Way off topic, but it has do to with the French

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Did we get all of them? No. But we did pretty well. And last time I
checked there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since.


One thing I've always found interesting when someone puts out the "we
haven't been attacked since" card is that no one in the national media
to my knowledge anyway, has even come close to suggesting something so
basic to common sense that it defies explanation.

Anyone with half a strategic brain has to at least consider the fact
that the reason could very well be that they don't WANT to attack us
again...at least not yet.

Attacking us again would be counter productive to the gains they have to
be seeing happening as we speak through the splitting up of the country
into war and anti-war factions with politicians from both sides fighting
with each other for "control" of the government.

Even the common man in the street can see if they just open their brains
up and THINK, that attacking us again while all this is going on would
serve to UNITE the country rather than divide it!

I could be wrong, but this seems plausible to me. Why do something that
nails a few thousand people and really ****es off the rest of the people
, when you can sit back and let the idiot politicians divide and destroy
the country for you?



If you believe AQ their goal with the 9/11 attack, the attack on the USS
Cole and their other actions was to get us and other western nations out
of the Mid-East. They failed, in fact the outcome was exactly the
opposite. And I can understand why they thought the way they did. During
the Clinton administration they attacked the WTC, the Cole and other
targets and the only response from the US was to launch a few cruise
missiles. They had no reason to think that 9/11 would have been any
different. Let's face it, there is no way in hell they thought those
towers would have fallen the way they did.

Please keep in mind that my post was about Afghanistan not Iraq. 20/20
hindsight is great and using it, attacking Iraq was probably a mistake.
The bigger mistake though was not putting enough boots on the ground to
keep AQ and other non-Iraqis out of Iraq once we did go in.

I could be wrong, but this seems plausible to me. Why do something that
nails a few thousand people and really ****es off the rest of the people ,
when you can sit back and let the idiot politicians divide and destroy the
country for you?

It's a plausible explanation, except for one thing: We're dealing with
people who strap explosives to mentally handicapped people and blow up
school buses. These aren't the sharpest sticks in the bunch, and I think
you're giving them more credit for strategic thinking than they deserve.

On the other hand, I think even the dumbest among them now realize that they
only have to wait for President Barrack Hussein Obama to win next November
and they win. Why rock the boat now?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Feb 29, 4:54*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:


I could be wrong, but this seems plausible to me. Why do something that
nails a few thousand people and really ****es off the rest of the people
, when you can sit back and let the idiot politicians divide and destroy
the country for you?


Too right! The only "terror" I see is being generated by the
governrnent against it's own citizens. Daily terror alert level?
Homeland security? When the UK was under terrorist attacks by the IRA,
it was business as usual but with increased vigilance. One should not
do what the terrorist wants -which is to disrupt your economy and
cause fear and disquiet.

Cheers

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Did we get all of them? No. But we did pretty well. And last time I
checked there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since.


One thing I've always found interesting when someone puts out the "we
haven't been attacked since" card is that no one in the national media
to my knowledge anyway, has even come close to suggesting something so
basic to common sense that it defies explanation.

Anyone with half a strategic brain has to at least consider the fact
that the reason could very well be that they don't WANT to attack us
again...at least not yet.

They may simply lack the capability to do anything credible, so rather
than do something anemic, they don't try.

I believe Osama et al have been pretty clear on their motivation for the
9/11 attacks and I believe many people have not bothered to read their
alleged grievances because they are considered the rantings of "crazy
terrorists." For the record, here are the main points and what I think
can be concluded from them:

(From the "Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

"As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling
you to, and what do we want from you?
....
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
....
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies,
immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
....
(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with
yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a
nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles
to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which
you yourself must adhere to.

(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your
support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and
to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in
Southern Philippines.

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We
desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force
us to send you back as cargo in coffins.

(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders
in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of
education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis
of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual,
theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the
Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight
with the Islamic Nation.
...."

See that "get out of our lands," "leave us alone," and the desire for
respect buried in (5), (6), and (7)?

Now contrast those 7 conditions with their lack of attacks on anything
in South America, Australia, Japan, and a lot of other countries (which
would seem to fail to meet their conditions of (1) through (3)). So the
important "trigger" points seem to be buried in the last three: don't
mess with them and they don't mess with you. A good basis for thuggery,
to be sure, but the U.S. often deals with unpleasant countries by
adopting the "don't mess with us and we wont mess with you."

So in my very humble opinion, everything seems to suggest that
disengaging from the region will have no negative affects on our
security (except oil I suppose) and has a reasonable chance to improve
it, based on the motivations Al Qaeda appears to have exhibited.

Here are some maps showing pre and post Al Qaeda attacks around the
world:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...3&source=embed
(Corresponding article:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...qaeda_map.html )

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...cksAlQaeda.png

That's a possibility, but I don't see it that way. Your hypothesis suggests
that there is a master strategy on the part of the adversary. I think that
since 9/11 we have effectively neutralized OBL. We don't have his scalp,
but his C&C has been destroyed.

Did the attacks in Spain galvanize the people against Radislam? Did the 7/7
attacks unite the British people in support of Blair? Which countries in
Europe are truly helping us in the fight against Radislam?

I think they would have done as much to us as they possibly could. The
bipartisan agreement between the D's and R's after 9/11 lasted a few months.
What did they have to lose by attacking again? My thesis is that Radislam
views us as weak, cowardly and vulnerable. An attack -- any attack -- would
have supported their view.


One thing I've always found interesting when someone puts out the "we
haven't been attacked since" card is that no one in the national media to
my knowledge anyway, has even come close to suggesting something so basic
to common sense that it defies explanation.

Anyone with half a strategic brain has to at least consider the fact that
the reason could very well be that they don't WANT to attack us again...at
least not yet.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


Did we get all of them? No. But we did pretty well. And last time I
checked there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since.


And how many in the 30 previous years?

Flydive wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


Did we get all of them? No. But we did pretty well. And last time I
checked there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since.


And how many in the 30 previous years?

WTF?

How many times had Japan attacked us in the 30 years prior to 12/7/41?

"Flydive" wrote in message
...

And how many in the 30 previous years?


Well, let's see, there was the WTC bombing in 1993, the Empire State
Building shootings in 1997, hmmm, that's all I can recall. Do I win?

"Mike Noel" wrote in
:

I guess Jay's idea of success is killing 10's of thousands of innocent
people including thousands of our troops, increasing the national debt
by over a trillion dollars, making the US look like a bully to the
rest of the world, and running our economy and military into the
ground as an inheritance for our children.


I thought that wa a given...

Bertie

It must be awful for you to watch Iraq succeeding, no? *Sorta like a
slow-motion train...construction project...


Jay,

Just curious... What is your definition of "Iraq succeeding"? I must
admit, I've been watching... and I haven't been seeing anything I
would define as "success" -- Certainly not when the total costs of war
(in $$$ and lives and the global perception of our country) are
factored in...

-Cosmo