Where's the post 911 domestic terror?
- Thread starter Handy
- Start date
Nothing going on in Pakistan ?
"The Taliban appear to have taken effective control of much of the rugged Pakistani tribal area called Waziristan and this is the result, the brutal system America went to war in Afghanistan to destroy recreated just across the border in Pakistan."
What about the recent riots in Pakistan over the cartoons?
"PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Gunfire and rioting erupted Wednesday as tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Pakistan's third straight day of violent protests over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Three people were killed, including an 8-year-old boy.
Pakistani intelligence officials have said members of outlawed Islamic militant groups have joined the protests, and may be inciting violence to undermine the government of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
More than 70,000 people flooded the streets of Peshawar, said Saeed Wazir, a senior police officer. The huge crowd went on a rampage, torchingbusinesses and fighting police who struck back with tear gas and batons. A bus terminal operated by South Korea's Sammi Corp. was torched, police said."
How about Saudi?
"RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (CNN) -- Al Qaeda militants who kidnapped and killed American engineer Paul Johnson said Sunday on an Islamist Web site that sympathetic Saudi security forces aided their kidnapping operation with police uniforms and vehicles."
"Saudi security forces have foiled the second terrorist attack in two months targeting the country's largest oil refinery, Kuwaiti news agency KUNA reported March 29. Security officials discovered two car bombs in the area around the Abqaiq refinery before they were detonated on March 28."
interesting articles:
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?action...rchives=defense&htmlId=4722&HtmlCategoryID=30
"Secretary Rumsfeld said, speaking of our Fourth Generation opponents,
"Compelled by a militant ideology that celebrates murder and suicide, with no territory to defend, with little to lose, they will either succeed in changing our way of life or we will succeed in changing theirs."
he has the idea......Ill have to give him some credit this time. However since they have no territory to defend and little to lose that brings up the question of why we see conventional warfare as a major means to defeat them??
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?action...rchives=defense&htmlId=4703&HtmlCategoryID=30
"Most observers, including the White House, seem to have missed its significance. In it, bin Laden offered us a truce (an offer we should have accepted, if only to attempt to seize the moral high ground). The Koran requires Moslems to offer such a truce before they attack. The fact that bin Laden himself made the offer, after a long silence, suggests al Qaeda attaches high importance to it."
So why would the Taliban and Al Qaeda want Pakistan?
"In June 2000, two Pakistani nuclear scientists, Sultan Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood and Chaudiri Abdul Majeed, founded Ummah Tameer-e-Nau, ?Reconstruction of the Muslim Ummah,? or ?UTN,? an organization whose purported purpose was to conduct relief and development work in Afghanistan. A few weeks after September 11, however, Pakistani authorities detained Mahmood, Majeed, and other UTN board members amid charges that their activities in Afghanistan had involved helping Al Qaeda in its quest to acquire nuclear and biological weapons as well. The U.S. government, which pressed for Mahmood?s and Majeed?s arrest, later placed them and their organization on its list of individuals and organizations supporting terrorism."
Thats right Pakistan is a member of the international nuclear club and has nuclear weapons
Which means that if things go bad for Musharraf and the country starts to fall, I guess we just send more troops to Pakistan.
As one article has said this could be the next 30 Years War or perhaps even the next Hundred Years War.
"The Taliban appear to have taken effective control of much of the rugged Pakistani tribal area called Waziristan and this is the result, the brutal system America went to war in Afghanistan to destroy recreated just across the border in Pakistan."
What about the recent riots in Pakistan over the cartoons?
"PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Gunfire and rioting erupted Wednesday as tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Pakistan's third straight day of violent protests over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Three people were killed, including an 8-year-old boy.
Pakistani intelligence officials have said members of outlawed Islamic militant groups have joined the protests, and may be inciting violence to undermine the government of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
More than 70,000 people flooded the streets of Peshawar, said Saeed Wazir, a senior police officer. The huge crowd went on a rampage, torchingbusinesses and fighting police who struck back with tear gas and batons. A bus terminal operated by South Korea's Sammi Corp. was torched, police said."
How about Saudi?
"RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (CNN) -- Al Qaeda militants who kidnapped and killed American engineer Paul Johnson said Sunday on an Islamist Web site that sympathetic Saudi security forces aided their kidnapping operation with police uniforms and vehicles."
"Saudi security forces have foiled the second terrorist attack in two months targeting the country's largest oil refinery, Kuwaiti news agency KUNA reported March 29. Security officials discovered two car bombs in the area around the Abqaiq refinery before they were detonated on March 28."
interesting articles:
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?action...rchives=defense&htmlId=4722&HtmlCategoryID=30
"Secretary Rumsfeld said, speaking of our Fourth Generation opponents,
"Compelled by a militant ideology that celebrates murder and suicide, with no territory to defend, with little to lose, they will either succeed in changing our way of life or we will succeed in changing theirs."
he has the idea......Ill have to give him some credit this time. However since they have no territory to defend and little to lose that brings up the question of why we see conventional warfare as a major means to defeat them??
http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?action...rchives=defense&htmlId=4703&HtmlCategoryID=30
"Most observers, including the White House, seem to have missed its significance. In it, bin Laden offered us a truce (an offer we should have accepted, if only to attempt to seize the moral high ground). The Koran requires Moslems to offer such a truce before they attack. The fact that bin Laden himself made the offer, after a long silence, suggests al Qaeda attaches high importance to it."
So why would the Taliban and Al Qaeda want Pakistan?
"In June 2000, two Pakistani nuclear scientists, Sultan Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood and Chaudiri Abdul Majeed, founded Ummah Tameer-e-Nau, ?Reconstruction of the Muslim Ummah,? or ?UTN,? an organization whose purported purpose was to conduct relief and development work in Afghanistan. A few weeks after September 11, however, Pakistani authorities detained Mahmood, Majeed, and other UTN board members amid charges that their activities in Afghanistan had involved helping Al Qaeda in its quest to acquire nuclear and biological weapons as well. The U.S. government, which pressed for Mahmood?s and Majeed?s arrest, later placed them and their organization on its list of individuals and organizations supporting terrorism."
