How Long Will It Take For A Terrorist Attack?

[GePap]

Regarding the question in the OP, I must say most of the answers to it have been assenine.

Anyone could cobble together a quicky terrorist attack, if their aims are low enough - just gather enough to make a home made pipe bomb, set it off in a mall, and you are done. I assume the question then is a massive attack by AQ. Well, those take years to plan, a lot of money to finance, and people with skills. 9/11 was in planning for years.

The real success of the "War on Terror" has been breaking up the ability of AQ to move money around quickly, and the destruction of the training camps in Afghanistan, though that was partly offset by the war in Iraq, and on the job training. I don't think AQ will be ale to carry out any major terrorist strike against the US for several years. Whether any other organization not as prominent on our radar does is a different matter.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
My disagreement is with the concept that the goal of Al Queda's attack on 9/11 was to trigger a US invasion of the ME which would in turn trigger a Jihad against the crusaders. I'm not refuting the likelyhood it was discussed at some point. There are simply too many variables in such a process to justify any reasonable chance of success so I find it unlikely to be the reason for the attack. Bin Laden and his followers believe that the USA is morally weak (we are "the great satan" because, from their viewpoint, we have become a secular society) and that we have no will to fight. The less complicated, and therefore more likely, reason for the 9/11 attack was simply as an act of terror in order to demonstrate our weakness.

I would agree that it would be impossible to say whether AQ expected 9/11 to have any direct effects on US policy, but I also think that AQ was not disappointed or vexed that the US did invade Afghanistan or Iraq. After all, part of Osama's thinking was that his Holy Warriors had been able to defeat the Godless Communists, and that if given a chance they could also defeat the Godless Americans.

[Arrian]

See, that's what I keep coming back to: the Soviets in Afganistan. OBL and his ilk like to think that they single-handedly defeated the USSR. It's a tad much, but they appear to believe it. Thus, they might really believe that they can defeat the USA (and watch it collapse as a world power) the same way. Ergo, provoking the USA into a direct confrontation on "their turf" might really have been their goal.

Hey, I could be wrong, but it makes sense. I concede that Spencer's analysis also makes sense.

-Arrian

[germanos]

IIRC, Bin Laden himself was a bit surprised about the collapse of the WTC towers. So maybe the massive response to the attacks were a bit more then he had hoped for.
Remember as well the the world as whole stood with the US after the attacks and the months that followed. That's perhaps been the hardest blow: he didn't gain support, he lost most that he had.

[Arrian]

I don't think he particularly cares about, as you put it, the world standing with the US (for a little while, anyway) after 9/11. "The world" of which you speak is basically the Western World. That's not his target audience. Neither are the governments in the Arab/Muslim world. The target audience is young muslims that he and his cohorts might be able to radicalize. And I don't think that group stood with the US after 9/11. I think that group cheered.

The loss of support AQ has suffered boils down to two things, I figure: 1) the "WoT" - both the Afganistan mission and the less showy law enforcement bit; and 2) AQiM's handiwork in Iraq and the backlash against it.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

You speak of years, GePap. Why do you assume it's not in the planning stage already? Even finalized, for that matter.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Will
One of the terrorists' top goals is getting all infedels out of the Middle East. If they attack America when there is a Republican president again, they know that goal will be near impossible for a long time.

Actually, one of their goals was drawing us into wars which we can't win, thus breaking our power. That's why the terrorists want a GOP president, because they're easier to goad.

Not that a Democratic President would let a 9/11 style attack go unanswered. As history shows, both parties are more than willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of American children and millions of insignificant lesser humans, to make themselves look big and tough and protect American profits. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, all started by Democrats.

[David Floyd]

che,

Not that a Democratic President would let a 9/11 style attack go unanswered.

Your point is that they should?

As history shows, both parties are more than willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of American children and millions of insignificant lesser humans, to make themselves look big and tough and protect American profits. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, all started by Democrats.

WWI, started initially by the interlocking alliance system of Europe, although if I were to pinpoint blame, it would probably lie with Russia. The US entered the war following unrestricted submarine warfare, although yes, you could make the argument that we did it to protect our profits.

WW2, started by Adolf Hitler in Europe and the Japanese military machine in Asia and the Pacific. Can't really blame the US for that one, can you? I suppose you could argue that we were unjustified in prosecuting German U-boat contacts prior to war, but that didn't cause Pearl Harbor, now did it?

Korea, started by a crazy North Korean dictator, backed by the ChiComs and the Soviets.

Vietnam I'll grant you - we probably never should have been there.

[Patroklos]

Actually, one of their goals was drawing us into wars which we can't win, thus breaking our power.

Why people feel the need to taylor AQs intentions to whatever actually happened in response to their actions to make them masterminds I will never know.

It really is a very unintelligent way to examine things. Let me try.

The US maintained forces not to offset Saddam's aggression in Kuwait as is obvious, but REALLY because they wanted to provoke a major terrorist attack so we had a reason to invade Afghanistan! FUN!

[chequita guevara]

The U.S. didn't have to enter WWI, provoke Japan, or occupy Korea. Democrats made all those decisions which either started war out right, or would inevitably lead to war.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Why people feel the need to taylor AQs intentions to whatever actually happened to make the masterminds I will never know.

It really is a very unintelligent way to examine things. Let me try.

The US wanted a major terrorist attack so we had a reason to invade Afghanistan! FUN!

Aside fro the fact that there are millions of people who believe that (and there is some veracity to that statement given that the government had plenty of warning, even up to the President that an attack was imminent), AQ had been saying for years that's what they wanted to do. No one has had to infer anything about their motives. AQ was explicit.

[Patroklos]

Aside fro the fact that there are millions of people who believe that (and there is some veracity to that statement given that the government had plenty of warning, even up to the President that an attack was imminent),

Yes, they are called truthers, who are summarily laughed at my many hundreds of millions of other people who are now laughing at you as well given the above statement.

AQ had been saying for years that's what they wanted to do. No one has had to infer anything about their motives. AQ was explicit.

Please quote me one source from beforehand saying AQ wanted us to invade anyone but also Afghanistan specifically and destroy their one openly friendly government backer and unreachable safehaven.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The U.S. didn't have to enter WWI, provoke Japan, or occupy Korea. Democrats made all those decisions which either started war out right, or would inevitably lead to war.

Hindsight...

Embargos do not always lead to war.

[David Floyd]

The U.S. didn't have to enter WWI,

Granted.

provoke Japan, or occupy Korea. Democrats made all those decisions which either started war out right, or would inevitably lead to war.

We did not, as you put it, provoke Japan. If we did anything of the sort, it was in response to Japanese aggression, some of it directed at as (see USS Panay incident, for example). The embargo against Japan was to discourage them from prosecuting an offensive war against China. They could have avoided war but avoiding war, simple as that.

As for Korea, of course we occupied it - would you rather we left the Japanese Army there? We put troop sin Korea to assist in an orderly transfer of power and te establishment of civilian government, both of which happened. The Communists didn't like the outcome - imagine that - so they responded by invading - again, imagine that.

[Patroklos]

or occupy Korea

Because as history has shown the millions upon millions of prosperous and free South Koreans would be so much better off under Northern overlords. You do remember Korea was a UN enterprise, right?

Oh, I forget, if it wasn't for all the capitalist interference North Korea would be a communist Utopia right? RIGHT