In a few days it will be the sixth anniversary of 9/11, and it's worth asking the question: why hasn't there been another major terrorist strike? Why haven't the Islamic radicals at least made a second serious attempt to cause the kind of damage, or worse, than the attacks of September 11, 2001 inflicted on America?
One answer--which we can expect from Bush diehards--is that the Bush administration has installed a foolproof system of terrorist detection. This theory does not convince.
This leads to a second explanation: the radical Muslims are so weak and disorganized that they can no longer pull off an effective action. This theory has adherents both on the right and the left. On the right, we hear the theory that "we've obviously taken the battle over there, and so they are unable to do harm over here." Even if there is some truth to this, it doesn't explain why every Muslim radical must head for Iraq: surely Al Qaeda could spare a few to bring the war to the headquarters of the Great Satan. Some on the left are drawn to the theory of an impotent Al Qaeda because they are looking for any excuse to get out of Iraq and, truth be told, they would like to forget about the whole War on Terror and go back to the way things were on September 10, 2001.
I'd like to suggest a different theory for why we haven't had more attempted 9/11s. Imagine if there had been more attacks. In that case Americans would have little doubt why we were fighting in Iraq. There would be no question over why this country had dispatched more than 100,000 troops to the Middle East. As in World War II, the only sentiment for ending the war would be on the part of those calling on Bush to level the countries sponsoring Islamic radicalism so that the place could be rebuilt from the ground up, as with Germany and Japan. In sum, more 9/11s would have the effect of rousing the present-oriented, slow-to-anger American dragon.
Instead, we are six years away from that catastrophic event, and already Americans are growing forgetful and impatient. Somehow, for many people 9/11 has become a freakish, surreal, one-time disaster that was surely tragic but whose recurrence doesn't seem to be a clear and present danger. So are the Islamic radicals holding back and waiting for American restlessness to produce a withdrawal from Iraq? Are the bad guys biding their time in the hopes that American lassitude will create new opportunities for them to strike even more savagely and with greater impunity in the future? How else to account for the uneasy calm that has hovered over this country for the past six years?
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 17)
61. To MARY (again)...
Where was your Beloved Leader on 9/11 then?
Protecting you? Protecting those poor bastards in the Towers who jumped to their death? If so, great job he did heh? Oh and before you bring up Clinton (still a favorite target of the Right), don't bother, we have all heard that one before.
Poor MARY, my heart goes out to you until you wise up and wake up from that fear induced sleep.
JS
JS at 4:22PM on Sep 6th 2007
62. Where was Bush on 9/11? well, we've all seen the tape. He had no clue. He blinked like a lost doofus. Bin Laden saw that too. What do you think Bin Laden thought? That he had gotten away with frontal attack on the world's greatest power? Yes. Was he happy when he saw that? Of course he was. Was he afraid? No he was not afraid.
Unfortunately, what I take to be his hunches about Bush proved to be completely correct. Bin Laden, America's greatest enemy, was let go--our soldiers had him, but leadership at that crucial moment in our history was absent. We had the guns, but not the brains, not the strength. Therefore Bin Laden continues to lead and inspire terrorism against us to this day. He sucker-punched America and Bush buckled. This was Bush's moment of truth, and he failed. This abject failure will haunt us all for a long, long time.
mw
michael white at 4:52PM on Sep 6th 2007
63. Why was there a first 9/11. If President Bush and the Rep party had taken the reports on al-Qaeda and read them, then there wouldn't of been the first Attack.
Dancerpl2 at 5:03PM on Sep 6th 2007
64. There's only one important question concerning the attacks, did the US gov't allow/participate in 9/11?
The answer to that query would explain the illegal wire-taps, suspension of habeas corpus, banning of books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and multiple wars based on lies.
How can the gov't be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?
In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov't to the same standard as it holds us to?
The gov't lied to us about Iraq and more Americans have died there than in 9/11. If the gov't lied about Iraq then why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the gov't lied about 9/11?
Final link (before Google Books bends to pressure and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
Karl S at 5:39PM on Sep 6th 2007
65. Why don't you people watch www.zeitgeistmovie.com and youtube "Why We Fight". Also watch www.freedomtofascism.com We attacked ourselves and as hard as that may be for Americans to swallow it's the truth. Islamic terrorism exploded after we invaded Iraq. We invaded to piss off the Muslims and then show the world "see, there's the beast itself". This took the eyes off the inconsistencies of 9/11. You are naive to think that government would not kill it's own to save the empire. A common enemy keeps the citizenry cohesive and gives the government more power over the "free" people. Our civil rights are eroding away faster than the beaches of Ocean City Md and ironically we cheer them on. They use words like patriotism and country as a way to kill any dialoge. The fact of the matter is that Saddam hated Al Queda and would kill them if they stepped into his country because they were more of a threat to him than us. The US government has considered killing it's own citizens since the 1960's and if you don't believe me than look it up. It's a matter of national record. WAKE UP PEOPLE.
Jacob at 7:38PM on Sep 6th 2007
66. It was over 8 years between the initial 1993 attack on the WTC and the devasating assault on 9/11. Unlike the Bushies, who feel that they have to punch somebody out as soon as they are hit, even if it is the wrong person, al qaida is patient and bides its time until it can get its plans right.
And, as the success of German authorities in foiling a massive terrorist plot against Americans demonstrates, careful police work is the most effective tactic in the war on terror and not the "bull-in-the-china-shop" military misadventure penchant of the Bushies.
emelpe at 7:39PM on Sep 6th 2007
67. I think the only reason there has not been another radical Muslin terrorist act upon America is that they're waiting until they have enough willing suicide bombers in place here. It's relatively simple with the help of other terrorists countries to obtain nuclear power small enough to put in a suitcase. If we understood anything after 9/11 it was that they already have terrorists cells living here, just waiting for the command to strike. A suitcase nuclear bomb is big enough to destroy an entire city. Imagine what will happen if they are deployed in several cities at once. Sooner or later American & Israel are going to have to attack Iran. Otherwise, they & all their Islamic brothers will attack us, the Big Satan, and Israel, the Little Satan.
