RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Does the fact that there have been no ...(33 posts)

Does the fact that there have been no ...Live Steam
Sep 25, 2003 10:14 AM
terrorist attacks on US soil in more than 2 years since 9/11 mean that Bush's war on terrorism is working? I am pretty sure the slugs have been trying desperately to strike again without any success. I think the war and the measure that have been taken, are working. What say you?
re: Does the fact that there have been no ...Jon Billheimer
Sep 25, 2003 10:22 AM
I seriously doubt if the war in Iraq has had anything to do with it, since Al Qaeda has been operating out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, possibly Iran and possibly Yemen--if one is to believe press reports.

However, all the international intelligence efforts as well as continental border and internal security have most probably had a significant effect.
I think Afghanistan and international cooperation....PdxMark
Sep 25, 2003 10:36 AM
have been most successful at disrupting follow-up Al Qaeda attacks. Most post-9/11 prosecutions that we've heard about have picked-up fringe wannabes, not anyone planning a new major attack.

Iraq has been a major distraction and diversion of resources. The money we're spending there is not being spent here to provide security at ports, where we are terribly vulnerable. To the extent we are protecting our ports, its through cooperation with foreign governments in terms of documenting containers as they are shipped.

9/11 will be hard for Al Qaeda to surpass, but I'm sure they are working on it. To keep their fingers in the gamew, they may sink a cruise ship or two until they can come up with something else really big.
hart to tellDougSloan
Sep 25, 2003 10:24 AM
Several scenarios are possible:

1. We killed them or disrupted them so badly they can't get anything done;

2. That was good enough for them for a while; they got what they wanted;

3. We have actually intercepted or prevented specific attempts;

4. They have been working on something else, are just aren't ready yet;

5. Our preventative measures have stumped them, and they can't figure out what to do next;

Since nothing else has happened, you could say it's working, but then there were other periods of time with no acts and we weren't necessarily trying to prevent them. We may never know, but at least I think we can rest more comfortably knowing we are doing what we can.

I don't have much doubt that something else will happen; it will surprise us, and we'll have to react again. It may be the future of the planet.

Doug
hart to tellJon Billheimer
Sep 25, 2003 10:30 AM
Rest assured that air travel was safer on 9/12 than it was on 9/11. Which is the primary reason why I'm totally mystified that people freaked out so bad since and have stopped flying. This is one case in which ignorance truly is bliss.
Of course it was. There was no air travel on 9/12Kristin
Sep 25, 2003 10:52 AM
Is air travel more secure today than it was on 9/10? Only slightly more so. I was allowed to carry a pair of dressmaker shears (very sharp scissors) onto a plane last Christmas. You tell me.
Of course it was. There was no air travel on 9/12Live Steam
Sep 25, 2003 11:06 AM
I don't think the threat of being slashed is much of a threat any more. If those poor people on those doomed airliners knew what was in store for them on 9/11, I doubt they would have had any second thoughts about rushing the hijackers. It is almost certain that they didn't know their ultimate fate. It is also pretty certian that they figured their ordeal would end differently than it did. With hindsight being 20/20, scissors just won't cut it - no pun intended.
Yes. True enough.Kristin
Sep 25, 2003 11:31 AM
So from the perspective that the cats out of the bag and we already know the punchline... Yes, the airlines are safer now from razorblade wielding hyjackers. But this is not because airport security has improved. Its as sloppy as ever. At least at O'Hare. And if O'Hare is going to have poor security, why should anyone else put any effort out?

Beside, the terrorists are not stupid. Obviously. The are waiting and planning. I'm confident that the next time they strike, we will be left standing, jaws gaping in awe, wondering how we could have missed it. Again.
I hope you are wrong and there is no next time! nmLive Steam
Sep 25, 2003 1:00 PM
Me too. nmKristin
Sep 25, 2003 1:24 PM
hard to tellTri_Rich
Sep 25, 2003 10:39 AM
Doug makes several very sensible points, although the fact that a guy was able to ship himself as air cargo without raising any alarms does little to convince me that our air security is any better.

The situation reminds me of The Simpsons episode when the bear comes into Springfield.
"Bear Patrol"bboc
Sep 25, 2003 10:51 AM
I love that!

