Why hasn't there been another terrorist attack since 9/11?

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

1. We've been told that al Qaeda is a large, well-funded terrorist organization that absolutely hates the US, and is intent on scaring us through terrorist activity.

2. The additional security in this country is mostly window dressing. It restricts our freedoms more than it protects from terrorists.

3. A reign of terror is much easier to pull off than one single large event. All it takes is some creativity (not hard to come by) and a bunch of money (al Qaeda already has).

Why hasn't there been another terrorist attack in this country since 9/11? Would it really be that hard to set small homemade bombs going off in places that people are gathering? How about a daily, small explosion in malls across America killing only one or two people each time in the month leading up to the holidays? How hard would it have been to sneak a small bomb into Times Square last night? Why hasn't this happened in the last several years? Is al Qaeda being quiet to help or hurt Bush? Do they fear our retribution? Did we hamstring their operation? Is it really harder than it looks? I certainly don't want al Qaeda to do something like this, but why haven't they?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. PNACers and bushco can't risk another

[RUexperienced]

4. What is PNAC?

I just yesterday learned BFEE. Sorry if I seem ignorant.

[Minstrel Boy]

6. The Project for the New American Century

Neo-con think-tank for the likes of Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle and more, who found their way into power under Bush and have been able to act out their warlike fantasies.

They're apologists for an imperial America and the architects of "pre-emptive war." Said, a year before 9/11, that America needed a "new Pearl Harbor" to awaken it to its imperial destiny, and that the garrisoning of Iraq was a strategic goal, Saddam or no Saddam.

Lots of stuff on the web.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. PNAC "Project for a New American Century"

a group that planned bush*s Iraq long before his selection....

[maggrwaggr]

10. No problem. PNAC is "project for a new american century"

which is who is really running the country.

They have a website

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

It's all the current adminstration -- Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, even Jeb Bush and many others.

They formed this during the 1990's. They've advocated invading Iraq for years. They advocate having multiple wars on several fronts at once, for an aggressive non-diplomatic foreign policy based on military might. In other words, taking opportunistic advantage of America's status as the lone superpower to basicaly control the world.

Before the 2000 election they said their wishes probably would never be implemented unless there was "another Pearl Harbor".

Then they got into power and lo and behond we had another Pearl Harbor.

What a coincidence!

This is who is really running the country, it's all out there in the open to see, and the American "free press" isn't doing their job of educating people about it otherwise you wouldn't have had to ask who they were! :)

Many of the PNACers studied under a man named Strauss, a neoconservative who basically said that those in power needed to lie to their people because basically their subjects couldn't handle the truth.

It's all real nice stuff.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. PNAC 101...great links...research done by DU's Stephanie..enjoy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=110&topic_id=80

[ripplingwater]

15. PNAC = Project for a New American Century

These kind folks http://www.newamericancentury.org are housed within the American Enterprise Institute http://www.aei.org

This http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf was first presented to the administration in the mid-90's and summarily pitched into the trash. It is now the blueprint for the current administration. It is a must read, particularly back around page 52 where it talks about the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" in order to properly influence public opinion so they can implement this outrageous scheme. It calls for the spending of an excess of 50 percent of the GDP on the military, a Space Defense Force, and all sorts of fun. At an absolute minimum, download it and see who signed it. If the above summary and those signatures is not enough motivation to read this little gem, I don't know what is. And that goes for you beloved little FREEPERS who are lurking - read it and learn!

For some current insight to PNAC, look here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=291974 and here http://rightweb.irc-online.org/

This is the book which the UK article in the DU post refers to http://www.aei.org/publications/bookID.650/book_detail.asp

AEI is a right-wing think tank, are a frequent host of panels and such which are featured on CSPAN. They almost certainly played a powerful role in the recent Medicare legislation, and are the source of many other bits of nastiness we now confront. They are presented along with Hoover Institute, Cato and others as "highly reputable" - I'd prefer the definition to be "repukeable" personally...

Another group to familiarize yourself with is http://www.alec.org, but that is a whole story unto itself. I suggest a review of their site, and see if it troubles you like it does me.

[maggrwaggr]

23. Wow. Were we all typing those at the same time?

:)

[leftofthedial]

2. It's all phony

there are terrorists in the world, but they fear us and are far too weak to pull off anything in the US on a scale that would matter.

"Al-Qaeda" is a PR invention of the Bush GOPNAC Cabal. 9-11 was a Bush GOPNAC Cabal MIHOP operation.

Another MIHOP would backfire. The public has given up civil liberties and much of their self respect as citizens of the world to the Bush GOPNAC Cabal "war" on "terror." Another perceived failure would topple the regime.

