Why hasn't Al Qaeda struck the US again? (PV)

[Kaboom]

Why hasn't Al Qaeda struck the US again?

Because they have "shot their wad". They haven't done ANYTHING significant across the entire planet since 911 other than the pathetic Spanish train bombings. They can't deal with the slightest amount of interference and still be successful. They haven't been "waiting" for nearly a decade they are just incompetent. Yes our agencies have stepped up BIGTIME but you can't say that about every other country out there that they would LIKE to hit. I have marveled at how the media stamps them as "sophisticated" just because they can use a clock and a cell phone to co-ordinate something

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Kaboom

Because they have "shot their wad". They haven't done ANYTHING significant across the entire planet since 911 other than the pathetic Spanish train bombings. They can't deal with the slightest amount of interference and still be successful. They haven't been "waiting" for nearly a decade they are just incompetent. Yes our agencies have stepped up BIGTIME but you can't say that about every other country out there that they would LIKE to hit. I have marveled at how the media stamps them as "sophisticated" just because they can use a clock and a cell phone to co-ordinate something

When I consider the bombings in the UK, I'm not ready to easily dismiss AQ's intent and sophistication. The UK has experience in dealing with terrorists through their many years battling the IRA. Their intelligence agencies are quite sophisticated...some would argue more so than our own. And yet despite these factors, they were still attacked.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Hardly a socialist. In my opinion, he's a standard variety corporate Democrat.

Whether you chose to vote for Obama or not, he has demonstrated that he is clearly a socialist. He wants the government controlled health care, government to spend more on social programs, and the list goes on & on. And how does he propose paying for these plans? By taking more money from those that have it, and redistributing to those that do not. Sorry...but that's socialism. Perhaps the country wants a socialist President. I think there is a high probability that we will have one, since Hillary is not much different.

Now if you'd like to debate this issue further, please start your own thread on whether Obama is a socialist or not.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Al Qaeda may hate what they view as lack of morals in the U.S., but I don't think they want to kill average Americans because of it. I think they want to make a point and shame American leadership.

Funny, they have repeatedly told us what they want and yet some folks still don't want to believe it. Our CA AQ man has repeatedly told us to all convert, along with several other AQ threats from the other 2 top guys. Judging from their actions, I'm going to say they do want us dead...you, me, and everyone else on this forum including Muslims since they don't follow the radical ideology that is demanded by these terrorists.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by CrAz3D

They're waiting for something BIG. Killing 3,000 isn't much compared to what they could've done ... they're attack was symbolic.

I'm not so sure I'd label 9/11 as a symbolic attack. Had each airplane found its target, I think their intent was to completely disable our government...and strike the WTC for symbology. The two towers turned out to be the most successful part of their attack. But I think they had more in mind than purely a symbolic attack.

With that said though, I agree with your main point. They could easily be blowing up bombs in malls, etc...unless you think our elite Mall Ninjas have thwarted these attacks. Obviously they are not interested in small scale attacks at this time.

[eric_t12]

But our borders are ridiculously porous (as you acknowledged).

the most stunning part of all of this. so easily crossed are the borders of our country that it simply boggles my mind why it hasn't been done, or at least that we know of, yet.

bombings in britain.

these are just eery. seriously. they were doing a "planned exercise" involving EXACTLY what happened WHEN it happened...

that's like the FAA doing a 9/11 carbon-copy the exact time it happened... it would be just too weird...

as for why we haven't been attacked, its not GWB's doing. it can't be.

if you say it is, then it's equally his doing we got attacked in the first place.

its more of a complete lack of immigration control AND MONITORING (which it was) over the last several decades, piling up and becoming the socialistic, police-state mess we have today. IMO.

if you control the borders, and monitor those who aren't citizens, the states can monitor those that are, should that be required.

[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general
government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore... never to see
all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn
from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought
and sold at market.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823

[Sparks007]

According to the Left, it's the "Illusion of Security." Bush has done nothing to keep this Country safe, he's the Devil.
9/11 and Terrorism was a made up thing and all the people in the towers were stuntmen/women.
When will you people see the truth??
The only thing that will save this Country is Barack Osama...I mean, Obama.

[XD 9 Loaded Sub-Compact]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

How do you explain this logic () when a Republican was in office when 9/11 ocurred? I'm sorry but this is the biggest bunch of bovine scat! It's so stupid it's laughable.

I appreciate your maturity that you can just call me stupid... Anyway, Reason being it'll be a cake walk is as state before, Clinton had Bin Laden handed to him and he let him go. Dems think they can reason with terrorists. In a more simplistic term is trying to reason with a mugger who has a gun not to mugg you instead of using your gun. This whole utpoian ideology dems are trying to force us into is what's laughable. Tyrants will always be apart of this world and to not stand up to them, letting them just get away with what ever they want is unacceptable. Other reasons for if being easy is all the dems do is talk about "change" what change? the only thing they are saying they will change is not do what bush has done.. Ok thanks for narrowing it down . They are always pushing for an imidate withdrawl from Iraq. Dispite your own personal views on why we shouldn't there because of false pretenses or what ever the cry is about, the news coming out of Iraq is we are doing great.

