topic deserves its own thread.

we havent seen an real acts of terrorism since 9 11. and nobody has given me a plausible explanation.

id like to hear some.

im just asking for salsburyspam...but meh...

10/29/2005 7:27:46 AM

how often have terrorist attacks in the past been spaced out? Just b/c there is a "war on terror" doesnt mean the number of attacks on the US will increase seeing as we have been in the middle east for a long time.

10/29/2005 11:46:29 AM

Stop cluttering my soap box with your shitty threads.

10/29/2005 11:57:28 AM

Allah isn't willing after all.

10/29/2005 12:06:35 PM

obviously its because of bush's antiterrorism campaign, the patriot acts, and the increased security

because terrorists on suicide missions care how dangerous the mission is

10/29/2005 12:20:18 PM

why would they need to attack again?

10/29/2005 12:27:51 PM

i'm still shocked that we haven't seen a single person strap explosives to himself and detonate them in a crowd.

10/29/2005 12:29:20 PM

i am too

that would be true terror

especially if they did it in Podunk, USA

10/29/2005 12:32:57 PM

yep

10/29/2005 12:45:12 PM

Quote :

"why would they need to attack again?"

correct answer

10/29/2005 12:47:47 PM

the reason we haven't been attacked is because of a number of reasons

A) the wars in afghanistan and iraq are incredibly distracting to the islamic jihadists

however, obviously london has proven that they can still manage to pull off minor attacks elsewhere

B) The US has draconian surveillance and detention policies which have crippled domestic cells' ability to strike

C) the top-notch strategists and coordinators of the terror organizations are too busy driving between all their safe houses to effectively raise funds and deliver the kind of leadership and resources necessary for a massive attack

[Edited on October 29, 2005 at 12:59 PM. Reason : sa]

10/29/2005 12:58:38 PM

^ this is just wishfull thinking

10/29/2005 1:03:49 PM

no, its not.

10/29/2005 1:22:32 PM

Have they reported catching any terrorists trying to enter the country?

10/29/2005 1:31:34 PM

as i suspected..nobody aggrees

10/29/2005 2:04:04 PM

because we've ripped ourselves apart internally in the aftermath of 9/11

why would they attack us again? it would just unite us. they don't want that.

10/29/2005 4:00:41 PM

absence of evidence is evidence of absence

10/29/2005 4:02:11 PM

It's my magic rock.

Ever since I'v ebeen using it, we haven't been attacked.

It also protects us from tigers.

10/29/2005 4:03:56 PM

the number of terrorist attacks my muslims in the USA is very low so just because 9/11 happened and the war on terror is occuring doesnt mean the number of attacks is going to sky rocket.

10/29/2005 4:11:43 PM

^^ i'd like to buy your rock

10/29/2005 4:21:27 PM

Quote :

"it would just unite us."

hmmm...i would wonder

10/29/2005 4:49:38 PM

because the US has cracked down hard after 911. if i am not mistaken, terrorist acts HAVE been stopped from happening post-911.

anyway, after 911 the US learnt its lesson.

after 311, europe (minus UK) learnt its lesson.

and now, after 77, UK is learning its lesson.

here is what i mean by this:

i read an investigative journalist's article in a UK newspaper when i was there in the summer. it talked about how muslim extremists were using the internet to recruit, signal, disseminate info, and order attacks.

the journalist went to several public libraries and looked up the internet histories. in each library, he found several pages on extremist sites with bomb-making directions, messages urging and praising extremists, and so on. furthermore, he watched several people come into libraries and access such pages in full view.

he pointed out that post-911, the US made it impossible for such things to happen, by making laws against accessing such info, and even putting notices in libraries that people accessing such sites will be prosecuted.

so post-911, the US got tough.

europe and UK were complacent.

then came 311, and europe got tough in a similar fashion.

UK still remained complacent in the name of human rights.

(not complaining about human rights, but allowing people in public libraries to access bomb-making instructions, and then complaining about it when they explode a bomb is dumb)

then came the london bombings on 77, and only now is the UK starting to get tough on fiery mullahs and young recruits into this non-islamic jihad.

10/29/2005 9:49:13 PM

these are dates, not fucking slogans.

10/29/2005 9:55:23 PM

what's your fucking point?

if i want to write 9/11 as 911, that's my fucking business.

as if you have never seen it written as 911 before

10/29/2005 9:58:14 PM

he's just upset that these events actually occured and he'd rather us not talk about their occurences

liberals hate it when you disturb any of the sand they've so carefully placed around their heads

10/29/2005 10:31:54 PM

Circus of the Stars and CBS programing. It apears that morals are more than just relative to cultures

10/30/2005 11:45:32 AM

The information on how to be a terrorist is still relatively available in the US, especially to anyone with an education in certain fields or just a generally sharp mind. Perhaps our crackdowns on information on the internet around here have made it more difficult for idiots to get idiot-proof bombmaking directions (as 0EP suggests), but I don't know how much difference that has made.

What I think has had more of an impact is our top-to-bottom assault on their communication as per coordinating and ordering attacks. If the guy who's smart enough to make a bomb wants to do so in a way that's at all affiliated with al Qaeda in an official sense, he has to be able to get in touch with someone, and that someone is probably either in jail, hiding out, or under such close surveilance that it's hard for him to talk to anybody unnoticed.

