• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why no more terrorist attacks in the U.S.?

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why aren't terrorists bombing our shopping malls? A few molotov cocktails into Starbucks outdoor seating areas...amusement parks...another hijacking or two -- why do you suppose nothing "big" has happened since 9/11?

If it's really true that radical Islamics want to destroy the United States, where have they been?

Does it make you wonder? Do you ever think about black flag operations? Or that what we've been told about the perpetrators of 9/11 isn't really true? If you haven't, wondered, how do you explain that these 'death to America' supposed crazies have been so quiet here in the states?
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well there have been several attempts by various terrorist groups to attack the US, that have all failed. The shoe and underwear bombers are two we know about.

Also I think from a logistical standpoint, for those groups large enough, its simply easier to fund and attack Americans who are overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan. And its more important for them as well, if they succeed in blowing up and airliner thats great for them but if they lose the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan that is much worse. Iraq and Afghanistan will have an impact which lasts much longer than that airliner.

Lastly, I think our Global War on Terrorism, for all its flaws, has had its successes. Al-Qaeda for example is not the global organization it once was, its been divided in local chapters which for all practical purposes act alone. Also we've funded and helped train nations and their army/police who fight local terrorist cells. And we have a much more active intelligence service and allies, who although they may not be willing to send much of the armies to Afghanistan or Iraq, still are more than willing to cooperate on matters of intelligence. They want our info and we want theirs so it works out nicely since the US doesn't want to see a terrorist attack in Europe anymore than European gov'ts want to see an attack on the US. So, attacking the US in a significant way is much harder than it once was, its still possible though.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well there have been several attempts by various terrorist groups to attack the US, that have all failed. The shoe and underwear bombers are two we know about.

Also I think from a logistical standpoint, for those groups large enough, its simply easier to fund and attack Americans who are overseas in Iraq or Afghanistan. And its more important for them as well, if they succeed in blowing up and airliner thats great for them but if they lose the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan that is much worse. Iraq and Afghanistan will have an impact which lasts much longer than that airliner.

Lastly, I think our Global War on Terrorism, for all its flaws, has had its successes. Al-Qaeda for example is not the global organization it once was, its been divided in local chapters which for all practical purposes act alone. Also we've funded and helped train nations and their army/police who fight local terrorist cells. And we have a much more active intelligence service and allies, who although they may not be willing to send much of the armies to Afghanistan or Iraq, still are more than willing to cooperate on matters of intelligence. They want our info and we want theirs so it works out nicely since the US doesn't want to see a terrorist attack in Europe anymore than European gov'ts want to see an attack on the US. So, attacking the US in a significant way is much harder than it once was, its still possible though.

I like your answer. Everything you say is true. It's just hard for me to believe that, given the vulnerability of our consumer economy, this group hasn't targetted it in a sure-fire way to bring us down. Just imagine what would happen to our economy right now if people were in fear of going to malls or public gatherings. It would seem to me that an assault like that would be even more effective than 9/11. A dozen terrorists; Noon in major city downtown shopping areas; bottle bombs or worse.

I shall now look out my window for the black SUV's.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I like your answer. Everything you say is true. It's just hard for me to believe that, given the vulnerability of our consumer economy, this group hasn't targetted it in a sure-fire way to bring us down. Just imagine what would happen to our economy right now if people were in fear of going to malls or public gatherings. It would seem to me that an assault like that would be even more effective than 9/11. A dozen terrorists; Noon in major city downtown shopping areas; bottle bombs or worse.

I shall now look out my window for the black SUV's.

I doubt it would have changed anything for the long run in terms of consumption. What there would be is a short term decrease in consumption and perhaps, but I doubt, long term increase in security and other considerations. For example after 9/11 there was a short term decrease in the consumption of airline services but in the long term all we have is a ridiculous amount of ineffective and time-consuming security.

However unlike the airlines Malls aren't seen on a national level, its very clear to an individual what an airline is and where you go to use an airline, its not as clear exactly what a mall is and what isn't a mall. Also malls are owned by a much more diverse group of owners, and imposing the same security standards on the huge differences of owners and buildings would be near impossible. The layout of all airports are similar, the layout of every mall is similar but also much more diverse. And the way a person moves through an airport is vastly different than a mall, in an airport you walk through more than just one level of security and you have a clear path from when you enter to where you are going. In a mall people just want to walk around, no one goes to an airport to just stroll around, malls are about leisure and relaxation in many ways, airports are strictly business, so I think in the long term an attack on a mall, wouldn't have meaningful affect on our consumer economy or culture.
 
