Why haven't we had anymore terrorist attacks? Where are the "terrorists"

Maybe this is a totally obvious question and maybe it's been asked before, but I wanted to bring it up again:

Why haven't we had any more "terrorist" attacks since 9-11?

It strikes me as kind of interesting that if the terrorist threat is as bad as the Bush administration says it is, we should have had some sort of terrorist attack on American soil in the past 5 years. The borders are still open enough, there are not enough police/National Guard/FBI/etc. to guard everything, and there are enough guns, bomb-making materials, chemicals (and directions on the Internet for turning those chemicals into poison gasses, explosives, etc.) around and easily available to anyone with the money to buy them. Encryption technology is strong enough that "terrorists" could communicate freely over the 'Net and even if they weren't savvy enough to use encryption, the Internet's just too big to police every nook and cranny. There are plenty of ways for "them" to communicate and plan attacks all over the country.

Yet we've had no attacks. Not a single suicide bomber. Not a single rampaging killer linked to a terrorist group. Not a single improvised explosive device. Nothing.

I know, I know, I know...some of you will want to point out the lack of attacks as evidence that the new surveilance measures and increased security are "working." Baloney. Can a government that can't get its act together enough to deal with natural disasters (read "Katrina") somehow achive omnicient powers and become competent enough to plug every single security hole and stop every single "terrorist" from carrying out even a single attempted attack? I doubt it.

Perhaps the "War on Terror" being carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan (and who knows where else?) is working so well that the terror "cells" have been disrupted enough to stop plans from being carried out? Again, baloney. Bin Laden is still sending out tapes, we can't even put a dent in the insurgency in Iraq, and it seems like the Taliban is still doing a pretty good job operating at will in many parts of Afghanistan. If we can't stop the "terrorists" from blowing up stuff in their own countries (small, technologically-backwards countries at that), how could we stop "them" from moving freely and acting around the globe?

Yes, the London bombings do show that someone is still at work. But why not here in the US? Anyone who has ridden a ferry in the past 5 years, walked next to a government installation, freely entered a mall, strolled across a busy public plaza, or attended a sporting event and who has an eye out for security can clearly see that there are plenty of security holes out there, any one of which would be an opportunity for a "terrorist." This country's just too big, too open, and still used to too much freedom of movement to stop a determined killer.

In order to strike "terror" into Americans, an attack doesn't have to be as big as 9-11. A suicide strike that put bombers into 5 major malls across the country would probably shut down retail commerce for a month. A small group of moderately-determined and moderately-trained "terrorists" could carry out any one of these attacks outlined by G. Gordon Liddy in Omni Magazine back in 1989 (www.liddyshow.us...). (Oh, and just for the record, I'm no fan of his...I just remembered this article as particularly prescient). There are any number of ways things could go horribly, horribly wrong.

But they haven't. Why? Could it be that the "terroists" (as they've been portrayed-- as all-knowing, all-powerful, masterminds determined to take out America at all costs hiding bombs inside every backpack or shoe, magically cooking up nukes and chem/bio weapons in basement labs) don't exist and never existed? Could it be that the "terrorists" are instead a perfect enemy constructed by an administration desperate to control its people?

You have to wonder. Where are the terrorists?

Define "terrorist" and "terrorist attack"

Numerous have gone on throughout the world and even many have been foiled, especially an attack from the Real IRA in Northern Ireland.

India has had a lot of terrorist attacks lately, Sri Lanka aswell and North Africa is always suffering from incidents.

Dont take this the wrong way, but from reading this thread, its like you want another major attack to happen.

[edit on 30-5-2006 by infinite]

Simple: They will come out when Bush & Co. need them.

Anyday now.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Simple: They will come out when Bush & Co. need them.

Anyday now.

When Bush is low in the polls

First of all, I definitely DON'T want another "attack" to happen. Anyone who does is 1)crazy 2) evil or 3)both.

Secondly, I think that my definition is simple: an attack (bombing, shooting, plane-crashing, gassing, etc.) on a public target in the United States designed to kill, maim, cause economic damage, or otherwise "terrorise" the population.


Finally, I wasn't referring to any other country except the US.

Originally posted by infinite
Define "terrorist" and "terrorist attack"

Numerous have gone on throughout the world and even many have been foiled, especially an attack from the Real IRA in Northern Ireland.