[plaguepuppy]

5. That's easy...

They no longer hate us for our freedoms!

[NavajoRug]

3. One thing you have to understand about Americans . . .

. . . is that they are slow to anger, but can be self-centered and very unconcerned about morals when they get angry about things.

If you had one or two people dying in terror attacks in this country every week, there would be a disturbing number of Americans would consider a large-scale nuclear attack against Islamic nations around the world an appropriate response by the U.S. -- regarldess of the fact that possibly hundreds of millions of innocent people would die as a result.

My guess is that al-Qaeda never believed the U.S. would respond to 9/11 as we did -- basically toppling several governments across the Middle East, and keeping others in line through our threats of military intervention.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

16. We're protecting ourselves Swordfish style

I'd like to think that the American public is smarter than that, but then I also never thought that the American public would support such a blatant terrorist in the WH.

[notadmblnd]

7. Uh...

Cause the guvment suddenly got so good at preventin it? (scarcasim)

[TolstoyAndy]

9. Bush's poll numbers haven't been low enough n/t

.

[FireHeart]

11. The way I look at it...

They don't need to. IF it actually was an Islamic terrorist group behind 9/11, they accomplished everything they needed. They disrupted our society, created fear and set the stage for the downfall of America as we have known it. They are probably laughing their socks off at us--look at what we've allowed to happen. All in the name of "safety and security".

If it were another group, they also have accomplished their goals. Which, BTW, would be the same as the above except for one major difference. To seize power in ways we are just now seeing happen all too clearly.

But this is just my opinion. I might be as mad as a hatter. :)

[leftofthedial]

14. if it was Islamists

you are right.

Why attack again?

They already won.

We moved our troops out of Suadi Arabia.

We toppled the hated secular regime in the heart of Arab land.

We are clearly terrorized; their agents, the Bush GOPNAC Cabal are seeing to that.

we are no longer "free," having sacrificed our Constitution in the name of "security."

We have lost several trillion dollars from our economy and are now faced with a multi-hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars-per-year pricetag for the occupation of Iraq.

The Taliban controls more of Afghanistan than we do.

Game over. The Bush GOPNAC Cabal got skunked. Obliterated. Shut out.

[FireHeart]

18. What really horrifies me...

Is that so many Americans are willing to help the terrorists to complete the horror of 9/11. All they have to do is sit back, watch and enjoy the show, while we destroy ourselves by allowing Dubya to wreck havoc. True, many of us are putting up a good fight against the BFEE, but not nearly enough. When you have Big Business backing the *real* terrorists...whaddya gonna do? How do you win?

*sigh*

[TrogL]

13. BFEE/PNAC got what they wanted

• everybody stopped yakking about the "election/selection"
  
• Patriot Act
  
• destruction of the economy
  
• destruction of the surplus (which could have been used for liberal's dreaded social programs)
  
• surveilance everywhere
  
• the Afghan pipeline route (which turned out to be a fizzle)
  
• the Iraqi oilfields
  

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

19. This implies that 9/11 was LIHOP or MIHOP

Which I can believe given the large number of suspicious coincidences that allowed 9/11 to happen.

If this is true, then I worry greatly that if a Dem wins in '04 the BFEE might decide to let or make another one happen. It would be 'obvious' then that the Democrats are not capable of protecting the US.

[Minstrel Boy]

27. I don't think they would wait until after a Dem victory.

I think the implications of LIHOP or MIHOP are far more grievous.

If they conspired to do that, what are the chances that they will bow to something so quaint as the will of the people?

The intention, I think, is to never again surrender office democratically. Succession will be decided by the power brokers, and elections will be pantomimes.

[Cocoa]

17. al Qaeda doesn't do the small stuff

their prestige comes from the spectacular attacks, like the ones in Bali and Turkey, and I think they've actually become more frequent since Sept. 11, they used to be on a 2-year cycle.

[dawn]

20. I think because attacks like that take a long time to plan.

And think of the many that have been thwarted, even prior to 9/11.

[supercrash]

21. I heard from a inside source...

That the Pentagon is in a panic right now because they think there may have been a attack last night, a nation wide attack, that nobody knew about...

I heard that there have been inside reports that Al'Qaeda used a small group of guys infected with smallpox to send around the country last night to "party" with the masses



Well, OK, maybe my post is a lie...Hehe

But I am sure Al'Qaeda can attack any time they want to, our pathetic security measures couldn't stop a jaywalker

[evil_orange_cat]

22. the same reason there wasn't an attack between 1993-2001

because they haven't tried... I think there was one planned for 1999-2000 New Years but it was foiled. I doubt the Bush admin has directly foiled anything... other than it's domestic policy ;)

[linazelle]

24. How long BEFORE 9/11 was there a terror attack?

I don't get the point here. Is there some timeframe in which we are supposed to expect attacks?