Last edited:

yz89

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
102
Reaction score
9
Location
Iran
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Because the government doesn't need to attack more countries, so, more excuse is not needed.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I like your answer. Everything you say is true. It's just hard for me to believe that, given the vulnerability of our consumer economy, this group hasn't targetted it in a sure-fire way to bring us down. Just imagine what would happen to our economy right now if people were in fear of going to malls or public gatherings. It would seem to me that an assault like that would be even more effective than 9/11. A dozen terrorists; Noon in major city downtown shopping areas; bottle bombs or worse.

I shall now look out my window for the black SUV's.

Our efforts have actually been very successful. All measures taken have all led, in one degree or other, to the decrease or prevention of various things.

Every day the military operates home-based missions to intervene and end terrorist attacks before they can actually occur. . . The Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive action proves beneficial, thus, it's been pretty much left in place by Obama in certain areas.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Oh, come on, nobody's given the obvious answer?

Well, okay, I'll be the first: Because he's a secret Muslim -- so secret, in fact, that his Muslim extremist brothers don't know which kind of Muslim he is. As soon as they get that figured out, the faction Obama isn't allied with will destroy us all.

I mean, it's either that or OBL is BHO's father.

Take your pick, either one has the same result.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Oh - well, being serious, we can't ignore that there might have been such serious attacks *in the US* - but worldwide the # has stayed steady, increased, or prevention has been in full swing.

There have been a lot of attacks in other countries - Britain, to name just one.

It seems as if their focus is being directed over there - where the war is at, where attacks are easier to carry out . . . and so forth.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
35,222
Reaction score
24,058
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The oceans around you are your main protection, but why would "they" go to the bother of attacking you there, when you obligingly send your young folks to them to be killed?
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Ooo, ooo, I got it!

First we pull our troops out of the middle east, and then we place advertisements for swimming instructors in certain non-English publications! That'll lead us straight to the evil-doers! :lol:
 

Polynikes

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
522
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I doubt it would have changed anything for the long run in terms of consumption. What there would be is a short term decrease in consumption and perhaps, but I doubt, long term increase in security and other considerations. For example after 9/11 there was a short term decrease in the consumption of airline services but in the long term all we have is a ridiculous amount of ineffective and time-consuming security.

However unlike the airlines Malls aren't seen on a national level, its very clear to an individual what an airline is and where you go to use an airline, its not as clear exactly what a mall is and what isn't a mall. Also malls are owned by a much more diverse group of owners, and imposing the same security standards on the huge differences of owners and buildings would be near impossible. The layout of all airports are similar, the layout of every mall is similar but also much more diverse. And the way a person moves through an airport is vastly different than a mall, in an airport you walk through more than just one level of security and you have a clear path from when you enter to where you are going. In a mall people just want to walk around, no one goes to an airport to just stroll around, malls are about leisure and relaxation in many ways, airports are strictly business, so I think in the long term an attack on a mall, wouldn't have meaningful affect on our consumer economy or culture.



5 simultaneous attacks by groups of 5 heavily armed men on 5 different shopping malls around the country on Black Friday, or even worse, a week or two before Black Friday, would plunge this country in to a very bad economic situation. It would take the national guard patrolling the malls to get people to even think about going back. If the slaughter was gruesome enough, which I think it would be, the attack would have just as much if not more adverse effects than 9/11. If the cells were competent and well trained, which they more than likely would be, we could be talking upwards of 1,000 casualties.

But you can theorycraft devastating attacks all day. 25 well armed men could potentially do much more damage, this is just one scenario involving a shopping mall.
 

alexa

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
4,684
Reaction score
1,340
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh - well, being serious, we can't ignore that there might have been such serious attacks *in the US* - but worldwide the # has stayed steady, increased, or prevention has been in full swing.

There have been a lot of attacks in other countries - Britain, to name just one
.

It seems as if their focus is being directed over there - where the war is at, where attacks are easier to carry out . . . and so forth.

I must have missed them then. We had 7/7 and then a failed copy cat try the next week or so. They've been keeping any others hidden from me.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
5 simultaneous attacks by groups of 5 heavily armed men on 5 different shopping malls around the country on Black Friday, or even worse, a week or two before Black Friday, would plunge this country in to a very bad economic situation. It would take the national guard patrolling the malls to get people to even think about going back. If the slaughter was gruesome enough, which I think it would be, the attack would have just as much if not more adverse effects than 9/11. If the cells were competent and well trained, which they more than likely would be, we could be talking upwards of 1,000 casualties.

But you can theorycraft devastating attacks all day. 25 well armed men could potentially do much more damage, this is just one scenario involving a shopping mall.

