local terrorists with lesser resources have to operate independently and often can't strike more than local targets.

3. The willingness of various states to look the other way when terrorism is concerned have sharply decreased.

4. New targets, with US forces available to attack in Afghanistan and Iraq there is less need for difficult high profile strikes on foreign soil.

5. Drasticaly increased security in the US itself and improvements in most of the west as well.

Drewcifer · Post by **Drewcifer** » 2003-09-04 04:13am

It is frightening to think about the terror that 20 or so snipers with high-powered rifles could induce. Or, imagine if those same 20 people coordinated an hour of taking pot-shots at high power transmission lines; a nationwide black-out wouldn't be too hard to pull off. Or massive dirty bombs in the ports of Los Angeles, Houston, and New York/New Jersey...

Although the US has made some great strides against Al Qaeda's ability to strike, we are quite lucky that they choose targets of great symbolic value over strategic value.

Posbi · Post by **Posbi** » 2003-09-04 06:54am

I think it's because people vastly overestimate the power of Al Quaeda. They may be a well-organized terrorist group, but come on, it's pretty ridiculous how the media screams "Al Quaeda" every time something on the globe is blown up. And even though, why should tehy risk detection in the mainland US if the US's presence all over the world gives them so many, much easier to reach targets?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-09-04 11:22am

Al Qaeda has a thing for big targets. Striking big targets requires a lot of planning. As others have mentioned, it'd be trivially easy for them to pull off many smaller scale operations.

Also, we shot their infrastructure to shit after September 11th. Though with the recent focus on Iraq, they've probably had some time to rebuild, but I seriously doubt that they're at full capacity. Osama bin Laden is also probably not in very frequent communication with the rest of the organization for fear of getting blasted into constituent atoms.

Frankly, I'm not sure what they were expecting to happen after September 11th. They put themselves in the history books as the first people who'd ever managed to successfully attack the American mainland, but then we just bombed the shit out of them and brought their organization to its knees. Were they expecting us to just collapse like a house of cards or something? I find it hard to believe that an organization as well-funded and organized as al Qaeda would pull off such an attack without a clear outline of what they expected to gain from it. They got momentary gloating rights, but that's about it.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-09-04 11:31am

Durandal wrote:Frankly, I'm not sure what they were expecting to happen after September 11th. They put themselves in the history books as the first people who'd ever managed to successfully attack the American mainland, but then we just bombed the shit out of them and brought their organization to its knees. Were they expecting us to just collapse like a house of cards or something? I find it hard to believe that an organization as well-funded and organized as al Qaeda would pull off such an attack without a clear outline of what they expected to gain from it. They got momentary gloating rights, but that's about it.

Is it really that surprising? After all, you're hard pressed to find a better funded and organized group than the U.S. department of defense, and they totally misjudged the Iraqi aftermath. Ideology is a powerful deterrent to good thinking.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-09-04 12:17pm

Durandal wrote:Al Qaeda has a thing for big targets. Striking big targets requires a lot of planning. As others have mentioned, it'd be trivially easy for them to pull off many smaller scale operations.

Also, we shot their infrastructure to shit after September 11th. Though with the recent focus on Iraq, they've probably had some time to rebuild, but I seriously doubt that they're at full capacity. Osama bin Laden is also probably not in very frequent communication with the rest of the organization for fear of getting blasted into constituent atoms.

Frankly, I'm not sure what they were expecting to happen after September 11th. They put themselves in the history books as the first people who'd ever managed to successfully attack the American mainland, but then we just bombed the shit out of them and brought their organization to its knees. Were they expecting us to just collapse like a house of cards or something? I find it hard to believe that an organization as well-funded and organized as al Qaeda would pull off such an attack without a clear outline of what they expected to gain from it. They got momentary gloating rights, but that's about it.

I agree, Al Quida spent considerable resources to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks. After which, we did a pretty good job or smearing their command and control structure into the ground. They probably could have done follow up raids and terrorist acts but yearn for grand examples of their defience against the US and that stuff takes time and cash.

With a health chunck of their CCC structure bottled up in Afganistan being hunted by US forces and another chunk sitting in Gitmo, they lack the ability to plan their grand hits. Thus it is why I think that alot of their operatiors went for small time ops like in Afganistan and Iraq.

It is still possbile and very likely, that various cells are still in the US and Europe and else where, but don't have the orders nor the support to hit major targets in the US.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-04 12:24pm

I highly doubt there are any Al Qaeda elements left in Afghanistan to be hunted. They're long gone- the US still fights the Taliban, however, that much is certain.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-09-04 12:27pm

Vympel wrote:I highly doubt there are any Al Qaeda elements left in Afghanistan to be hunted. They're long gone- the US still fights the Taliban, however, that much is certain.

Oh, I didn't mean any organized units of Al Qaeds rather elements or individuals who either got trapped there and went merc (lack of a better term) or in one way or another volenteer to stay and fight the Americans with the Taliban.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-09-04 02:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:They've even gone after warships in the past (see USS Cole).

Not to go off topic, but wasn't the Cole hit by "friendly fire" or am I confusing it with some other American warship??

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-09-04 02:24pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:They've even gone after warships in the past (see USS Cole).
Not to go off topic, but wasn't the Cole hit by "friendly fire" or am I confusing it with some other American warship??

The Cole was bombed by al Qaeda. You are confusing it with something else.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-04 02:27pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:They've even gone after warships in the past (see USS Cole).
Not to go off topic, but wasn't the Cole hit by "friendly fire" or am I confusing it with some other American warship??

Are you talking about the Tonkin Gulf incident back in Vietnam? Or is it something else.

USS Cole was definitely attacked and damaged by terrorists.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-04 02:28pm

Actually, there was. Remember that middle eastern man who opened fire
at the El Al counter at LAX over the 4th of July Weekend?

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2003-09-04 02:29pm

There have been several terrorist attacks since 9/11, not necessarily against the US, i can also think of possibly two that have been thwarted in the uk since...

I also know for certain that there was a raid (in the london area) on a huge terrorist staging area, i know about this because the dad of one of my friends is the chief if the thames valley area.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-04 02:39pm

MKSheppard wrote:Actually, there was. Remember that middle eastern man who opened fire
at the El Al counter at LAX over the 4th of July Weekend?

Was that a terrorist attack or just nutjob gone off the deep end?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-04 02:47pm

Because pulling them of is more difficult then it's often made out to be and the folks best at doing so are busy running.

Was that a terrorist attack or just nutjob gone off the deep end?

They can be the same thing you know, anyway it was a lone nutjob with no sign of any connection to anyone else.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2003-09-04 03:00pm

Durandal wrote: I find it hard to believe that an organization as well-funded and organized as al Qaeda would pull off such an attack without a clear outline of what they expected to gain from it. They got momentary gloating rights, but that's about it.

Agreed, they're a lot of things, but not stupid. I think what they've gained is that they've managed to get us in the West nicely paranoid about terrorism, and caused some pretty drastic social and economic upheaval as a result.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-04 06:47pm

Al-Quaeda is quite frankly stupid. They could do a lot more damage if they didn't have this predilection for big targets. Either they're morons or they have some kind of honour code that prevents it.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-04 06:55pm

Darth Wong wrote:Al-Quaeda is quite frankly stupid. They could do a lot more damage if they didn't have this predilection for big targets. Either they're morons or they have some kind of honour code that prevents it.

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.

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

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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

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

Various reasons IMO