Thats right Pakistan is a member of the international nuclear club and has nuclear weapons
Which means that if things go bad for Musharraf and the country starts to fall, I guess we just send more troops to Pakistan.
As one article has said this could be the next 30 Years War or perhaps even the next Hundred Years War.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
GW said a long time ago that this war was not going to be a short one. Guess he was right about one thing.
Yes, Pakistan has its problems, and they have been happening for a lot longer than the WOT.
Saudi Arabia has not suffered to the degree we have yet, and I suspect it is a matter of time before it does. The Saudi government has been playing both ends against the middle for decades, and it is going to bite them at some point. I don't expect to see mass casualties ala WTC anywhere soon, but there are going to be kidnappings and such going on. Not that a smaller scale terror operation is all good, but it is relative.
I do think that if America is left to its own devices, this war on terror is going to fizzle out at the next election, and we will be back into the same boat. The war on terror has a lot of options, and none of them should bring a smile to anyone's face. There are still the unknowns too. North Korea I think is the least of our worries, being hemmed in by South Korea, Japan and China.
If we allow the terrorist network to land somewhere, set up shop and do nothing about it, that is when we are going to see the other fist from these guys.
Yes, Pakistan has its problems, and they have been happening for a lot longer than the WOT.
Saudi Arabia has not suffered to the degree we have yet, and I suspect it is a matter of time before it does. The Saudi government has been playing both ends against the middle for decades, and it is going to bite them at some point. I don't expect to see mass casualties ala WTC anywhere soon, but there are going to be kidnappings and such going on. Not that a smaller scale terror operation is all good, but it is relative.
I do think that if America is left to its own devices, this war on terror is going to fizzle out at the next election, and we will be back into the same boat. The war on terror has a lot of options, and none of them should bring a smile to anyone's face. There are still the unknowns too. North Korea I think is the least of our worries, being hemmed in by South Korea, Japan and China.
If we allow the terrorist network to land somewhere, set up shop and do nothing about it, that is when we are going to see the other fist from these guys.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Well Handy, I had trouble with your post because of so many errors. Now you tell me that you were a Navy Anti-terrorism briefer for 6 years and that you said "domestic" as shorthand for "on US soil." There is nothing wrong with shorthand, but to use a shorthand term that has a specific definition within the topic to represent a definition other than the specific topic definition just does not make sense. Given your position in the Navy, I would expect you know the value of using correct words in your briefings. Everybody needs to be on the same page. This is done, in part, by using terms members in the briefings all understood correctly. So why obfuscate your words by using personal definitions?
No, it was obvious you were using a phrase incorrectly in the context of the topic being on terrorism where the phrase already had a definition for the context.
As for using "domestic" as shorthand for "on US soil, you saved just two letters - if you counted the spaces.
Okay, so why no followups by Al Quaida on US soil in the last 5 years? Why is 5 years important? Note that it took 8 years before the second strike at the WTC was done on 9/11.
Also, why is it so critical that the attacks to the US have to be on US Soil? Al Quaida is still committing terrorist acts against the US, only not on US soil. No doubt they are choosing less hardened American targets elsewhere in the world where their attempts are not as likely to be stopped. Once things cool down in the US again and the US gets complacent, that is when they will strike again, if they do.
No major attacks stopped? How do you know? What evidence do you have the there have not been major attacks stopped?
Maybe the problem is one of deinition. What would constitute a major terroristic attack versus a minor one? Why don't you consider foiled attacks of the US Bank Tower in Los Angeles in 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bush.terror/index.html
By 2005, Bush claims 10 attacks have been stopped since 9/11/2001.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100600455.html
Handy said,
Why does it bother you that so many people don't like the US but haven't gotten around to another attack on US soil? What is the schedule formula for number of people between number of people, geography, and attacks?
Where did you come up with the supposed Islamic fact that the terrorists have virgins awaiting them? I think by this that you are suggesting the virgin reward should be a motivator for more attacks and sooner attacks given that if killed in the attacks, they will get their virgins that much quicker. Is that right? If not, what was your purpose for mentioning that the terrorists had virgins waiting [in paradise]?
When you did your anti-terrorism briefs in the Navy, did you take a look at the Quran to have a better understanding of the mindset of the terrorists who are making their attacks because of religious beliefs? Given that Jihad is a holy war and the Quran the Islamic religous edicts, the I would think that you would have a good understanding of the Quran.
The reason I ask is that the notions of having virgins waiting on the terrorists to arrive in paradise is a myth. You are not the first from whom I have heard/read it and you probably won't be the last. You can find such statements repeated many times across the internet No doubt it is a popular myth amongst those of us who are not Muslim and have spent time with the Quran...popular but wrong.
Apparently many of us think that the terrorists can't wait to die and get to paradise where they will be greeted by their virgins and then have the luxury of fantastic sex from the time of their arrival and into eternity. So, if you are trying to use the virgins concept for trying to understand the motivation of the terrorists, then you will be working with wrong information and that will lend itself to rendering a poor understanding of terrorist motivation.
From the Quran...
Take a look at your Quran and ask yourself that out of all the rewards given in paradise, what is our mixedup fixation with virgins and believing the access to virgins is motivating?
It does not matter whether a righteous Muslim gets to Paradise sooner or later. He won't get his rewards until Judgment Day and Judgment Day isn't when the person dies, but later when Allah (God) will gather all beings together to stand before Him in account.
Sura 56:34-37: "And [with them will be their] spouses, raised high; for behold, We shall have brought them into being in a life renewed, having resurrected them as virgins, full of love, well matched to those who have attained to righteousness"
I am sorry that you feel my critique was insulting to you. The post here may insult you quite a bit more, but you presented a lot of stuff that isn't accurate and some that is flat out wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I do not think the attacks did so much damage that Al Quaida doesn't feel any more are necessary. Like I said, they are just biding their time and waiting for an opportunity to emerge as it always seems to do when dealing with t he short memory American public. As noted, there were some 8 years between WTC attacks and in that time, almost none of the businesses in the WTC had kept up their programs emergency evacuation drills. No doubt most thought the drills stupid bacause there wasn't any way somebody would bomb the building again and because the building's fire suppression system should handle most all fire threats should a fire ever occur. Like I said, the oft repeated American cry of "NEVER AGAIN" doesn't seem to carry with it much weight and people get lazy about their security and then end up totally surprised when something then does happen again.