India has had a lot of terrorist attacks lately, Sri Lanka aswell and North Africa is always suffering from incidents.

Dont take this the wrong way, but from reading this thread, its like you want another major attack to happen.

[edit on 30-5-2006 by infinite]

Because terrorism as the US media show them, was invented for the profit of Bush Co. and Hitler Co. Remember the reichtag fire? It was the same with 9/11. The jews did it! The muslims did it! Remember the Tonkin attack that brought US in Vietnam? Fake.

So in the end, as Hitler did it, Bush did it or let it happen. It's as simple as that.

[edit on 30-5-2006 by Vitchilo]

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Especially this part:2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Simple: They will come out when Bush & Co. need them.

Anyday now.

Huh? So, Bush controlls the terrorists? What in the hell is wrong with you?

[edit on 30-5-2006 by Dronetek]

[edit on 30-5-2006 by mrwupy]

Originally posted by Dronetek
Huh? So, Bush controlls the terrorists? What in the hell is wrong with you?

Nope, the people that control Bush control the terrorists... that's what I think anyway cause Bush is IMHO a figurehead, in fact nothing more than a puppet to be manipulated and discarded (if needs be).

It all comes down to the old question: "if a tree falls in the woods without anyone there to see it, does it really fall?"

-Sobolwolf

Originally posted by Dronetek
You people are all nuts. I cant imagine whats its like to live in the hazy, skitsophrenic world you people do.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Simple: They will come out when Bush & Co. need them.

Anyday now.

Huh? So, Bush controlls the terrorists? What in the hell is wrong with you?

[edit on 30-5-2006 by Dronetek]

You are the only one that makes sense here. I don't know were these people get their ideas from.

Whatever you do, don't believe that U.S./British/Australian/Canadian/Italian/and a whole host of other nations declared war against terrorism is having any effect, nooooo, don't believe that one! Make up all kinds of other stuff.

Truth is, the terrorists will land another strike in the U.S., sometime, somewhere, but they are currently having their little butts kicked all over the place, from the Phillipines, to Afghanasistan, Indonesia, to Iraq.

No, I think what we're trying to say is that there may not be any "terrorists." Even if you take as a given that 9-11 happened exactly as the official story stated, you do have to admit that it's kind of weird that nothing's happened since, given the depiction of the terrorists by the government. Why haven't we seen any attacks? Where are they? Why has only one person been convicted as being involved in 9-11?

But perhaps the bigger question is this: if the danger is so minimal, why continue all the current policies (rediculous airport screening, NSA wiretapping, Patriot Act, etc.)? If your answer is "because they work to catch the terrorists," then all I ask is some proof that they are working. Just because nothing's happened doesn't mean that the polcies are working unless you (and the administration and anyone else who believes this stuff) can prove that terrorists have been caught, plans foiled, etc. If they have, then where's the evidence? Where are the trials? You'd think that catching a high-level terrorist or stopping a plot would be big news. Why isn't it?

Oh, and it's "schizophrenic," not "skitsophrenic." Just thought I'd point that out to you.

Originally posted by steve99

Originally posted by Dronetek
You people are all nuts. I cant imagine whats its like to live in the hazy, skitsophrenic world you people do.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Simple: They will come out when Bush & Co. need them.

Anyday now.

Huh? So, Bush controlls the terrorists? What in the hell is wrong with you?

[edit on 30-5-2006 by Dronetek]

You are the only one that makes sense here. I don't know were these people get their ideas from.

Think of it this way drcreamcheese, the terrorists are their own, they can pick when and where to attack, you should look at the history of terrorist attacks against the U.S. since the 90s and you tell yourself why in your view not many terrorist attacks that you expect.

Some people obviously disagree with the Bush-BinLaden connection. I'm still unsure.

But one thing that is true is this. Bush and his corporation ran for reelection on the issue of security. Whether or not they were behind 911 is a separate issue. They used to iet to scare the American people into keeping a "wartime" president in office, during a "war." But we can easily that they were never really serious about security. They have bungled the war on "al queda" in Afghanistan... Taliban and Al-Queda fighters are regaining strength in certain regions. Osama still has not been caught.