Lisa's explanation of the rock that keeps away Tigers is very relevant.
Related readingLive Steam
Sep 25, 2003 10:59 AM
Report from a serviceman
http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4334

Contradicting article
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2629.html

Something in between sort of - mostly pro
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10191895&BRD=1655&PAG=461&dept_id=13091&rfi=6
I wish that I knew the answer to your question . . .ms
Sep 25, 2003 11:40 AM
The apparent curtailment of civil liberties in the wake of 9/11 bothers me greatly. If I had any confidence that the actions of Attorney General Ashcroft and his like actually were thwarting terrorist attacks in the United States, I would be more willing to give the benefit of doubt to the government. But things like the government's puffing on WMDs in Iraq coupled with things like the fact that a psycho and his minor sidekick could terrorize the Washington, D.C., area for weeks last fall (remember the sniper?) and only were caught because they gave up major clues after several killings, give me little confidence in the government's claims of need for its actions or any claims that its actions actually are working.
Isn't it true that the only truly secure nations areKristin
Sep 25, 2003 11:51 AM
...The nations that instill deep fear into its citizens, build large walls around its boarders, or are small and of no consequence to anyone from the outside?
Like Canada....................................just kidding.MR_GRUMPY
Sep 25, 2003 12:22 PM
No kidding!Jon Billheimer
Sep 25, 2003 1:38 PM
I was thinking just that!:)- This is a hawks and doves thing. Being a no-threat dove has survival utility. Whereas being a hawk may be great for the ego, but the mortality rates are horrendous! Dumbya, are you listening?!
I dunno Jon, I hearsn69
Sep 25, 2003 3:46 PM
there's a group of angy, belligerant Klinkits preparing a massive assault on the Western Frontier. My buddy Chumley in Sitka is helping them, or so he claims (winter is coming-on...I think he has been hitting the bottle again).

Dovishness? Hmmm, in all seriousness, I doubt it. Perhaps it's more due to a limited role world-wide, thus the paradox of being a superpower--you can neither fool nor please all the people all the time. Granted, there are certain courses of action that engender either respect of enmity.... Still, if AQ had enough resources and reach, I have no doubt that Canada, UK, France, Russia, China and many other nations would suffer. In fact, Russia and China have been dealing with smaller AQ-related insurgencies for some time.
I dunno Jon, I hearJon Billheimer
Sep 25, 2003 5:15 PM
I think Canada only comes up on the AQ radar as a complicit toady of the U.S. It still boils down to a Hawks and Doves scenario. The higher profile you are and the more you count both politically and militarily the more enemies you're going to attract. It's just the nature of the beast.
Please explain to us what liberties ...Live Steam
Sep 25, 2003 1:05 PM
that you, personally, have been deprived of. This is a very serious matter. I'll write my congressman!
Guess I should read all the repliesmoneyman
Sep 25, 2003 1:37 PM
Before I post one just like it.

Great minds....

$$
Tell me which of your liberties has been curtailed?moneyman
Sep 25, 2003 1:36 PM
What can you not do today that you could do on September 10, 2001?

$$
Depends on how you define "your" . . .ms
Sep 25, 2003 2:22 PM
Insofar as my own personal life is concerned, I have not had any liberties curtailed (at least of which I am aware -- I am assuming that I have not been the subject of secret searches, wiretaps, etc.). However, the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States belong to all United States citizens and persons who come into contact with the United States government. I think that things like the wholesale detention of aliens after 9/11, the Patriot Act, the proposed Patriot Act II, proposed use of military tribunals, the government's resisting of court orders in the Moussoui (sp?) case, etc. have or have the potential to curtail civil liberties. The point of my original post was not that I am categorically opposed to the things that the government wants to do (or at least some of the things that the government wants to do) if the things are necessary and effective but that I do not have confidence in the government's claims of need or effectiveness. Now, I know that it is hard for the government to prove a negative (i.e., that things did not happen). But guys like John Ashcroft and George W. Bush just are not believable to me.