You notion that using the airplanes was a one trick pony and never be used again turns out to almost not be true. Because a major planned attack on the US was not familiar to you and was thwarted before executed, then you didn't have any way to know that the 2002 LA attack was to use an airplane crashed into the bank tower.
Your notion that no airliner will ever be used again is naive. While a successful hijacking of a passenger liner may not be that likely again anytime soon as passengers will undoubtedly attempt to intervene and Sky Cops intervene if present, then craft like cargo jet liners (such as FedEx, UPS, etc.) will become attractive for hijacking. They don't carry Sky Cops and they don't have large crews. Other options would be steeling private aircraft such as some of the larger prop planes.
So what are they setting us up for? I have no idea. If we knew, then the planned attacks would have a better chance of being stopped before starting.
No, it was obvious you were using a phrase incorrectly in the context of the topic being on terrorism where the phrase already had a definition for the context.
As for using "domestic" as shorthand for "on US soil, you saved just two letters - if you counted the spaces.
Okay, so why no followups by Al Quaida on US soil in the last 5 years? Why is 5 years important? Note that it took 8 years before the second strike at the WTC was done on 9/11.
Also, why is it so critical that the attacks to the US have to be on US Soil? Al Quaida is still committing terrorist acts against the US, only not on US soil. No doubt they are choosing less hardened American targets elsewhere in the world where their attempts are not as likely to be stopped. Once things cool down in the US again and the US gets complacent, that is when they will strike again, if they do.
No major attacks stopped? How do you know? What evidence do you have the there have not been major attacks stopped?
Maybe the problem is one of deinition. What would constitute a major terroristic attack versus a minor one? Why don't you consider foiled attacks of the US Bank Tower in Los Angeles in 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bush.terror/index.html
By 2005, Bush claims 10 attacks have been stopped since 9/11/2001.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100600455.html
Handy said,
Why does it bother you that so many people don't like the US but haven't gotten around to another attack on US soil? What is the schedule formula for number of people between number of people, geography, and attacks?
Where did you come up with the supposed Islamic fact that the terrorists have virgins awaiting them? I think by this that you are suggesting the virgin reward should be a motivator for more attacks and sooner attacks given that if killed in the attacks, they will get their virgins that much quicker. Is that right? If not, what was your purpose for mentioning that the terrorists had virgins waiting [in paradise]?
When you did your anti-terrorism briefs in the Navy, did you take a look at the Quran to have a better understanding of the mindset of the terrorists who are making their attacks because of religious beliefs? Given that Jihad is a holy war and the Quran the Islamic religous edicts, the I would think that you would have a good understanding of the Quran.
The reason I ask is that the notions of having virgins waiting on the terrorists to arrive in paradise is a myth. You are not the first from whom I have heard/read it and you probably won't be the last. You can find such statements repeated many times across the internet No doubt it is a popular myth amongst those of us who are not Muslim and have spent time with the Quran...popular but wrong.
Apparently many of us think that the terrorists can't wait to die and get to paradise where they will be greeted by their virgins and then have the luxury of fantastic sex from the time of their arrival and into eternity. So, if you are trying to use the virgins concept for trying to understand the motivation of the terrorists, then you will be working with wrong information and that will lend itself to rendering a poor understanding of terrorist motivation.
From the Quran...
Take a look at your Quran and ask yourself that out of all the rewards given in paradise, what is our mixedup fixation with virgins and believing the access to virgins is motivating?
It does not matter whether a righteous Muslim gets to Paradise sooner or later. He won't get his rewards until Judgment Day and Judgment Day isn't when the person dies, but later when Allah (God) will gather all beings together to stand before Him in account.
Sura 56:34-37: "And [with them will be their] spouses, raised high; for behold, We shall have brought them into being in a life renewed, having resurrected them as virgins, full of love, well matched to those who have attained to righteousness"
I am sorry that you feel my critique was insulting to you. The post here may insult you quite a bit more, but you presented a lot of stuff that isn't accurate and some that is flat out wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I do not think the attacks did so much damage that Al Quaida doesn't feel any more are necessary. Like I said, they are just biding their time and waiting for an opportunity to emerge as it always seems to do when dealing with t he short memory American public. As noted, there were some 8 years between WTC attacks and in that time, almost none of the businesses in the WTC had kept up their programs emergency evacuation drills. No doubt most thought the drills stupid bacause there wasn't any way somebody would bomb the building again and because the building's fire suppression system should handle most all fire threats should a fire ever occur. Like I said, the oft repeated American cry of "NEVER AGAIN" doesn't seem to carry with it much weight and people get lazy about their security and then end up totally surprised when something then does happen again.
You notion that using the airplanes was a one trick pony and never be used again turns out to almost not be true. Because a major planned attack on the US was not familiar to you and was thwarted before executed, then you didn't have any way to know that the 2002 LA attack was to use an airplane crashed into the bank tower.
Your notion that no airliner will ever be used again is naive. While a successful hijacking of a passenger liner may not be that likely again anytime soon as passengers will undoubtedly attempt to intervene and Sky Cops intervene if present, then craft like cargo jet liners (such as FedEx, UPS, etc.) will become attractive for hijacking. They don't carry Sky Cops and they don't have large crews. Other options would be steeling private aircraft such as some of the larger prop planes.
So what are they setting us up for? I have no idea. If we knew, then the planned attacks would have a better chance of being stopped before starting.
Last edited:
DNS,
There were five other posters who seemed to understand just fine what I was getting at. One thing you seem to be missing is that I wrote with a little tongue and cheek, mentioning virgins and crazies in reference to the popular vernacular.
And, as I already stated, no one in the military is as hung up on the strict use of definitions as you are. You are attempting to discredit my question instead of just answering, which isn't cool. You must be one of those people that won't answer a handgun question if the term "clip" is used, and is rude to boot.