Susan at 8:20PM on Sep 6th 2007
68. "If the Mexican illegals can make it through our nets in droves, how can we be confident of stopping every terrorist group that seeks to penetrate our borders? If the attempts had been made, surely some would have gotten in. Think of the havoc that even a few dozen well-placed Americans working together could inflict on this country."
Dinesh, Dinesh... Going from an illegal-immigrant, or -entrant, to becoming a "well-placed American," can take generations! Even native Americans, often fail to become "well-placed," as you say, in their own lifetimes... Sorry, but somehow I can't fathom some nobody, without credentials or history, walking into a position, such as managing a nuclear reactor. We will get ourselves, through our own carelessness, before we fall victim to "well-placed Americans," who arrived three weeks ago, through a tunnel, from Mexico. This would make an interesting plot for a Hollywood-movie, though.
My advice is, "Don't mess with success."
Mike Sanders at 8:40PM on Sep 6th 2007
69. Some very good points in this session. The only thing with which I will take issue is the religious component in Islamic thinking. Those who think that Iraq, for example, was just standing by minding its own business are "dangerously" naive. We all agree that "something" had to be done about 9/11, No? Islam, like other religious entities have an evangelistic agenda; however, they are the only religion that perpetrates murder as religious "doctrine." This reality is the deaden the conscience. The attack on Iraq simply sped up the inevitable. No one else looks forward to war especially as a means to go to Paradise. I believe that when a grown man blows away a bunch of children in the name of their god -- that's a paradise you can keep. I bellieve that person knows deep down inside that murder is wrong -- but are ego driven. Study prophecy and see how astonishingly accurate it is. The accuracy has to get one's attention. Islam is definitely significant in "end time" Judeo-Christian prophecy. Smooth talking politicians cannot help you. There is such a thing as Providence. [The Evolutionists and bone collectors are running out of time.]
tov at 12:32AM on Sep 7th 2007
70. Rick should get his head out o his ass,the islamists are duty bound to kill us because we don't believe the twisted bullshit in the quran
frank g. at 12:52AM on Sep 7th 2007
71. The only reason that we haven't seen another attack on US soil is that the current administration has not felt the time is right yet. Or possibly because the attack is still in the planning phase, wating for the right timing and political advantage. That the last attack was staged by radical Islamists hijacking 4 commercial aircraft and successfully crashing them into such perfect targets is an extraordinarily unlikely event! No, that attack was planned and carried out by agents of our own government with the collusion of our president and his top co-conspirators. My wife intuitively belived this right after seeing the buildings fall on 9/11, I remember her saying "no f#&king way", I thought she was just being paranoid. Now, with the benifit of hindsight, and picking through all the footnotes and assertions of 9/11 truth movement, I have seen just what it was she was talking about that day. We are in grave danger! The Bin Bush's aren't through with us yet!
Brian at 1:14AM on Sep 7th 2007
72. Who decided Dinesh was worth posting? Altho this post isn't as bad as his others it's still pathetic. EG: The number of US troops in Iraq is not "100,000" but 168,000 and expected to reach 172,000 soon.
Considering the awful repost card our security agency just received can you imagine what we could at borders and incoming ships, et al. if we spent the 10-12 billions we're wasting in Iraq on homeland security?
wizkin at 1:21AM on Sep 7th 2007
73.
Actually, quite a few attacks, or pre-attacks have been stopped. The Lackawucca (sp?) group, the Lodi Group, the Pizza shop owner and his Iman in Detroit, Padilla, the two young men just arrested in S. Carolina with alleged pipe bombs, Moussoui, Reid the shoe bomber, and I am sure there are guite a few more.
Amd Al Quaida has been active in Europe; London subway, Madrid train, the two doctors in Scotland, and most recently the three in Germany. And there have been many more who have been caught.
So one, I think Western intellegence should receive some kudos, it appears to be working.
Two, Al Qaida is sitting on the border in Pakistan. Just after 911 the USA told Pakistan to cooperate or be blown back to the stone age. Al Qaida cannot act up and still maintin its refugethere.
Besides Al Qaida has other fish to fry. It wants Sunnis to come out on the winning side in the Iraq Civil war, in other words, it is acting as surrogate for Saudi Arabia who does not want to see Iraq go Shite.
It is probably stretched too thin to work on terror schemes at the moment.
But it will be back.
cdnbirch at 1:35AM on Sep 7th 2007
74. Dinesh, as you well know, there have been several attempts to kill far more people than 9/11 like Bojinka (3-4 thousand) and the recent UK last year with Al Quida trying for 15,000 or more with a dozen jumbo jets blowing up over American cities. Why else do you think liquids were restricted?
Tri-Acetone/Tri-Peroxide: You can pronounce it. Part A and Part B. Boom!
Now we have the cannisters of part "B" shown on TV from the German "Incident" yesterday.
If for one second you try to shelter the Muslims responsible or cloud the issue with some "white" supremacist red herring, you will be exposing a deep seated prejudice that no cover-up glad-handing can hide.
So, that alone explodes your theory. The problem are terrorists, currently most of them are Muslims. Can they be convinced to live and let live? I figure that some will take the "let live" path. For the rest: The less of them the better.
Bill at 3:33AM on Sep 7th 2007
75. They met America and She's a Middle-easterner.
Sha at 4:33AM on Sep 7th 2007