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

How is it that people can be so flippin cynical about a Democrat getting in the White House and "just knowing" that once that happens the US will get attacked again "for sure"!!!!??? Where is you cynicism regarding our current administration???? Surely you can't think this current administration is faultless in it's handling of a fair number of issues (energy policy, immigration, the border, federal attorney firings, Carl Rove's shenanigans, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc .... ) can you?

Seems that radical Muslims be it Hezbollah or al Qaeda have attacked us irregardless of which political party has been in charge.

This whole "the sky is falling if a Demo gets in the White House" is just fear mongering at it's worst. Do you really think that just because a person is a Dermocrat that terrorists will get a free pass???? Seriously????

It really bothers me that another American would intentionally accuse another American of letting an attack occur. There was even some speculation (perhaps just stupid conspiracy theory) that Bush new an attack was coming. I am no fan of Bush and I am counting the days until he's out but I've always thought that this accusatory mudslinging should be the stuff of grade school play grounds.

I will vote democratic if for no better reason than to say NO in my own small way to this baseless fear mongering just because someone else isn't a Republican. By the way, I've noted that Hillary has used this tactic a bit lately and because of that and her condescending tone I would vote for the homless drunk I pass everyday on my way to work than vote for her.

I never said the Bush administration is perfect. No administration has been perfect because humans are imperfect. I have my dislikes about the republican party, just not nearly as many as with the dems. Do I think terroists will get a free pass when dems are in office, absolutley, again see above statement about Clinton being handed bin laden then letting him go. Then I wonder about what else they will get away with and the whole country won't know because the press is in ther pocket (somalia) pretty much no one knew it had happend untill the movie Black Hawk Down came out. I'm not criticizing going into somalia, but it makes me wonder what else they can hide form us. If a republican so much as picks his nose it's front page news. As for McCain if you think for some reason I think he's a republican, nope he's a RINO and just as dangerous to this country as the dems. Another reason why I think the dems are dangerous to the country because they think using torture methods against terrorists is a geneva convention violation... Well news flash you have to be a sovern country with a real army to have geneva convention rules apply. It's suppose to be US policy Do Not Negotiate With Terrorists. Whats laughable is how the terrorsits laugh at the people in the US that indirectly aid terrorism through the above stated actions.

[eric_t12]

if clinton was handed bin laden and let him go, what do you want to do? impeach him?

if bush was given authority to go find him and doesn't really care where he is, what do you want to do, impeach him?

only one is going to happen.

i dont like clinton, he was a socialist pig, but to think bush is some kind of conservative angel, (see SCHIP, skyrocketing national debt and unfunded future liabilities, Rx Drug program, giving $10B to a military dictator and spending a trillion on democracy in iraq/afgh, or renewing the assault weapons ban if he had the shot,) or the savior of the free world because he did something about terrorism (while letting bin laden go, just like clinton) is odd to me.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by eric_t12

if clinton was handed bin laden and let him go, what do you want to do? impeach him?

if bush was given authority to go find him and doesn't really care where he is, what do you want to do, impeach him?

only one is going to happen.

i dont like clinton, he was a socialist pig, but to think bush is some kind of conservative angel, (see SCHIP, skyrocketing national debt and unfunded future liabilities, Rx Drug program, giving $10B to a military dictator and spending a trillion on democracy in iraq/afgh, or renewing the assault weapons ban if he had the shot,) or the savior of the free world because he did something about terrorism (while letting bin laden go, just like clinton) is odd to me.

Eric,
I agree until we can get over the he said / she said of politics and stop blaming the other party for the problems this nation faces, we will continue to have problems.

I do find it sadly humorous that so many people can use the excuse of "But so and so did it" as a method of justifying the present against the past. That's the comical part of life. The excuses do not make anything more right and that to me is a saddly funny statement of character.

Then again, what do you expect. The mentality seems to be the way politics works these days. Gone are the days when politicians used past discrepancies as lessons to learn from. Today, errors of the past are weapons of the future, and the average citizen just follows the examples being set in Washington

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by eric_t12

as for why we haven't been attacked, its not GWB's doing. it can't be.

if you say it is, then it's equally his doing we got attacked in the first place.

I'm assuming this was directed at someone else, even though I was quoted in an unrelated portion of your response.

I specifically cited that we've endured attacks under the watch of a variety of administrations. Delija cited that it is likely a combination of several factors, including stepped up surveillance. I would agree. True, GWB has pushed strongly for increased surveillance. However he has also been completely ineffective in securing our borders, as the presidents before him. So obviously other factors are at play here.