The question, again, is why DO YOU think there hasn't been any Al Quaida/Islamic organized terror in the US since 9/11? Why am I "bothered"? Why aren't you? Bin Laden AND US authorities have both been warning us of eminent attacks for several years, and yet we fought an entire world war in less time.
You posted a link to a plan foiled before it even started that had a low success rate due to the attitude of US passengers and pilots since 9/11. It doesn't seem like a very credible example, but it is at least an example.
I'm not sure what you idea you think you're deriding. It was an honest question, and doesn't require the semantics police to be discussed.
There were five other posters who seemed to understand just fine what I was getting at. One thing you seem to be missing is that I wrote with a little tongue and cheek, mentioning virgins and crazies in reference to the popular vernacular.
And, as I already stated, no one in the military is as hung up on the strict use of definitions as you are. You are attempting to discredit my question instead of just answering, which isn't cool. You must be one of those people that won't answer a handgun question if the term "clip" is used, and is rude to boot.
The question, again, is why DO YOU think there hasn't been any Al Quaida/Islamic organized terror in the US since 9/11? Why am I "bothered"? Why aren't you? Bin Laden AND US authorities have both been warning us of eminent attacks for several years, and yet we fought an entire world war in less time.
You posted a link to a plan foiled before it even started that had a low success rate due to the attitude of US passengers and pilots since 9/11. It doesn't seem like a very credible example, but it is at least an example.
I'm not sure what you idea you think you're deriding. It was an honest question, and doesn't require the semantics police to be discussed.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
I'll take terrorism for $100, Alex
Given the reaction by the rest of the world to large scale attacks, I think the terrorists are doing more harm than good to their cause. Should they get their hands on a dirty bomb or worse, there is going to be a bigger payback on their turf than what has already happened. Kidnapping a person and cutting their head off and sending the film to Al Jeezera did not help their cause either.
One item I don't see mentioned a lot is the difference between most muslims and the extremist maniacs. How are they going to win over the "average" muslim when they are as horrified as the rest of the world? The threat of death may initially cause people to vapor lock, but like any threat, there are going to be those who say "I have had enough of this". The Jews did it in Warsaw, the yards did it in Viet Nam, so on and so forth.
If these guys really are serious about their Pinky and the Brain takeover of the world, they are going to have to come up with a better strategy. They do not have the military power to take over the US or any other secular 1st world country, and probably not enough to overrun a place like Saudi, either.
The best they seem to be able to do is peck at other countries, with no real result other than convincing Spain to withdraw its troops-not that they had many committed to the battle in the first place. If they were clever enough, I suppose they could take out the White House or the Capital building, but that would not surrender the country-not even close.
Given the reaction by the rest of the world to large scale attacks, I think the terrorists are doing more harm than good to their cause. Should they get their hands on a dirty bomb or worse, there is going to be a bigger payback on their turf than what has already happened. Kidnapping a person and cutting their head off and sending the film to Al Jeezera did not help their cause either.
One item I don't see mentioned a lot is the difference between most muslims and the extremist maniacs. How are they going to win over the "average" muslim when they are as horrified as the rest of the world? The threat of death may initially cause people to vapor lock, but like any threat, there are going to be those who say "I have had enough of this". The Jews did it in Warsaw, the yards did it in Viet Nam, so on and so forth.
If these guys really are serious about their Pinky and the Brain takeover of the world, they are going to have to come up with a better strategy. They do not have the military power to take over the US or any other secular 1st world country, and probably not enough to overrun a place like Saudi, either.
The best they seem to be able to do is peck at other countries, with no real result other than convincing Spain to withdraw its troops-not that they had many committed to the battle in the first place. If they were clever enough, I suppose they could take out the White House or the Capital building, but that would not surrender the country-not even close.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Okay Handy, I get it now. You are justifying all of your errors in the context that folks in the military are not troubled by definitions. Apparently from your statements, they aren't troubled by letting facts get in the way either. It scares the hell out of me that when somebody claims to be some sort of expert, such as operating for 6 years as an anti-terrorism briefer, and presents information as fact about which they should have intimate knowledge, that the "fact" information is garbage.
As a person with such experience, I do not see how you would have explained terrorist motivation, in part, to be based on the virgins waiting for them when they die. Dude, virgins are not waiting on the terrorists! As such, the virgin rewards would have NOTHING to do with motivating attacks to be sooner rather than later, but you apparently think said virgin rewards would promote action sooner than later.
Please tell me that in your work for the Navy that you never briefed folks on Islamic terrorism being inspired, in part, to happen sooner rather than later because terrorists would have virgins awaiting their arrival. If you have advised folks that motivation for terrorist action is spurred forward because the terrorists have virgins waiting on them, then you have advised folks wrongly. Jihad is not motivated by getting virgins on arrival to paradise after death because virgins are not rewarded at the time of arrival. As noted in the Quran passages unfamiliar to you, such rewards come on the Day of Judgment. No doubt there are billions of righteous Muslims awaiting their rewards come the Day of Judgment since Muslims have been dying for thousands of years.
When so many mistakes are made at such fundamental levels of understanding, then it is hard to believe any assessments or interpretations based on such fundamental mistakes could be valid. They certainly would not be valid for the mistaken reasons given.
As a person with such experience, I do not see how you would have explained terrorist motivation, in part, to be based on the virgins waiting for them when they die. Dude, virgins are not waiting on the terrorists! As such, the virgin rewards would have NOTHING to do with motivating attacks to be sooner rather than later, but you apparently think said virgin rewards would promote action sooner than later.
Please tell me that in your work for the Navy that you never briefed folks on Islamic terrorism being inspired, in part, to happen sooner rather than later because terrorists would have virgins awaiting their arrival. If you have advised folks that motivation for terrorist action is spurred forward because the terrorists have virgins waiting on them, then you have advised folks wrongly. Jihad is not motivated by getting virgins on arrival to paradise after death because virgins are not rewarded at the time of arrival. As noted in the Quran passages unfamiliar to you, such rewards come on the Day of Judgment. No doubt there are billions of righteous Muslims awaiting their rewards come the Day of Judgment since Muslims have been dying for thousands of years.
