Terrorist attack

[Maverick]

What do you believe is the reason why we haven't had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11?

Is it because we are safer since then? Has the Homeland Security Department proven successful? Is Al-Qaeda simply choosing not to attack at this time? Is there another goal in mind?

Just throwing some ideas out there. What do you think?

[iJack]

One reason is because we could defend our selves pretty darn good, with our army growing and developing better weapons 24/7

[redcar]

In fairness the army has nothing to do with it. There wouldn't be comparable difference between now and pre 2001, in relation to the army.

The reason there hasn't been an attack is because they have chosen not to. Increased security is not a deterrent to these types of people. Anyone willing to kill innocent civilians is an extremist of the highest order. Now they are just waiting like they always do. The next terrorist attack on US soil will prob occur in about 5 to 6 years. When people start to feel safe again. Terrorists can't have people feeling safe.

[Oblivion]

Well in comparison, why hadn't we had big attacks for many years BEFORE 9/11? I agree with alex- The reason there haven't been any attacks is because they choose not too. I think it would be fairly easy for them to terrorize, because bush is a flaming idiot (:)) Anyway, i disagree with the army part because in all honesty we have not a stronger army with huge weapons, but a weaker army with 4075 less US soldiers

[Maverick]

I agree with Alex that they simply have chosen not to attack us.

Some people claim that we're fighting them abroad so we don't have to deal with them on our own soil. But in reality they did want us over there with a different goal on mind.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

[Underground_Network]

I agree with Alex as well, I believe they have chosen not to attack us. I think that, though the may not be thinking this, it might be a good idea on their part to hold off on attacks for awhile. This could create a false hope, giving Americans this idea that are security is so amazing and that there's no way in hell there will be another attack on U.S. soil. After awhile, people could become so secure and so full of optimism, thinking Oh, terrorists can't touch us, that we could stop thinking about terrorism altogether, and just get it out of our heads. Eventually, the terrorists could strike again, this time with something even bigger than 9/11. It really makes sense. Just let the memories fade away, let people began to think that everything is okay, and then BAM, just hit 'em hard and screw up society yet again.

[Patchy]

As everyone else has said, it's not because the army is better or security is stronger, its because Al-Queda are waiting for the moment where no one expects it. It's like having a computer firewall on High eventually you realise its causing problems for others and making life more difficult so you step it down to normal and suddenly you get attacked.

That's what I think is happening, security can't stay this high for another 5-10 years.

[Antares]

I think there have been attempts they just have usually been foiled. For intance, finding bombs on that one flight inbound to here. I do think that the terrorists are somewhat put off by the heigtened securtity. I think another attack is inevitable but it may be a while before they are successful. So yeah...

[myskias]

personally i think our country did nine eleven because of how corrupted and f'ed up it is... thats my opinion and i have looked for evidence, but alot of it could be true but theres no support to the evidence.

[Underground_Network]

Bush is too effing stupid to have thought up something like 9/11... Terrorists did it, plain and simple. But then again, what makes a terrorist a terrorist? Even if the government did it, wouldn't that still make it a terrorist attack? Wouldn't that make THEM terrorists? Regardless of who did it, we can consider whoever did it a terrorist or a group of terrorists. Will there be another terrorist attack? Probably. Will it be on a massive scale? Possibly. Will it be on a smaller scale? Equally possible. Who knows? If it happens, it happens. To tell you the truth, depending on what you classify terrorism as, terrorism could technically be happening everyday. Hell, if terrorism has anything to do with being terrified, I'm terrified everyday. And if a terrorist is someone who strikes terror and fear into a person or multiple people, then hell, even I'm a terrorist...

[Sugaree]

If you think it's because the protection has increased then that's bullshit.

It's because the terrorist are waiting until we let our guard down just like on 9/11/01.

Once we let our guard down then they will be on us like white on rice. The thing is when they built the Twin Towers, they didn't think that someone will just fly right into them. It was a sense back then, that we were safe as long as we had good protection. The thing is that they will wait for one time that all guard is down and then they will strike.

And the way it's going, I'm saying that nukes are going to be the primary

[Underground_Network]

Lulz... I don't think nuking would classify as a "terrorist" attack.. I think that would be a bit higher than that... Maybe we could classify it as an act of war? Who knows... But the U.S. getting nuked by terrorists? Again... it depends on your definition of terrorist... Is anyone who attacks the U.S. a terrorist? I mean, what makes a terrorist a terrorist? Does he have to be from the Middle East? Huh?

[Sugaree]

I don't think that all of the terrorist are from the Middle East. To me, that's profiling.

It could be a nuke. But if they have the power to make multiple bombs and attack major cities then what happens?

[redcar]

Nukes? Nah they are just silly. They are too protected and very traceable.

Viral warfare is where we are going. A virus can be the more deadly than a nuclear bomb and the great thing is a virus can leave most of a countries wealth intact.

Act of war is only when it is done by a country... keep an eye of Russia. They are like an injured animal slowly getting better and waiting to strike again. Look at their political structure. Putin is not letting go.

[Underground_Network]

My point is.. WHAT MAKES A TERRORIST A TERRORIST? If China chose to nuke us, would that make them TERRORISTS? Huh?

EDIT: I agree with Alex that viral warfare/biochemical warfare could be big... If someone were to make a hybrid of ebola and any quick spreading disease, or if someone were to make an airborne form of ebola, it is rumored that the entire human population could die out in a matter of days.

ALSO: Technology is also coming back to fuck us... Imagine somebody cutting all the power, locking you in permanent darkness, the only light from candles and the sun... Imagine someone destroying all ways of communicating to the outside world... Imagine someone terminating transportation... Making it impossible to get anywhere besides on foot and quite possibly by bike... Imagine hell on Earth... We've become so dependent on technology, that if someone were to take it away from us, we'd all go crazy...

