A careful study of Osama bin Laden’s videos, letters and Internet statements makes clear that Al Qaeda’s goal is more than to terrorize Americans or to drive us out of the Middle East. Bin Laden believes that Al Qaeda can bring about the economic collapse of the United States — and to achieve this goal, he has adopted a strategy of targeting America’s financial centers and economic infrastructure.
[...]
But the terrorists don’t have to be right to be emboldened. Clearly the daily news reports of our economic turmoil feed into Bin Laden’s deep-seated belief that America is teetering on the economic brink — and that with one big push, we can be forced into collapse. The financial crisis can only be serving to convince Al Qaeda that the time to strike America is now.
[...]
The lack of another catastrophic attack on the United States, combined with the massive defeat terrorists have suffered in Iraq, sends a message to the Muslim world that Al Qaeda is losing its war with America. The terrorists need to pull off something spectacular to prove that they are still a force and a threat. Al Qaeda’s growing desperation to strike America, and our perceived growing vulnerability, are a dangerous combination.
Blowing up Washington DC with a nuke may be hard to do but getting across the border from Mexico on foot seems to work 9 out of ten times.
A couple of guys packing in semiautomatic weapons can then steal transport and go just about anywhere, break into a school and have a lot of fun killing western Godless demons spawn until somebody shows up who is both armed and can hit the broad side of semi and thus can reasonably be expected to take them down.
At best it’s going to take 15 or more minutes for the our good guys to show up during which time our version of the bad guys should be able to unload a few hundred rounds with no more trouble than drowning boxes of baby chicks.
After which point in time everybody in this country is going to freak out and demand an army be stationed at every school with security that would to credit to your typical high security prison.
Most schools either have what amounts to no security against somebody with a brain who came prepared or an old guy with a hand gun they just about know how to fire who either is going to run or die real fast.
Just sharing my personal nightmare.
Of course 19 may have point. “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Most of what I see coming out of Washington suggests the people in charge have been promoted to positions that are well above their level of competence.
If anyone actually thinks the people who voted for that last spending bill had more than a very vague idea of what they voted for they are nuts.
“Most of what I see coming out of Washington suggests the people in charge have been promoted to positions that are well above their level of competence.”
Well said, Deowll.
Actually, I think an AQ attack will be a repeat of Dec 07, 1941.
Imperial Japan thought that a good hit against the US would break us and allow them to rule unhindered over Asia and the western Pacific. At the time we were weakened by a severe depression and an outdated military.
I find that the our enemies harm themselves more when they underestimate us, or fail to recognize our ability to reinvent ourselves.
An AQ attack would be their death sentence, not ours.
Indeed, they could hit us with 10,000 9/11′s, and we would still suffer far fewer casualties per-capita then Russia did during WWII.
The thought that another attack would be the end of everything is a unique delusion that our leaders have embraced. It says more about their cowardice and dislike of our constitutional system than it says about the character of the American people.
# 20 Li said, “We could have easily stopped the 9/11 attacks using the practices in place under Clinton,”
Obviously not. The guys came in under Clinton’s watch & the practices hadn’t yet changed when they struck on 9/11.
Other than being totally wrong, good point.
# 21 deowll
If you knew more about the 1st sentence that you typed, you wouldn’t sleep at night, ever again.
Well, besides that ubiquitous “#2″ who we killed, what, 15 times?
That #2 is like the Oldest Person on Earth…they keep dying. What’s the deal with that, anyway?
How come we don’t see the threat level so much these days? That’s all I care about…when it gets to orange I’ll start paying attention again.
The worst terrorist attack in U.S. history took place while George W. Bush was president. He didn’t have a clue it was coming. Not much of a protector.
#25 Two words, Paddy-0; “Millennium plot.” Google it. I don’t care if we have a thousand extra nutters in the country, it will only raise the nutter/sane ratio very slightly, what I care about is whether they accomplish their objectives. Clinton’s record on this matter was far better than Bush’s.