When so many mistakes are made at such fundamental levels of understanding, then it is hard to believe any assessments or interpretations based on such fundamental mistakes could be valid. They certainly would not be valid for the mistaken reasons given.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
DNS-I think your needle is stuck
rest of the Western and Chrisitian world or the Christian and Muslim World?
In parts of the Muslim world Bin Laden is seen as a hero who defies the crusaders. Outnumbered and outgunned he is still in open defiance. He has a $25 million price tag on his head, yet we still have not captured him.
How can he fight the US? He knows that he can not win force on force battles. His goal is to make the US weary of fighting the war. Look at public opinion polls in the US and tell me if he or Bush are winning the Iraq War Polls?
Is he winning when educated and law abiding citizens engage on attacks againt the state and it citizens because they come to see his version of events as true instead of the US.
I think he is slowly and steadily clipping along, learning lessons as he goes and making changes. Unlike our administration that sometimes lets politics stand in the way of the facts and is slow to change. I would say that Bin Laden has a better understanding of the West than we do of Islam and the Middle East.
The key to winning this war is to create a shortcut on the curve or loop and bypass him. So far we have failed to do that.
DNS,
Get a clue. This is a friendly forum, not an academic conference. I'm not presenting a paper, I just wrote a little off the cuff intro to a fairly straightforward question. Get over it.
As I already said, the virgin comment was in jest. Have someone with a sense of humor explain why people do that.
Feel free to post something on topic, rather than character attacks that are really failing to impress anyone else on this thread.
Eghad,
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but how do you relate it to the topic? Do you think he has changed motivation and withdrawn attacks here indefinitely?
Get a clue. This is a friendly forum, not an academic conference. I'm not presenting a paper, I just wrote a little off the cuff intro to a fairly straightforward question. Get over it.
As I already said, the virgin comment was in jest. Have someone with a sense of humor explain why people do that.
Feel free to post something on topic, rather than character attacks that are really failing to impress anyone else on this thread.
Eghad,
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but how do you relate it to the topic? Do you think he has changed motivation and withdrawn attacks here indefinitely?
In response to the original question...
There are some people out there who say the US 'let' the 9/11 attacks happen so that they would have an excuse to exploit the Middle East in the name of 'anti-terrorism'. I'm not saying that I believe this...in fact, I think that it is a little far-fetched.
I have no idea why we haven't been hit again...I do think that we will be attacked again someday...I just hope it's not a nuclear attack. That is what I think that they are working on...a dirty bomb...or worse.
There are some people out there who say the US 'let' the 9/11 attacks happen so that they would have an excuse to exploit the Middle East in the name of 'anti-terrorism'. I'm not saying that I believe this...in fact, I think that it is a little far-fetched.
I have no idea why we haven't been hit again...I do think that we will be attacked again someday...I just hope it's not a nuclear attack. That is what I think that they are working on...a dirty bomb...or worse.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
I should have clarified that Eghad-you're right. Seems that some of our western euro allies are more interested in trading with these people/ignoring their dirty deeds/wanting to feel their pain than anything else.
As to his attacks on the US, I truly do not believe it had the effect Bin Laden was looking for, and the reaction had to be a surprise for him. Our sudden attack into Afghanistan took him off guard. I suspect he was looking for a slow, deliberate buildup as the Soviets did and thought he had time to marshall his forces. I believe he looks at infidels much like the US looked at communism back in the 50s and 60s-a monolith. That would be a mistake.
America has been a tough one to figure out for the rest of the world-most of them, especially in the M.E. They change governments when their ruler dies or as the result of a coup. America changes leadership at least every 8 years, and so do the policies.
It may be that Bin Laden is trying to gauge what he needs to attack in order to get the reaction he seeks. That is hampered by his lack of communications and the ability to meet with his brother murderers. Send an emissary? Probably does, but they have learned that in order to stay alive, bunching up is a bad thing to do.
I still don't see him as a very effective organizer of all things terrorist. He is nothing more than a symbol to like minded murderers, and while symbols can be motivational to some, he is going to have to come up with something to strike at the "great satan".
I don't think the bounty on his head really means all that much. He obviously is hiding among supporters who are not going to turn him in. That, and he was smart to build schools and whatnot to gain the respect of a lot of muslims has paid off so far in loyalty on his side. We'd be better off to offer a shopping spree at the Tractor Supply store than to offer money.
Another large, direct attack on the US is not going to help him-I think its going to hurt him in the long run. He is not 10 feet tall, nor is he superman, and so long as he stays hidden, he is likely safe. The area where he is suspected of being in-the Afghan/Pakistan border has never been truly brought under any kind of government control, whether it be a native or a foreign power. With the types and amount of assets looking for him now, I don't see much chance of him being materially involved in a strike on the US, much less leading one.
As to his attacks on the US, I truly do not believe it had the effect Bin Laden was looking for, and the reaction had to be a surprise for him. Our sudden attack into Afghanistan took him off guard. I suspect he was looking for a slow, deliberate buildup as the Soviets did and thought he had time to marshall his forces. I believe he looks at infidels much like the US looked at communism back in the 50s and 60s-a monolith. That would be a mistake.
America has been a tough one to figure out for the rest of the world-most of them, especially in the M.E. They change governments when their ruler dies or as the result of a coup. America changes leadership at least every 8 years, and so do the policies.
It may be that Bin Laden is trying to gauge what he needs to attack in order to get the reaction he seeks. That is hampered by his lack of communications and the ability to meet with his brother murderers. Send an emissary? Probably does, but they have learned that in order to stay alive, bunching up is a bad thing to do.
I still don't see him as a very effective organizer of all things terrorist. He is nothing more than a symbol to like minded murderers, and while symbols can be motivational to some, he is going to have to come up with something to strike at the "great satan".
I don't think the bounty on his head really means all that much. He obviously is hiding among supporters who are not going to turn him in. That, and he was smart to build schools and whatnot to gain the respect of a lot of muslims has paid off so far in loyalty on his side. We'd be better off to offer a shopping spree at the Tractor Supply store than to offer money.
