Why the US hasn't had another terror attack

It is likely the US has not had another terrorist attack since 9/11 because the organization finds it more feasible to inflict damage on the US by keeping them bogged down in Iraq. The continuous low level attacks that have kept the US bogged down in Iraq do not require the resources that a large scale attack on US soil such as 9/11 does.

Much of the senior upper management has been removed, and while the organization continues to restructure, they likely do not have the coordination to successfully complete a large scale operation on US soil at this time. al Qaeda is patient, they are resourceful, and they are determined. The US should be thankful that they can ask this question. It is likely they will not have that luxury in the future.

After the first WTC bombing, how many terrorist attacks were conducted on US soil up until 9/11? Did this mean that counter terrorism efforts were succesful up until that point? The fact that the US has not had another terrorist attack since 9/11 is positive, but it is foolish to use that as a measure of success.

 

The point is that al Qaeda does not need a large scale attack on US to prove to the world that they are still effective, still a thorn.

You ask why there has not been any orders? Moving operatives, funds, communications, and logistics are being watched now more than ever. Perhaps the plan is not complete. Perhaps the sleepers are still gathering intel, probing security. Perhaps one of many operations is in its final stage of planning.

Or....

How do you know that orders have not been given and a grand attack has been prevented?

al Qaeda has proven to have patience. Would it make sense to rush an operation and risk failing? Or wait, until the plan is proven, and all necessary links are in place? To prove that the WOT has done nothing to stop them.

Do you believe that Iran provided operational assistance to al Qaeda on 9/11?

 

Al-Qaeda started out as a lump of clay. Uncle Sam molded it into what it is today.

Al-Qaeda is a response. Just like the hippies were a response to something that had gone wrong in the world back in the 60's.

If you examine the past 100 years of history in the Middle East, you will find that the US has had a considerable impact upon it. Mainly for the sake of oil. Then, in 1948, with the birth of Israel, things really went off the deep end.

The facts are, this part of the world has had enough of our meddling in their affairs. They are sick of it. They don't want our materialism, our religion, our culture.

They're willing to take up arms against us to make their point clear.

We should listen.

If Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia didn't have oil, we wouldn't give these people the time of day. Fact.

The fact also, is we have helped to create a Jewish state right in the middle of it all. We continue to support this state despite it's horrible human rights record. Despite it's nuclear program (which it won't even admit to), and despite the fact that it has an assassination policy against leaders of other countries.

It it any wonder we have terrorists in our hair?

Did Iran provide operational assistance to al Qaeda on 9/11?

No. Uncle Sam himself provided a clear path to this opportunity. Greased with a neocon/zionist agenda to consolidate power in the US.

We've seen the fruits of their labor ever since.



x

 

The reason we haven't had another terrorist attack is simple.

1) How many major attacks have we ever had? And how long (no matter who is in charge) does it take for a group to plan a major attack?

2) The terrorists were primarily Saudi Arabian sunnis, the same people BUSHCo is in bed with. All I can say is...MONEY TALKS.

 

You guys talk like al-Qaeda is actually REAL, but what I would like to know is what proof do any of you have that it is real and not just some contrived boogeyman? If you are going to use 9/11 as the proof, then what proof do you have that al-Qaeda was behind 9/11, when the government certainly hasn't been able to prove this themselves? Some people will say that bin Laden confessed to it on tape, but we know that tape was deliberately mistranslated and that it's highly unlikely that was even bin Laden in the equally deliberately blurry video. The facial features of the person they claim is "bin Laden" in that video, and the other footage we have seen of bin Laden, is clearly different.

At the same time, Ummat interviewed bin Laden just following the attacks, admitting he had nothing to do with them. Yet, conveniently, this interview was ignored by the western media, with the exception of a few papers in Europe. Why is this?

http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm

If we are going to talk about why "al-Qaeda" hasn't attacked the US since 9/11, let's first define what exactly al-Qaeda is, other than the title that's been given to us through the media.

 

Surprisingly, some people here might actually obtain knowledge from somewhere other than the internet. It is always easier to believe things if you see them first hand, I would suggest visiting some popular Middle Eastern destinations and then give us your opinion on Radical Islamic Fundamentalists.

Why would the US government (CIA) video tape and mistranslate an imposter, when according to your theory, they could have used the actual CIA agent Sheikh Osama? If bin Laden is just a paid poster child for terrorism, why cast doubt by not using the real thing?

Mujahideen.

Rat, what do you know of the Muslim Brotherhood?

 

wow this thread has a lot of really good information

 

I obtain my information from a wide range of sources. Where do YOU obtain your information from?

I never doubted the existence of radical Islam. This, however, does not prove the existence of al-Qaeda (at least not as we are made to believe), or Islamic terrorism on the scale we saw with 9/11 or the attack on the London Underground in '05.

All evidence points to "al-Qaeda" being a creation and tool of the Anglo-American establishment and, as I have pointed out numerous times before, just the name alone comes from a CIA database file on the Mujahadeen.

