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

[Delija]

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.

Great Post!!! Maybe a bit too much logic for some, but I applaud your logic.

As for the original question....I wish I could remember the details..names, etc., but I recall a news piece on one of the "TV magazine' type shows like "60 Minutes" where they interviewed a federal marshall who flew one of the 1993 WTC bombers out of New York. Shortly after take-off, the WTC was clearly visible to the marshall and his prisoner. The marshall said words to the effect "Look, it's still standing". The prisoner said words to the effect "It wouldn't be if we had more money".

Eight years later they had the money to fund the plan that worked. But now I believe that cutting off the terror network's ease of transferring money (along with having frozen significant amounts of their assets) has been a major factor in limiting the abilities of Al Qaeda to provide the means to carry out attacks (at least to a significant degree)....Everything costs money. The 9/11 plot involved a lot of reconnaissance, the pilot training, the back and forth travel, forged documents, etc.

So maybe the bottom line is mostly about financing....sort of like the theory of how we defeated the USSR by outspending them on weapons systems, etc......certainly no terrorist organization can have the financial resources to "compete" with our zillion dollar "War on Terror" budget.

Peace,
D.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Delija

Great Post!!! Maybe a bit too much logic for some, but I applaud your logic.

As for the original question....I wish I could remember the details..names, etc., but I recall a news piece on one of the "TV magazine' type shows like "60 Minutes" where they interviewed a federal marshall who flew one of the 1993 WTC bombers out of New York. Shortly after take-off, the WTC was clearly visible to the marshall and his prisoner. The marshall said words to the effect "Look, it's still standing". The prisoner said words to the effect "It wouldn't be if we had more money".

Eight years later they had the money to fund the plan that worked. But now I believe that cutting off the means to transfer money has been a major factor in limiting the abilities of Al Qaeda to provide the means to carry out attacks (to a degree)....Everything costs money. The 9/11 plot involved a lot of reconnaissance, the pilot training, the back and forth travel, forged documents, etc.

So maybe the bottom line is mostly about financing....sort of like the theory of how we defeated the USSR by outspending them on weapons systems, etc......certainly no terrorist organization can have the financial resources to "compete" with our zillion dollar "War on Terror" budget.

Peace,
D.

Unfortunately it doesn't take a lot of money to effectively inflict terror on a country. These people have the determination and patience that will allow them to strike again. With that said, I think a lack of money & resources (due to Iraq & Afghanistan) have affected them. I wonder whether they are simply over ambitious, not that I want to give them advice. But it takes millions (guessing) to acquire some type of crude nuclear device and smuggle it into this country undetected (be it dirty bomb or whatever). The same is probably true for biological weapons. Chemical weapons just takes knowledge.

[XD 9 Loaded Sub-Compact]

Originally Posted by Delija

Great Post!!! Maybe a bit too much logic for some, but I applaud your logic.

Yes me small minded republican me want bananna. I guess since dems are so much more sophisictated, educated and intelligent I'll just drag my knuckels back into my cave.

[eric_t12]

i guess you disagree with what i said then?

its not about republican or democrat.

its about policy. republican front-runners and democrat front-runners in all areas share the same big-government, we can take care of you mentality.

The war on terror would have, in my opinion, been severely curtailed or maybe even prevented with armed citizens, read passengers on flights, or at least pilots, with the right to defend themselves. the federal government decreed "no resistance" to hijacking, and it was so. they decreed "no firearms on planes" and it was so.

teaching people to take care of themselves (ie Second Amendment security) would do as much to counter-act terrorism, imo, as being any bit as active on the borders/overall immigration like the government should be. they aren't. they don't really seem to give a cr@p about it, but seem to think that the money is equally well spent securing (insert foreign nation here)'s border/country.

In the military - you don't leave the post unprotected and send the entire garrisson off to fight at the "front", and expect your rear/flanks to be supported. Its simple common-sense, and simple strategic planning.

again - ITS NOT REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT back-and-forth, its realizing they're both working for something that really isn't what's important.

considering the "retreatist dems" started every major "war" since world war two, (and if you consider FDR as liberalAUTHORITARIAN, or "i can take care of you" as i do, you probably put him in the same boat,) i dont see how all of a sudden they want to "retreat". especially when Obama and hillary both wouldn't put down the idea of a NUCLEAR FIRST-STRIKE on pakistan or iran or whatever.

ETA: jdavionic, no i dont think any of my posts so far have necessarily been directed at you, or anyone here, except the beginning of this one obviously, its just meant to get people's minds open to more than just "this vs that", u vs me, etc vs et al.

[redhatchbox]

People are still tied up in the Al Qaida, uh, I mean... AL CIAda fear mongering?

Hey people, Bin Laden is DEAD...

Benazir Bhutto: Bin Laden Murdered

[Delija]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Unfortunately it doesn't take a lot of money to effectively inflict terror on a country. .

I agree absolutely.....terror is a state of mind and fear can be instilled with no money at all. But in today's world, and with Al Qaeda's stated goals, it takes a big expensive show as opposed to just psychological attacks that don't have a cost.

And you are right about the knowledge factor, but still.....the fear of discovery knowing how much money is spent on counter-terrorism is certainly a deterrent. So money counts in that respect. They fear our monetary resources (I believe) like we fear their sneakiness and element of surprise. Like I said in the earlier post, it's a complicated question with no simple answer. A combination of a ton of factors.

Originally Posted by XD 9 Loaded Sub-Compact

Yes me small minded republican me want bananna. I guess since dems are so much more sophisictated, educated and intelligent I'll just drag my knuckels back into my cave.