Another large, direct attack on the US is not going to help him-I think its going to hurt him in the long run. He is not 10 feet tall, nor is he superman, and so long as he stays hidden, he is likely safe. The area where he is suspected of being in-the Afghan/Pakistan border has never been truly brought under any kind of government control, whether it be a native or a foreign power. With the types and amount of assets looking for him now, I don't see much chance of him being materially involved in a strike on the US, much less leading one.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
Eghad-I think I understand your "cutting off the curve" or intercepting him in some way, but what effect has killing/capturing several of his Lt's had to do with attacking the US? As I understand it, their operation is very dependent on personal relationships in order to build and keep trust and security. Removing key people in the organization has to hold a detrimental effect on his plans, if not his operations.
invention_45
New member
Maybe Bin Laden hasn't done anything on our soil since 9/11 because he already got what he wanted. The Patriot Act.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Maybe they're all caught in traffic?
This guy says it best
As one British diplomat put it, “The U.S. is winning the war on al-Qaida but losing the war on terrorism — and the reason is Iraq.”
Roger Cressey, who was the National Security Council’s deputy director of counterterrorism in the Clinton and Bush administrations, agrees.
Good news, bad news
“Al-Qaida, as we knew it, is pretty much on its death bed now. I mean, we've had real successes in attriting its capability, so the organization that attacked us on 9/11 no longer poses the same type of threat,” said Cressey, now an NBC News consultant.
“That’s the good news. The bad news is we've seen a growth in this global Sunni extremist movement, partly driven by Iraq, but also by other events, which is much more difficult to track, follow and ultimately disrupt. So as we're doing really well against what was al-Qaida, we've got a new threat — this movement, which is much more of a challenge.”
Goss, a Bush appointee admitted as much in recent Senate Intelligence Committee testimony, saying, "Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8307333/page/3/
Basically Al Qaeda is an evolving into a movement....
As one British diplomat put it, “The U.S. is winning the war on al-Qaida but losing the war on terrorism — and the reason is Iraq.”
Roger Cressey, who was the National Security Council’s deputy director of counterterrorism in the Clinton and Bush administrations, agrees.
Good news, bad news
“Al-Qaida, as we knew it, is pretty much on its death bed now. I mean, we've had real successes in attriting its capability, so the organization that attacked us on 9/11 no longer poses the same type of threat,” said Cressey, now an NBC News consultant.
“That’s the good news. The bad news is we've seen a growth in this global Sunni extremist movement, partly driven by Iraq, but also by other events, which is much more difficult to track, follow and ultimately disrupt. So as we're doing really well against what was al-Qaida, we've got a new threat — this movement, which is much more of a challenge.”
Goss, a Bush appointee admitted as much in recent Senate Intelligence Committee testimony, saying, "Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8307333/page/3/
Basically Al Qaeda is an evolving into a movement....
Double Naught Spy
New member
Handy, man I don't know about you. You seem mad because I actually read your statements and paid attention to what you were saying and had trouble with your words because of errors. Now I don't know if it was a joke or not about the virgins comment you made. It seemed no different from the rest of your comments. It wasn't funny. In fact, it is one of those frighteningly common misconceptions about Islam that gets batted around on the net and TV. You didn't see any posts following with comments like, " Virgins, yeah right!
"
So in the same vein, you said you didn't understand why attacks weren't coming given that Islam was currently the fast growing religion. It is, both in acutal raw numbers and per capita numbers for the top several. Was this also a joke or do you have some insight into a trend, formula, or whatever that suggests the rate of spread of Islam should coincide with an increase of terroristic attacks on American homeland soil?
You had said no major attacks had been stopped and I gave you a couple of citations that you generously noted weren't great but essentially better than nothing. No doubt that such information is going to be difficult to come by for the general American public populace.
Certainly, there were no big terrorist operations being implemented, real life action, not just plans in a dark soom somewhere, that our folks at Homeland Security stopped by swooping in by chopper and gunning down terrorists attempting to dump toxins in the water system, shot down any planes that refused air traffic control instruction (with the possible exception of Payne Stewart's plane, though not operated by a known terrorist, but never responding because of a supposed cabin depressurization), etc. So we are left with various agencies keeping watch on various individuals of interest and by stopping, deporting, jailing, or whatever those folks, then we curtailed they plans. The problem there is that we don't know their plans, if any, for the future.
If you think about it, was the OKC bombing all McVeigh wanted to do to make his point or the points of those with him or did they have additional plans? We may have "stopped" several attack in that manner, but that becomes a mis-semantic counting of victories for battles not fought. In poultry, the eggs you eat today will not be chicken problems in the future.
The articles claim some 10 or so stopped attacks, stopping them before they start. That may be true. Or, maybe they stopped 50 attacks, only 10 of which were in the current works by those arrested, deported, etc.?
Do you think our military, police, fed agents, etc. stopped anything on 9/11? As near as I can tell, there were supposedly several attacks stopped, but not by any sort of police-type or combative actions. It was by grounding flights.
Supposedly, we have fighters on 24 hour standby alert status or some such title, but unlike some countries that expect to be attacked, we apparently don't fly any air caps over the US. So we the first fighters arriving over NY after the towers were struck. So unless the attacks happened when there were training exercises in the immediate area, then it wasn't likely that fighters would be able to respond properly, especially in a non-standard situation as was 9/11. Strangely, prior to 9/11, the coasts of the US were often best protected when carriers were traveling by, the carriers being complete with escorts and flying air caps.
Of course, the notion of castle mentality being ancient history, the US doesn't afford any sort of actual military protection of cities either.
So Handy, you don't think we have done much to really add to our protection. My impression is that you think most of it is just dog and pony kinds of minimal effort. Sure lots of things are being done, but how many are actually doing anything useful? So it is all a big sort of joke?
In all honesty, I agree 100% with you. However, the blame goes, in part, to the American people. We complain because we are not protected, but we want to be protected without ever seeing military presence because then we would fear we were in a police state. We don't know why the government doesn't simply round up suspected bad guys and arrest or ship them home, but we get upset when questioned about our guns, religion, etc. We don't want our planes to be hijacked, but even more, we don't want to be slowed down at the airport. You would think that 30 extra minutes or maybe 60 extra minutes at the airport is giving people giant goiters by the way the complain about being so inconvenienced.