So the raw material of terrorism, so to speak, is still as out there as ever, but the tools for shaping it up are not.

10/30/2005 5:49:48 PM

Quote :

"B) The US has draconian surveillance and detention policies which have crippled domestic cells' ability to strike"

For example, everyone crossing the border with Mexico has been authorized to do so, photographed and fingerprinted and is accounted for at all times.

10/30/2005 6:43:09 PM

they may or may not be able to cross the border successfully... regardless, once they're over here they'll still have to gather materials, establish safe houses, case the targets, and establish communications with semi-official branches of the movement they are acting for

and all of those things are crippled severely by what you just quoted

10/30/2005 6:54:19 PM

summary of leading thoeries

-they dont want to attack us
-We're 1337 and we captured em all
-magic rock



[Edited on October 30, 2005 at 7:46 PM. Reason : missing?]

10/30/2005 7:45:37 PM

because Baghdad is closer than NYC

10/30/2005 7:59:30 PM

^that falls under the category of "they dont want to?"

becuase its not like they can catch a boat or plane or whatever

10/30/2005 8:07:30 PM

"we haven't been attacked" because of your perception of who "we" really includes. They (I'm assuming you're talking about bin laden and his goons when you say terrorists) HATE and want to KILL EVERYONE that is not a fundamentalist islamic, not just us (americans). There have been plenty of attacks, just none quite as big. Not to mention they're doing their best to kill as many of our soldiers as possible. Those insurgents aren't all Iraqi's, they're coming from other groups to get their licks in on us. So that and the fact that the amount of spending and man power going toward anti-terrorism is a shit-load more than it was before then (don't feel like looking up the exact #'s but we all know it is). That might make it atleast a little more difficult for them. Why did "9/11" work so well for the terrorist? Because it came at a time we absolutely did not expect it.

Quote :

"we havent seen any real acts of terrorism since 9 11"

I bet people in Spain and the UK, as well as other places would say "you're a dumb, arrogant american". We know the French would to, but they don't have the same thing in common as the other 2 countries. (You know, the terrorist attacks that weren't "real")

And... How do you know we haven't prevented any planned attacks? There are obviously many situations where there would be no proof of stopping an attack. When they shut down the NY subways... how do we know that by doing so the terrorists plans were or weren't thwarted? Maybe they were, maybe the information wasn't valid and there was no plan to attack, or perhaps it was a test. We have done this in many wars. Send a series of messages to which you can predict the enemies reaction. If they react, obviously they intercepted the instructions. If not then it may be a safe way to communicate for the time being.

So my theory as to why "nobody has given you a plausible explanation" is because the claim which you are trying to have explained simply is not true.

[Edited on October 30, 2005 at 10:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2005 10:54:57 PM

george bush is behind the 911 attacks. it's true. i promise.

10/30/2005 11:12:10 PM

Because Bush is such a GOD damn great president he scares them away....and nobody messes with Texans!

[Edited on October 31, 2005 at 1:11 AM. Reason : w]

10/31/2005 1:10:58 AM

Quote :

"we havent seen any real acts of terrorism since 9 11" I bet people in Spain and the UK, as well as other places would say "you're a dumb, arrogant american". "

WE is us. We is not them. This thread isnt about other countries.

That would be down-right un-american.

10/31/2005 1:22:49 AM

Quote :

"-they dont want to attack us -We're 1337 and we captured em all"

Are we that good? No. We know we have porous borders...which leaves us with option 1

THEY DONT WANT TO

THERE IS NO TERRORIST THREAT

am i wrong here?

10/31/2005 1:23:45 AM

you seriously missed my point. Which is that they have many fish to fry, not just us. We are not their only enemy. So what we know is that they have had no successful attacks on the U.S.. And that's it. You could say they haven't attacked us because they have other targets which are easier to access than the U.S., it being on another continent and having better security than before. And they are sending people to the war fronts to help kill our soldiers, so it's really not like they aren't killing americans, and i'm sure they are trying to plan all kinds of shit. They will want to strike when we aren't expecting it, that will make it much easier for them and more devastating to us. Also with their people on the war fronts they are lacking resources. They don't nec. have enough people to do the planning/fighting/and to come to the U.S. and acquire weapons under radar.

Also rather you want to believe it or not we actually are pretty damn good and have captured a lot of key players from al queda. See First In Afghanistan: How the CIA Spear-headed the War on Terror by Gary Schroen.

10/31/2005 7:55:41 AM

Yes, you are wrong here. They have been arrested attempting to blow shit up, therefore they OBVIOUSLY want to, they are just currently being befuddled. I have no doubt they will one day suceed, but it may be another decade or so.

10/31/2005 7:56:28 AM

My only explanation...because we exterminated them electromagnetically (min. 1:31)

11/1/2005 8:59:40 PM

because they found out we actually had a president with the balls to go after them when we got attacked to begin with. it's all political anyways right? now would be a smart time for instance, because the morality of this country already blows. now that they can see how few Americans actually back the President when things aren't going all goodie goodie.. well, don't hold your breath for any promises of no more attacks. especially after '08 rolls around.

11/1/2005 10:54:33 PM

anyone remember when Clinton blew up that toothpaste factory in Afganistan? Remember how much shiiiiiiiiiitttttt he got! he was def not fighting terrorism

11/1/2005 11:30:18 PM