I thought that Ronald Reagan was a fool and was courting nuclear war during the early days of his administration. Now, I will admit that Reagan did many things right and the fall of Soviet domination in Eastern Europe was one of the things for which he can take some credit. I hope for the sake of the United States that my lack of confidence in W. and his administration also is misplaced. But, for now, I am a skeptic.
we had no terrorist attacks by outside sources for over 10 yearsrufus
Sep 25, 2003 12:59 PM
before 9/11, discounting the oklahoma/tim mcveigh bombing which by all accounts appears to be homegrown. so the simple fact that there haven't been any for two years doesn't lend itself to a sense of security that it won't happen. remember, recent news indicates that osama and his crew were working on this airplane hijacking plan for about six years before they finally put it into motion. only time will tell.
Yeah, that first WTC bombing was no biggie (nm)TJeanloz
Sep 25, 2003 1:30 PM
Yeah, that first WTC bombing was no biggie (nm)rufus
Sep 25, 2003 4:45 PM
wasn't that in 1993? i did say ten years, which now i realize i was backdating from now, and not 2001. so i made a slight error. but it still doesn't change the fact that we have had many years go by without terrorist attacks, so the simple passage of time doesn't indicate anything. only time will tell if bush's strategy has been effective, or if he has set off the largest terrorist recruiting effort in history.
How about EgyptAir Flight 990? That was 1999TJeanloz
Sep 26, 2003 5:20 AM
At first I also thought you were backdating from now, but that wouldn't make any sense, because then you would be saying we've only had one terrorist attack in the last ten years, which doesn't lend credence to what I think your point was - that terrorism was historically very rare. You can only make that point by showing how long the time period is between attacks, and it was less than 8 years between WTC attacks.

In addition, I would argue that we shouldn't differentiate between Americans and other Westerners. An attack on Europeans by radical islamists should be held in the same category as an attack on Americans.

It would be interesting to think about how many terrorist attacks there have been against clearly Western targets, but there have definitely been a lot, and they certainly started long before 9/11 and will continue long after.
the question was "on our soil". nmrufus
Sep 26, 2003 7:27 AM
Not tryin' to be a tool, butsn69
Sep 26, 2003 7:41 AM
the African embassy bombings (98) and the Cole (00) were technically on our soil.
That was the original questionTJeanloz
Sep 26, 2003 7:42 AM
EgyptAir 990 departed JFK and crashed 60 miles off of Nantucket. Probably technically International Waters, but I'd say that it was an attack (if it was an attack at all) on U.S. soil.

One could even point to the anthrax attacks, which, granted, are unsolved with some evidence pointing to domestic terror.

I know the original question was with respect to terrorist attacks "on our soil", but I posed a new one dealing with all Westerners, because I think its a very selfish trait of Americans to only care about American lives, as though they are worth more than others. I'm not saying that Western lives are more valuable - just trying to build a construct of who Islamic fundamentalists are targeting.

Terrorism is not new, 9/11 was not the beginning and it certainly was not the end.
Rufus and a couple other stoogesNo_sprint
Sep 26, 2003 9:40 AM
are too blinded by their own feelings and opinions to concede to anything that doesn't have their own bent built in. They are unable to reason objectively and understand that there are many that don't hold their own opinions and they're unable to understand that their own opinions are just that, their own opinions.
nice personal attack.rufus
Sep 26, 2003 2:27 PM
i understand perfectly. i also understand that live steam believes that simply because two years have passed without an attack withing US borders, that means the bush policy is working. yes, i know that embassies in effect, represent american soil as well, but that wasn't the gist of his statement.

tell me where i'm wrong by stating that just because two years have gone by, doesn't mean another attack can't happen. even tjeanloz says the same, and what i'm saying can hardly be construed as some raving leftist statement with no basis in reality. in fact, i'd say my statement exhibits a pretty good grasp of how things work in the real world, and don't reflect at all any political leaning to one side or the other. as i also said, whether bush's policy is working or not is too soon to tell.

i guess you must be one of those who believe that since the car hasn't broken down in six months, it's not going to ever. to say unequivocably that there won't be another terrorist attack in the US is wishful thinking. and to especially say it simply because there hasn't been one for two years is just stupid. but hopefully that will turn out to be true, and we will be spared another 9/11. but just wishing so doesn't make it so. there's a lot of work to be done regarding our borders, immigration, and freight imports that still needs to be done.
Ah, don't take it personallyLive Steam
Sep 26, 2003 5:26 PM
I am sure he means me too :O) I am not sure if it is too soon to tell. We went into Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11 and really kicked some a$$. I am sure they would love to cause some damage here in response, but have yet to do so.

Don't get me wrong. I know we must, as our great leader loves to say, be ever vigilant. This threat is not going to ever go away in my opinion. There will always be those that wish to harm our way of life in what ever way they can. There will always be those that need a cause, just or not, to make their existence and their position in their world, be more relevant (in their own minds and in the minds of their deranged followers that is).

You and others may not agree and many may see what we are doing as some form "American hegemony", as Jon likes to put it. I don't see it that way. I do see an administration that spelled out what their intentions were after the occurrence of 9/11 and are following through with that plan. Whether you want to admit it or not, we have certainly taken the game to them vs. us just sitting back and waiting for another attack. Iraq has been fruitful in capturing, and leading to the capture, of known terrorists.