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

28. The spin on 9/11 was that it was the beginning

of a reign of terror by al Qaeda against the US. The more time that passes with nothing happening the more this looks like it isn't true.

[linazelle]

34. Obviously it's not true since there were previous attacks....

[Timefortruth]

25. There aren’t all that many terrorists.

There are literally millions of targets in the US which could cause horror if attacked. There are thousands of targets which could cripple us economically if attacked. There just aren’t that many terrorists to go after them. Certainly that they are the focus of a world-wide hunt has crippled them, but if there were as many as we are led to believe the country would be devastated by now.

Remember also that the second worst terrorist attack in US history was preformed by white citizens. Who is to say that the next attack would be by Arabs who hate America? We are breeding all sorts of people who hate us more by the minute, the next time might be from somewhere that we least expect it.

What little the government is doing to avoid a domestic attack is directed at preventing 9/11, it is very naïve to think that that tactic would be used again when there are so many other possibilities.

[Intelsucks]

26. The two attempts at the WTC were separated by 8 1/2 years

maybe none was ever plannen since 9/11?:shrug:

[proud patriot]

29. Who's to say there hasn't been ?

Anthrax happened after Sept. 11th
remember those pipe bombs in the mailboxes that
happened after Sept 11th as well .
A couple in Texas was just arrained on WMD charges
the shoe bomber

well that's all I can think of off the top of my head

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. I'm starting to wonder if there really is an al Qaeda?

That doesn't meant there aren't terrorists, some of whom may be Arab or Muslim. My question is who and what is really behind them? Between the CIA, M16 and the Mossad who needs al Qaeda? Wouldn't it be possible to have agents from these orgs who infiltrate the mosques and such places, then manipulate fanatical young radicals to do their bidding? We know that Osama got his start working for the CIA, how do we know if he isn't still working for them?

Look at how many of the big terrorist attacks in the last couple of years come at just the right time and place to help the BCF cause. Just off the top of my head, we had the anthrax attack, just in time to get Congress to pass the Patriot I Act. The Bali bombings convinced Australia to join the coalition just when they were ready to bail. The bombings of British interests in Turkey just in time to turn salvage Bu$h trip to England and knock the protests off the TV, plus Tony was starting to get a little out of line so W needed to send him a strong message.

This doesn't mean that there are plenty of people in the world who hate America and that there aren't individuals or small groups of people willing and able to carry out attacks. However, fortunately most of them don't have the ways and means to do the really big stuff and resort to strapping homemade bombs on their own bodies instead. All I'm trying to say is that most of what is going on, especially the big stuff is being done by the dark actors who are running this show and al Qaeda is just a front to cover who and what is really behind most of this stuff.

[LeahMira]

31. Probably because...

1. We've been told that al Qaeda is a large, well-funded terrorist organization that absolutely hates the US, and is intent on scaring us through terrorist activity.

Al Qaeda is not particularly fond of a lot of people besides us. If we could get over our self-importance, we'd realize that they have been busy here and there all over the world. I guess deaths in other nations are a mere blip on the radar screen, though.

2. The additional security in this country is mostly window dressing. It restricts our freedoms more than it protects from terrorists.

Yep. Like a lot of things the government does, the additional security doesn't solve the problems we really have, but it does make a lot of people feel better knowing that their government is doing something... no matter how idiotic or wrong-headed that something happens to be.

3. A reign of terror is much easier to pull off than one single large event. All it takes is some creativity (not hard to come by) and a bunch of money (al Qaeda already has).

Yep. One more time... the folks who brought down the World Trade Center were armed with box cutters. Long on creativity and really short on costs, don't you think? Conversely, the U.S. is long on money but sadly lacking in creativity.

Why hasn't there been another terrorist attack in this country since 9/11? .... I certainly don't want al Qaeda to do something like this, but why haven't they?

I'd guess that they are accomplishing the same purposes just by the fact of their existence. Why should they waste resources when they already have us scared of our own shadows, and in economic decline to boot? They act when they are ready to act, and for the goals they are ready to act to achieve. Also, unlike the U.S., they are patient enough to let events take their own course.

[alfredo]

32. Keeping us waiting for the other shoe to drop is as important as

the attack. They have all the time in the world, and will pick their time and place. It is not the destruction to our infrastructure it is how we react. they really did a number on us, and were successful beyond their wildest dreams. Bush is doing their work for them, so why attack now?

[Insider]

33. war on terror

...and terror is not fighting back. very curious indeed. IMHO it's all about capabilities. they did not have the capability to pull off an attack on the scale of those on sep 11th. they never did.