The ONLY difference between now and 9/11 is that we now have, in Iraq, a place across the globe where anyone the U.S. Government has pissed off can take their shots at us. Bush and Co. themselves like to say that "we're fighting them over there instead of over here." Besides the moral transgressions this policy has inflicted on the Iraqi people, it is simply avoiding a bigger problem. We are not safer from terrorism. Anyone with a dirty-bomb can waltz across our southern border. It is obvious to everyone that this is a huge problem, yet Bush and Co. have not solved this, after FIVE YEARS POST-9/11. Why are they so slow in doing something? Is there some reason that they're not afraid? Or do they just not care?

My point is, if this issue of terrorism is so huge and life-changing for the American people etc....all the bravado and rhetoric that Bush and his parrots like to use.... if that's all true, then why have we STILL not secured our borders? Why is the main body of our collective Armed Forces concentrated in Iraq, when prior to the invasion there were no terrorists there? The Saddam-AlQueda Link is complete BS and hypocrisy. The Taliban ate lunch in Texas. We are we not concentrating on capturing Osama Bin Laden, if he is indeed the man we believe him to be? Why is Bush not concerned with getting him when immediately following 9/11, Bush was promising that we'd "bring him to justice" no matter how long it takes? What are Bush's real motives? Why doesn't someone bring HIM to justice?

Originally posted by drcreamcheese
Why haven't we had any more "terrorist" attacks since 9-11?

I think it's because 9/11 worked so well, there is no need for another attack just yet. The purpose of a terrorist attack isn't primarily to kill people, it is to cause fear. 9/11 accomplished that to an unprecedented degree and then the sitting administration took over and has helped keep the fear at high levels. Another attack would accomplish nothing, except for maybe even further erosion of civil liberties.

Fear is the commodity being traded lately, and it's being used by both the terrorists and our government. It is a powerful tool for those who seek more power.

[edit on 30-5-2006 by 23rd_Degree]

Maybe...just maybe......the terrorists......are foiled. Did you people ever stop to think
that what ever bush is doing is working ? God forbid there is a simple answer...huh?

Originally posted by firebat
We are we not concentrating on capturing Osama Bin Laden, if he is indeed the man we believe him to be? Why is Bush not concerned with getting him

Thats simple. Capture Bin Laden and the people will start saying, "OK, Thats why we went there in the first place. Job done, bring the troops home.

Capturing or killing Bin Laden will take away our reason for being there.

Just my opinion,

wupy

Just turn on the TV.

Fox News has quite a few of them on. But be careful; if you're not aware that they're lying to your face, you'll fall for the propaganda. Just ask Dronetek and others...

Originally posted by truthseeka
Just turn on the TV.

Fox News has quite a few of them on.

But be careful; if you're not aware that they're lying to your face, you'll fall for the propaganda. Just ask Dronetek and others...

I thought CNN had the terrorists on. How do you know that CNN isn't lying,because they say what you want to hear.

The simple answer would be they are focusing Iraq and Afghanistan. Why travel thousands of miles when you can travel only perhaps a few hundred to kill Americans.

One of Radical Islam's main goals is to get infidels out of Muslim land. Right now the US is smack dab in the middle of two Muslim countries. After 9-11 its pretty clear attacking the US on its own soil isn't going to make the US pull forces out of Muslim countries, quite the opposite in fact.

The way to get the US to pull out of countries is bleeding them slowly over their and eroding public support ala' Vietnam which is what they are doing. Honestly ask your self if VC terrorist came over to the US and started blowing up building during Vietnam what effect do you think that would have on the Vietnam war? The VC knew what would happen and were smart about their choice.

Originally posted by steve99

Originally posted by truthseeka
Just turn on the TV.

Fox News has quite a few of them on.

But be careful; if you're not aware that they're lying to your face, you'll fall for the propaganda. Just ask Dronetek and others...

I thought CNN had the terrorists on. How do you know that CNN isn't lying,because they say what you want to hear.

When will you learn? I already told you I don't buy that left/right crap. CNN isn't much better than Fox, only by a nose.

But, now that you mention it, the terrorists can be seen on multiple channels, especially when there's things like the State of the Union on every channel.

Aww, did you get mad because I called out your precious news station? Don't let me stop you from getting that daily dose of propaganda...