In short, and Handy you may have said this yourself somewhere, but we are our own worst enemies. Our government cannot win against terrorism by direct action. The terror threat may fade, but probably not because they fear the US government. The problem is, in my opinion and I don't have a good cure for this, so don't ask, but we Americans complain at every little inconvenience that may come with extra security, so politicians are slow to implement significant programs as they won't remain in office very long if they do.
What really gets me is some of the overly stupid notions that if we change our behavior or if we recognize our threats are become fearful of them, that means the terrorists have "already won." If that is the case, then we lost long before our colonies were even fully formed. Colonists built various types of structures such as forts to protect themselves against the Native Americans who were not friendly. So they responded to a threat that we would call terroristic because it involves the attack on non-combatants in an effort to effect social, political, or religious change. In short, many of the Native Americans saw the settlers as invaders and took action.
Spend time in Israel or other such spots. Protection against military and terroristic threats is costly, inconvenient, and only effective on a limited scale. Even if they stop 90% of the attacks (and I don't know how many they stop) the ones that get through make life crappy for many who are there.
Do y'all recall the TV ads of the 1970s about what to do if you find a blasting cap somewhere, such as alongside of the road. It was an ad program designed to teach parents and kids what they look like and the fact that they could be quite unstable and handling them improperly could mame or kill. Usually they had a couple of really nasty bandaged kids at the end of the commercials who had apparently handled a randomly found blasting cap and suffered.
Change to Israel. The government put together similar sort of programs that were shown in schools and other public institutions. Some were aimed at teaching folks what various types of bombs look like and what they need to do should they find any. Another set was designed to teach behavior of what to do when encountering something unusual. While you may not be getting enough food and you see a loaf of bread on the ground, you don't grab it for a quick bite. You call the authorities. These movies came after several crappy sorts of boobytrapped bombs disguised as food products left out in various places, or a seemingly too good item displosed of in the garbage that when handled, triggered the explosion.
Do we want to live lives like that? If the threat is so great, then it may be necessary, but most of us would not be happy.
Virgins, yeah right! "So in the same vein, you said you didn't understand why attacks weren't coming given that Islam was currently the fast growing religion. It is, both in acutal raw numbers and per capita numbers for the top several. Was this also a joke or do you have some insight into a trend, formula, or whatever that suggests the rate of spread of Islam should coincide with an increase of terroristic attacks on American homeland soil?
You had said no major attacks had been stopped and I gave you a couple of citations that you generously noted weren't great but essentially better than nothing. No doubt that such information is going to be difficult to come by for the general American public populace.
Certainly, there were no big terrorist operations being implemented, real life action, not just plans in a dark soom somewhere, that our folks at Homeland Security stopped by swooping in by chopper and gunning down terrorists attempting to dump toxins in the water system, shot down any planes that refused air traffic control instruction (with the possible exception of Payne Stewart's plane, though not operated by a known terrorist, but never responding because of a supposed cabin depressurization), etc. So we are left with various agencies keeping watch on various individuals of interest and by stopping, deporting, jailing, or whatever those folks, then we curtailed they plans. The problem there is that we don't know their plans, if any, for the future.
If you think about it, was the OKC bombing all McVeigh wanted to do to make his point or the points of those with him or did they have additional plans? We may have "stopped" several attack in that manner, but that becomes a mis-semantic counting of victories for battles not fought. In poultry, the eggs you eat today will not be chicken problems in the future.
The articles claim some 10 or so stopped attacks, stopping them before they start. That may be true. Or, maybe they stopped 50 attacks, only 10 of which were in the current works by those arrested, deported, etc.?
Do you think our military, police, fed agents, etc. stopped anything on 9/11? As near as I can tell, there were supposedly several attacks stopped, but not by any sort of police-type or combative actions. It was by grounding flights.
Supposedly, we have fighters on 24 hour standby alert status or some such title, but unlike some countries that expect to be attacked, we apparently don't fly any air caps over the US. So we the first fighters arriving over NY after the towers were struck. So unless the attacks happened when there were training exercises in the immediate area, then it wasn't likely that fighters would be able to respond properly, especially in a non-standard situation as was 9/11. Strangely, prior to 9/11, the coasts of the US were often best protected when carriers were traveling by, the carriers being complete with escorts and flying air caps.
Of course, the notion of castle mentality being ancient history, the US doesn't afford any sort of actual military protection of cities either.
So Handy, you don't think we have done much to really add to our protection. My impression is that you think most of it is just dog and pony kinds of minimal effort. Sure lots of things are being done, but how many are actually doing anything useful? So it is all a big sort of joke?
In all honesty, I agree 100% with you. However, the blame goes, in part, to the American people. We complain because we are not protected, but we want to be protected without ever seeing military presence because then we would fear we were in a police state. We don't know why the government doesn't simply round up suspected bad guys and arrest or ship them home, but we get upset when questioned about our guns, religion, etc. We don't want our planes to be hijacked, but even more, we don't want to be slowed down at the airport. You would think that 30 extra minutes or maybe 60 extra minutes at the airport is giving people giant goiters by the way the complain about being so inconvenienced.
In short, and Handy you may have said this yourself somewhere, but we are our own worst enemies. Our government cannot win against terrorism by direct action. The terror threat may fade, but probably not because they fear the US government. The problem is, in my opinion and I don't have a good cure for this, so don't ask, but we Americans complain at every little inconvenience that may come with extra security, so politicians are slow to implement significant programs as they won't remain in office very long if they do.
What really gets me is some of the overly stupid notions that if we change our behavior or if we recognize our threats are become fearful of them, that means the terrorists have "already won." If that is the case, then we lost long before our colonies were even fully formed. Colonists built various types of structures such as forts to protect themselves against the Native Americans who were not friendly. So they responded to a threat that we would call terroristic because it involves the attack on non-combatants in an effort to effect social, political, or religious change. In short, many of the Native Americans saw the settlers as invaders and took action.
Spend time in Israel or other such spots. Protection against military and terroristic threats is costly, inconvenient, and only effective on a limited scale. Even if they stop 90% of the attacks (and I don't know how many they stop) the ones that get through make life crappy for many who are there.