It depends on the degree in which he is being used by the West. It's likely he is just a boogeyman they have created and allowed to exist unabated, but isn't voluntarily going along with the agenda. If Osama is really who they say he is, or posed a threat to their agenda, they would have caught him by now. They have satellites that can penetrate walls, yet we're supposed to believe they can't find him? Sorry, but you have to be pretty gullible to believe this.

I think the questions people should be asking themselves is, why have videos turned up, allegedly from "bin Laden" and "al-Qaeda," that have been proven to be spliced together from old footage? In the "bin Laden confession tape," why are the facial features of this alleged bin Laden vastly different from the other pictures we've seen? The intelligence agencies all say that bin Laden is left-handed, but yet we see him writing with his right hand in the video? Why is this? Why was the video misinterpreted, with words added that were never spoken in the video? How did "coalition forces" so coveniently stumble upon this tape in an abandoned house in Afghanistan?

These are questions people should be asking!

This stuff is so ridiculous, you have to be incredibly naive to consciously believe it's real.

Quite a bit.

So if they have the ability to be the huge threat they supposedly are, with the ability to outsmart what is supposedly the best air defense system in the world, someone HAS to be funding them and providing them other forms of aid. So who?

 

It doesn't have to be real, for people to be inspired by it. Thousands of Islamics and other disaffected peoples are just thrilled by the thought of Uncle Sam taking on on the chin at the hands of a small third world orginization. Some young men in South Jersey got pinned with a plot to attack Ft. Dix. It might have been more of a ghetto-boast then actual threat, but these guys grew up in Jersey and were not connected to Al Queda.

In George Orwell's 1984; both Big Brother and Emmanuel Goldstien, architect of the resistance, were figures of conjecture. Nevertheless Winston and Julia both thought to join the resistance even though it was controlled by The Party. ( was it The Brotherhood ?)

 

Hey nobody has seen Fidel Castro in a year, yet he remains the inspiration for an entire Island Nation. These guys provide symbolism.
Al Queda, like Cuba can seem to stumble along without guidance from the top.

 

Then why didn't we concentrate on Al Qaeda and OBL before going into Iraq?

 

You did.

 

Why didn't GW and the congress? Wasn't that who the bad guys were? Six years later and we haven't seemed to smoke him out. And now we have allowed Iraq to become a growing ground for Al Qaeda. Accomplished a lot haven't we with the expenditure of billions maybe trillions and thousands of lost American lives.

 

SKIP,

Are you familiar with the term FALSE FLAG TERRORISM? Have you ever heard of the USS Liberty? Do you know what happened?

Are you denying that western intelligence provided funding to the Mujahadeen? Yes or No.

Now I have no problem answering your questions, but I have doubts as to whether you read anything I write. I already explained in detail the events surrounding the first WTC bombing.... about how the FBI helped cook the bomb and train the driver (as was caught on tape by an informant).... about how all those implicated in these attacks were on CIA payroll. I went over all this in the first response post to this thread. It seems you either didn't read what I wrote, or you conveniently ignored it.

Much like the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole Bomber Jamal al-Badawi also had ties to western intelligence and fought for the CIA in Bosnia. He and others implicated in the attacks were then conveniently allowed to escape from prison before they could go on trial.

The events surrounding the attack on the USS Cole were suspicious enough. Normally, ships like that are refueled at sea by oil tankers. However, for whatever reason, on orders from the Pentagon, the Cole was ordered to Yemen to refuel. Now why would they send a high-tech ship like the Cole, flying the American flag, into Yemen... an area with strong anti-American sentiment? We now know that it was then Secretary of Defense William Cohen who ordered the USS Cole into Yemen.

We know that the Cole was attacked just as it had arrived and was docking. This means that the attackers had inside knowledge and the entire thing was pre-planned.

Also, experts have confimed that the extent of the damage seen on the Cole had to have been caused either by a shape charge or missile. Can you think of any way a group of rag-tag Arab terrorists would have the technical know-how or the knowledge of the Cole's arrival to pull off such an attack, let alone by themselves?

You also asked about the embassy bombings, which also had western fingerprints all over them. It was Ali Mohamed, a former US Army sergeant who trained Osama bin Laden's bodyguards, who helped plan the bombing of the US embassy in Kenya. He was employed by the FBI according to the San Francisco Chronicle. It was Mohamed who brought Ayman al-Zawahiri to San Francisco on a covert fund-raising mission.

You ask what anyone other than al-Qaeda would stand to gain from these attacks. But what exactly DID 'al-Qaeda' (depending on what your idea of al-Qaeda is) gain from these attacks?

What these attacks were designed to do was create western animosity towards Arabs, and serve as a precursor to the 9/11 attacks (which were no doubt planned long before this point), so when the attacks occured people would have already heard of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. These attacks were sort of the build-up to 9/11. They served to cement the existence of bin Laden and Arab terrorism into the public mindset.

 

The last great opportunity to take out bin Laden was 2001. Gen. Franks would not send in the Rangers needed to prevent escape into Pakistan. More pressure needs to be put on Musharraf and Pakistan to go into the tribal region on the Afghan-Pak border.

Iraq is a disaster. Iraq was a problem that needed to be dealt with, however, the manner in which it was dealt with was textbook failure.