????



Another mind reader. Are there corrective lenses for that kind of reading?

Maybe you're right though. I think a "sophisticated" grammar school kid (Republican, Democrat, Whig, Independent, Whatever) would know how to spell "banana", "knuckles" and even the word "sophisticated" itself. LOL

Yeah, it's a "low blow' to point out spelling errors, but when you just beg for it..... (I'd suggest vitamin E oil on the raw knuckles)

Peace,
D.

[afmo]

Originally Posted by redhatchbox

People are still tied up in the Al Qaida, uh, I mean... AL CIAda fear mongering?

Hey people, Bin Laden is DEAD...

Benazir Bhutto: Bin Laden Murdered

I've been saying Bin Laden was dead even before bhutto was assassinated. I'm positive he's buried under a million tons of rock and dirt in the hell we dropped on Tora Bora. Ever wonder why all of his "tapes" are so general in scope? Ever wonder why they are so few and far between? Because he knew his number was coming up and made a bunch of them to be released after his death so as not to give the US a victory immediately. He's long gone, and using him as a boogie-man now is a political ploy...

[XD 9 Loaded Sub-Compact]

Originally Posted by eric_t12

i guess you disagree with what i said then?

its not about republican or democrat.

its about policy. republican front-runners and democrat front-runners in all areas share the same big-government, we can take care of you mentality.

The war on terror would have, in my opinion, been severely curtailed or maybe even prevented with armed citizens, read passengers on flights, or at least pilots, with the right to defend themselves. the federal government decreed "no resistance" to hijacking, and it was so. they decreed "no firearms on planes" and it was so.

teaching people to take care of themselves (ie Second Amendment security) would do as much to counter-act terrorism, imo, as being any bit as active on the borders/overall immigration like the government should be. they aren't. they don't really seem to give a cr@p about it, but seem to think that the money is equally well spent securing (insert foreign nation here)'s border/country.

In the military - you don't leave the post unprotected and send the entire garrisson off to fight at the "front", and expect your rear/flanks to be supported. Its simple common-sense, and simple strategic planning.

again - ITS NOT REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT back-and-forth, its realizing they're both working for something that really isn't what's important.

considering the "retreatist dems" started every major "war" since world war two, (and if you consider FDR as liberalAUTHORITARIAN, or "i can take care of you" as i do, you probably put him in the same boat,) i dont see how all of a sudden they want to "retreat". especially when Obama and hillary both wouldn't put down the idea of a NUCLEAR FIRST-STRIKE on pakistan or iran or whatever.

ETA: jdavionic, no i dont think any of my posts so far have necessarily been directed at you, or anyone here, except the beginning of this one obviously, its just meant to get people's minds open to more than just "this vs that", u vs me, etc vs et al.

Now this I can agree with. But a problem with everyone being armed on a plane is persons who take advantage of it in various way wether it be a death by armed citizen suicide or just someone on a psychotic rampage. If you were thinking maybe some kind of check or registration of the gun upon boarding the plane then I can see it as a more realistic alternative or are you thinking only concealed permit holders? But they would still set off metal detectors when trying to catch criminals and carry permits would most likely be forged for someone to get on the plane with a gun. sure you could argue that 23 armed passengers are going to beat 1-5 armed criminals, but there is also the confusion of knowing who's the good and bad guys. As much as I'd like to see armed passengers there is just to weird of a fixation on commiting crimes on a plane and think realisticly armed air marshals,piolits and flight attendents would work better. Though we will probably never see anything like that I do like where you are going with this.

I can also agree that both political parties certainly have thier faults and are more in it for them selves than for the people. But as it is for our current situation we can only use them (by voting) to achieve what we believe to be in our best social, economical ect... interests and as for now the republican party may not always follow through but they have a greater likely hood of passing or opposing bills I would like to see passed or opposed. When I say I'm republican it doesn't mean I blindly accept and follow everything they say as I'm assuming is true for the democrats. Though I am not so sure about the fainters at obama and hillary's rallies.

[XD 9 Loaded Sub-Compact]

Originally Posted by Delija

I agree absolutely.....terror is a state of mind and fear can be instilled with no money at all. But in today's world, and with Al Qaeda's stated goals, it takes a big expensive show as opposed to just psychological attacks that don't have a cost.

And you are right about the knowledge factor, but still.....the fear of discovery knowing how much money is spent on counter-terrorism is certainly a deterrent. So money counts in that respect. They fear our monetary resources (I believe) like we fear their sneakiness and element of surprise. Like I said in the earlier post, it's a complicated question with no simple answer. A combination of a ton of factors.



????



Another mind reader. Are there corrective lenses for that kind of reading?

Maybe you're right though. I think a "sophisticated" grammar school kid (Republican, Democrat, Whig, Independent, Whatever) would know how to spell "banana", "knuckles" and even the word "sophisticated" itself. LOL

Yeah, it's a "low blow' to point out spelling errors, but when you just beg for it..... (I'd suggest vitamin E oil on the raw knuckles)

Peace,
D.

Ah yes typical liberal banter, nit pick at details. Yes you are right it was a low blow but not unexpected. Did you pick that directly out of the Karl Marx err I mean the liberal tactical debate hand book?

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by eric_t12

i guess you disagree with what i said then?

its not about republican or democrat.

I think we're driving to the same location, just taking two different paths. I initiated the thread and labeled it with PV because I knew it would go down that path. But the subject goes well beyond a D & R labeling exercise.