Do y'all recall the TV ads of the 1970s about what to do if you find a blasting cap somewhere, such as alongside of the road. It was an ad program designed to teach parents and kids what they look like and the fact that they could be quite unstable and handling them improperly could mame or kill. Usually they had a couple of really nasty bandaged kids at the end of the commercials who had apparently handled a randomly found blasting cap and suffered.
Change to Israel. The government put together similar sort of programs that were shown in schools and other public institutions. Some were aimed at teaching folks what various types of bombs look like and what they need to do should they find any. Another set was designed to teach behavior of what to do when encountering something unusual. While you may not be getting enough food and you see a loaf of bread on the ground, you don't grab it for a quick bite. You call the authorities. These movies came after several crappy sorts of boobytrapped bombs disguised as food products left out in various places, or a seemingly too good item displosed of in the garbage that when handled, triggered the explosion.
Do we want to live lives like that? If the threat is so great, then it may be necessary, but most of us would not be happy.
Well, that was at least around the topic.
My point was very simple: Despite good efforts and bad, the US is simply too open, free and private to prevent certain efforts from being successful if attempted in a competent manner. I'm just a little stunned that there hasn't been a single life lost in the states with an obvious and direct tie to the conflict at hand.
My comment about the growth of Islam was not a joke - I was simply implying that the pool of possible converts was growing, not dwindling. No, I don't think being a Muslim will cause you to join Al Quaida, but being Catholic will absolutely not get you in. So if we could suppose a certain percent of Muslims are attracted to radical sentiments and Al Quaida, that percentage represents a growing number as the total number of Muslims grows. Is that science? Of course not, but it is more logical than presuming that the growth of Islam is going to cause the number of radicals to decrease.
Personally, I want to screw these people by inventing a clean, renewable power source and selling it to everyone on earth, ending the dominance of oil producing states. Anything short of that will be one sort of pain or another. I don't want to live in the new East Germany, and I don't want to live in another Israel, either.
But that isn't the question posed by this thread, as we neither have the security of a closed society or the ANY of the terror we have been warned to expect, and must logically conclude is all but unstoppable in one form or another. Why do YOU think we haven't seen one successful mandated attack?
My point was very simple: Despite good efforts and bad, the US is simply too open, free and private to prevent certain efforts from being successful if attempted in a competent manner. I'm just a little stunned that there hasn't been a single life lost in the states with an obvious and direct tie to the conflict at hand.
My comment about the growth of Islam was not a joke - I was simply implying that the pool of possible converts was growing, not dwindling. No, I don't think being a Muslim will cause you to join Al Quaida, but being Catholic will absolutely not get you in. So if we could suppose a certain percent of Muslims are attracted to radical sentiments and Al Quaida, that percentage represents a growing number as the total number of Muslims grows. Is that science? Of course not, but it is more logical than presuming that the growth of Islam is going to cause the number of radicals to decrease.
Personally, I want to screw these people by inventing a clean, renewable power source and selling it to everyone on earth, ending the dominance of oil producing states. Anything short of that will be one sort of pain or another. I don't want to live in the new East Germany, and I don't want to live in another Israel, either.
But that isn't the question posed by this thread, as we neither have the security of a closed society or the ANY of the terror we have been warned to expect, and must logically conclude is all but unstoppable in one form or another. Why do YOU think we haven't seen one successful mandated attack?
Baba Louie
New member
Perhaps they've read Sun Tzu?
From Sun Tzu's The Art of War
All warfare is based on deception.
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we
are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them.
Thus we may know that there are five essentials
for victory:
(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when
not to fight.
(2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior
and inferior forces.
(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same
spirit throughout all its ranks.
(4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take
the enemy unprepared.
(5) He will win who has military capacity and is
not interfered with by the sovereign.
http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html
Or perhaps our forces and leaders know a little something about Sun Tzu
"Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him."
"Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where you are not expected."
"We can form a single united body, while the enemy must split up into fractions. Hence there will be a whole pitted against separate parts of a whole, which means that we shall be many to the enemy's few."
Don't worry... Al-Q will attack again. It may or may not be another grim spectacle. Right now, they're kinda busy elsewhere methinks. And that's a good thing.
There were a few unexplained events that happened immediately after the 9-11 attack.
Remember anthrax? It was real. It was military grade. One person did contract the disease and die before the authorities knew what they were dealing with. Despite the entire scientific and forensic weight of this country, we never did find the culprit(s).
Remember the train derailments? There were dozens of them. All within a period of about 4 months, post 9-11. Downplayed by the media and the feds, no real explanation as to why, at this particular time, so many derailments were happening. They appeared to stop as suddenly as they started.
Major east-west artery, Interstate Hwy 20, bridge connecting Alabama and Missouri was struck by a barge and collapsed. A lot of speculation as to not only how this was achieved but the skipper of the barge was disappeared by the feds. Ever hear of him again? Ever hear of a satisfactory explanation of how this barge did what the feds claimed it did?
All of the above happened within a short time after 9-11. Conspiracy? Terrorist attacks? Coincidence?
I doubt we will ever know the true extent of, or the exact nature of such things. It does however give one pause to reflect. Have we had attacks other than 9-11? I'm inclined to not believe in coincidence.
Remember anthrax? It was real. It was military grade. One person did contract the disease and die before the authorities knew what they were dealing with. Despite the entire scientific and forensic weight of this country, we never did find the culprit(s).
Remember the train derailments? There were dozens of them. All within a period of about 4 months, post 9-11. Downplayed by the media and the feds, no real explanation as to why, at this particular time, so many derailments were happening. They appeared to stop as suddenly as they started.
Major east-west artery, Interstate Hwy 20, bridge connecting Alabama and Missouri was struck by a barge and collapsed. A lot of speculation as to not only how this was achieved but the skipper of the barge was disappeared by the feds. Ever hear of him again? Ever hear of a satisfactory explanation of how this barge did what the feds claimed it did?
All of the above happened within a short time after 9-11. Conspiracy? Terrorist attacks? Coincidence?
I doubt we will ever know the true extent of, or the exact nature of such things. It does however give one pause to reflect. Have we had attacks other than 9-11? I'm inclined to not believe in coincidence.