View Single Post
  #10  
Old November 26th 04, 03:48 AM
Judah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Mike V. wrote:


Snip

... The unknown downside is that this passive
approach likely would have encouraged more 9/11 like attacks and the
cost of them would have been horrendous.


Matt


Your presumption is that there will not be anymore 9/11 like attacks.

In fact, both before and after 9/11/2001, there have been many Al Qaeda
sponsored terrorist attacks.

See http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html

In the 8 years between 1993 and 9/11/2001, there were 5 Al-Qaeda
sponsored terrorist attacks on US properties (including the 1993 bombing
of WTC, but not including the attack in Seattle that was foiled). None of
those properties were actually here on the MainLand.

In the 3 years between 9/11/2001 and today, there have been 15 Al-Qaeda
sponsored attacks, 3 of which were directly on Americans or American
properties (not including the Shoe Bomber who was foiled). Of course,
none of them has been on the MainLand either.

Statements like yours seem to be founded on some fantasy that the Bush
approach - our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan - has somehow discouraged
and curtailed terrorist attacks.

The unfortunate reality is that it clearly has not. And only time will
tell whether they will be able to deliver another attack on our MainLand
again. It is unclear what effect ANY other strategy would have had on
terrorism - whether more or less aggressive than Bush's. But make no
mistake. Terrorist attacks on the US are not DOWN as a result of Bush's
tactics...