# 28 Canucklehead said, “The worst terrorist attack in U.S. history took place while George W. Bush was president.”
Exactly. He wasn’t quick enough to realize that the Clinton policies left us open to attack. Just as Obama isn’t smart enough to realize that huge deficit spending of the Bush years caused financial woes…
Paddy-Oh-My-God, are you deaf? If Dick Cheney had not changed the rules of engagement, thus preventing the fighter escorts from joining the hijacked planes, as had been SOP for _every plane that had gone off course previously, without exception, for decades,_ at worst the first plane would have hit its target. Clinton had nothing to do with that rule change, it was entirely a Dick move.
Frankly the US should just withdraw from NATO, as Bin Laden has never claimed any US land as Muslim, while has claimed Spain and other European lands.
# 31 Li said, “If Dick Cheney had not changed the rules of engagement, thus preventing the fighter escorts from joining the hijacked planes, as had been SOP for _every plane that had gone off course previously, without exception, for decades,_”
LOL. Sorry, you lose. That was NEVER the policy for planes where the flight originated in US airspace.
# 32 MikeN said, “Frankly the US should just withdraw from NATO, as Bin Laden has never claimed any US land as Muslim, while has claimed Spain and other European lands.”
Well, there are now 50+ million ME & Af Muslims living in the EU. Only a matter of time…
#32 It’s funny, but in this conflict leaving NATO might be a good move, since it would allow us to cozy up with our natural ally in this conflict; Russia.
But that wouldn’t sell big boom boom toys, like our new and stupid missile defenses that we are trying to ring Russia in for some damn reason, so we can’t have that!
# 35 Li said, “like our new and stupid missile defenses that we are trying to ring Russia in for some damn reason, so we can’t have that!”
Yet another stupid, uneducated statement. The missile defense in EU is useless against missiles during boost phase… Thus, useless against Russian missiles aimed at us.
Exactly, the missiles are useless against Russia, not to mention the MIRV issues, ect. So why place them right around Russia if Russia is going to interpret that as belligerence? And that’s not me talking, that’s Russia’s official position on the matter. Aren’t there better places to put the missiles if Iran is the real defensive target, like, say, SPAIN OR FRANCE?!
So, why? Why do something that is both useless and belligerent like that? Answer; to reignite the cold war, and sell more fancy boom boom toys. THERE IS NO OTHER REASON! We need a comparable ‘opponent’ to justify all of this super-expensive crap! But that’s a tragedy, not only in that these moves to place missiles in Poland, Georgia ect. increases the chances of a nuclear confrontation, but also in that it kills our chances of a strategic alliance with Russia against the Islamic terrorists.
All of your objections essentially boil down to wingnut gotchas, which consistently betray a complete lack of strategic insight. And, as is usually the case, they are easily countered with a few facts that you are either lacking, or wholly blind to in your foolish partisanship.
#33 Paddy — from what I read, there is no mention of the flight having to originate outside the U.S. Any “civil derelect airborne object” could be shot down. What Bush/Cheney changed, was the power now was vested in them instead of the military.
http://tinyurl.com/db9ccj
follow the link under June 1, 2001
I guess we could excuse the first tower being hit, but why didn’t Cheney or Bush or Rice act on the second tower and the Pentagon? Why didn’t they order the military to engage them, and if necessary, shoot them down before they hit?
It took me a bit longer to research this retort.
“LOL. Sorry, you lose. That was NEVER the policy for planes where the flight originated in US airspace.”
Absolute BS. More than 60 times previously aircraft were intercepted for a bad transponder, radio silence, or course deviation. The 9/11 planes had all three. The origin of the plane makes no difference, because, frankly, it would be idiotic for it to make a difference. Here is the relevant rule, which has not changed for decades.
http://tinyurl.com/FAAsayspaddyoisanidiot
Is there no bit of made of fact or outright lie that you won’t concoct to protect the most miserable failure of an administration in US history?! They crashed the economy, left an entire city to rot, allowed the worst terror attack in history to occur on their watch, and followed bad intel, derived from torture, and launched us into a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. Heck of a job, that! Really, if we elected Osama Bin Laden himself he could have hardly done more harm to our country!