[redcar]

No because countries can not be terrorists. If China did that then it is war. Plain and simple out and out war.

[Underground_Network]

Bleh, I meant if a "group" in China were to take over the country and nuke us, would that make them "Terrorists"? Again, no one is defining "terrorist" and if anyone posts a Webster's definition they will be ignored [by me at least].... I'm tired of general classifications.. What is a terrorist in your opinion? I'm not sure I know what a terrorist is anymore.

[redcar]

If a group takes over China then it is China commiting an Act of War.

To me a terrorist is a person or group.... not a country.... who strike fear into innocent peoples hearts by committing acts of a vile nature.

[Underground_Network]

Still, you're saying that a GROUP takes over a country, so were they to be considered terrorists up until the point when they SUCCESSFULLY took over the country? Or were they never considered terrorists or what? So here we have an absurd scenario, but still a strangely possible one: Al-Qaeda takes over the United States. Al-Qaeda then launches a nuke from the U.S. at Russia. Is it considered an act of terrorism or is it considered an act of war? If the people of the United States were suppressed and wanted to have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and in a sense, despite controlling the government, it was not the country as a whole, but the group, Al-Qaeda, that chose to launch the nuke, couldn't it be considered an act of terrorism, rather than an act of war by the U.S.? Couldn't it be considered more of an act of war by Al-Qaeda?

[redcar]

You see it comes down to legalities of it. Yes it would be considered an act of war by the USA. Its just how it is. Countries go to war.

[Underground_Network]

So technically 9/11 wasn't a terrorist act, correct? Wasn't the group that went through with that also in charge of the government at the time? Thus, 9/11 was an act of war, not a terrorist act, am I correct [though weren't we already at war at the time... And I could be wrong about them still being in charge in terms of the gov't.]

[redcar]

You mean the Taliban? The Taliban and Al Qaeda are two different things altogether. They may have similar values towards the west but they didnt commit the terrorist attacks. However in the end it did turn out they were kicked out of power by the USA.

[Zephyr]

Ditto on Alex's first post.

If they wanted to attack us, they would and could at any given time.
For all we know, (and this is an exaggeration) they could have families immigrated here, raising their children to be terrorists. Anything is possible.

[0=]

Terrorists are any disturbed individuals in the world wishing to cause harm and damage to control people with fear. When you say "they" I assume you're referring to Al Qaeda. Terrorists are more than just Al Qaeda. Anyone has the potential to be a terrorist given the correct situation. It's similar to gang psychology.

[Whisper]

In fairness the army has nothing to do with it. There wouldn't be comparable difference between now and pre 2001, in relation to the army.

The reason there hasn't been an attack is because they have chosen not to. Increased security is not a deterrent to these types of people. Anyone willing to kill innocent civilians is an extremist of the highest order. Now they are just waiting like they always do. The next terrorist attack on US soil will prob occur in about 5 to 6 years. When people start to feel safe again. Terrorists can't have people feeling safe.
Agreed
theres been a few half assed attempts stopped like the attempted Toronto bombing

But if they REALLY wanted to hit us hard they could
and theres not a dam thing we could do about it

[Underground_Network]

Terrorists are any disturbed individuals in the world wishing to cause harm and damage to control people with fear. When you say "they" I assume you're referring to Al Qaeda. Terrorists are more than just Al Qaeda. Anyone has the potential to be a terrorist given the correct situation. It's similar to gang psychology.

So a leader of a country could be a "terrorist" correct?

[0=]

By literal definition, yes. If you use fear to control the masses you're a terrorist. I consider the United States government and the media networks terrorists.

[Aηdy]

In fairness the army has nothing to do with it. There wouldn't be comparable difference between now and pre 2001, in relation to the army.

The reason there hasn't been an attack is because they have chosen not to. Increased security is not a deterrent to these types of people. Anyone willing to kill innocent civilians is an extremist of the highest order. Now they are just waiting like they always do. The next terrorist attack on US soil will prob occur in about 5 to 6 years. When people start to feel safe again. Terrorists can't have people feeling safe.

I agree completely!

[Underground_Network]

By literal definition, yes. If you use fear to control the masses you're a terrorist. I consider the United States government and the media networks terrorists.

Damn, so do I. But I mean, the media networks aren't exactly terrorists, but they're definitely damn close... Maybe accessories? Anyways... Terrorism is so hard to define because different people interpret in different ways, and it's a fact that half the population [U.S.] probably isn't even sure what terrorism is and just throw the word around not knowing what it truly means [if it truly has one, individual meaning that we all can reach a consensus on]

[Uhh.Huhh RAN_DOM]

Yes i do thin we we have another WW in ours hands at the moment with bio and nuclear wepons around iam glad we have the U.N to hopefully kep peace between the world me being from the .U.S i think the goverment is stupid and should let other countries handle their own business and not "butt in" but um yeah we will eventually have a another terroist attack i think maybe 2yrs or so after the troops are back home and everyone gets all calm and happy that their home.I hate to say it but we might even have another holocasust of some certain ethnic group and that will lead us into another WW except the warfare will be worse and may even be on us soil i think russia will team up the middle east and maybe even attack isreal after the third temple is completed ,but i think the us is too"stuck up" to have anyone fight on our soil i mean i wouldn't like to but its verrrrry possile that it will happen

[Nihilus]

I've read so many books on 9/11 and watch movies that I really believe that the bush administration was behind the incidant so that we can go to war. Al qida Could have but to me its not likely that they attacked. well ya im really suprised that they haven't bombed the shit out of the USA.