You vastly over estimate the effectiveness of shooters, and I think you vastly over estimate the affect it would have on our economy. Firstly, coordinating all this will be difficult but not impossible, it would be easy enough to research the busy malls in America and set up a time and date for everyone to arrive at each of them, but it would be a challenge.
Secondly, expecting each man to kill an average of 40 people on his own is very difficult to see. You can look at every school shooting or terrorist attack in the world conducted primarily by guns, and NONE of them have a kill ratio of 1:40. The problem is that when people hear shooting their natural response is to obviously run away from it, and people and run and hide faster than an individual can shoot at them. Then for the most part police come in and isolate the shooter(s).
Thirdly, I think while it would certainly have a negative affect on the economy it would not break its backbone. The US economy has suffered a lot in the past and its still around, including a few poor shopping days, and lets not forget the internet. People can simply go online and order their gifts, including that new gun.
 

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
Why aren't terrorists bombing our shopping malls? A few molotov cocktails into Starbucks outdoor seating areas...amusement parks...another hijacking or two -- why do you suppose nothing "big" has happened since 9/11?

If it's really true that radical Islamics want to destroy the United States, where have they been?

Does it make you wonder? Do you ever think about black flag operations? Or that what we've been told about the perpetrators of 9/11 isn't really true? If you haven't, wondered, how do you explain that these 'death to America' supposed crazies have been so quiet here in the states?

It's likely very hard to get people to volunteer to commit suicide. Especially since the 19 volunteers on 9/11/01 did nothing but bring more death and destruction to fellow Muslims than any ones before.

And before you come back with "they have suicide bombers over there" let me just say this; most of the news reports I hear are sometimes 5 hours after the attack or earlier. Just because a guy gets blown up on a bus or in a market doesn't mean he meant for it to happen. I would suspect that quite often a guy is told by his employer who happens to be with the insurgency to take a car from point A to point B. Little does he know that when he drives by a market that a remote control detonator will blow the car up. It will be reported on ABC and CBS as a suicide driver.

It doesn't make me wonder that the officers in Al Queda and other terrorist groups can't find people to volunteer to die.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's likely very hard to get people to volunteer to commit suicide.

They seem to be doing a pretty good job of that, really.

But they're disorganized - good for us. . . and lack in areas where many other villians have been successful (like Hitler - he had a country in his favor) and they likely suffer from Hitler's issue: where the leader wants to make *all* the military decisions even though he has no clue what he's doing.

But note - we had to teach them *in* Iraq how to do everything that's essential to military-survival. They seem, overall, to be extremely dysfunctional in that entire region (not just *the* terrorists - but everyone) and as a people (good or bad) they lack in basic organizational skills which are necessary to get a group of men together and then train them to do something in unison - and with success. Public, private, terrorist . . . all these areas are very underdeveloped and suffer from the same issues.

I, honestly, just don't think they're a 'unified people' in nature - and it shows by how their countries are underdeveloped, undereducated and unorganized in general. They're quite primitive . . . with few breaking away from that norm over the last few centuries.

If the general public is primitive - then it makes sense that their terrorist sects that break away will be, too.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
77,280
Reaction score
32,873
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why aren't terrorists bombing our shopping malls? A few molotov cocktails into Starbucks outdoor seating areas...amusement parks...another hijacking or two -- why do you suppose nothing "big" has happened since 9/11?

If it's really true that radical Islamics want to destroy the United States, where have they been?

Does it make you wonder? Do you ever think about black flag operations? Or that what we've been told about the perpetrators of 9/11 isn't really true? If you haven't, wondered, how do you explain that these 'death to America' supposed crazies have been so quiet here in the states?

Best guess is that after the 8 years of the Clinton presidency the extremsits had NO CLUE that the response would be as dire as it has been. Frankly I think they are too busy playing whackamole to consider endorsing any terror acts and bringing down even more pain.

Bush policies fighting terror made the country safe. To Obamas credit he has followed those policies and also done a very credible job. Whether it is that he is that committed and aggressive at fighting terrorism (I hope) or he is convinced that allowing a terror attack would be a nail in his political coffin, the fact is that he appears to be doing a pretty good job. I hope he keeps it up!
 

creativedreams

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
2,730
Reaction score
232
Location
Timbuktu
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Why aren't terrorists bombing our shopping malls? A few molotov cocktails into Starbucks outdoor seating areas...amusement parks...another hijacking or two -- why do you suppose nothing "big" has happened since 9/11?

If it's really true that radical Islamics want to destroy the United States, where have they been?

Does it make you wonder? Do you ever think about black flag operations? Or that what we've been told about the perpetrators of 9/11 isn't really true? If you haven't, wondered, how do you explain that these 'death to America' supposed crazies have been so quiet here in the states?

If you would notice...the same security for 9/11 at the World Trade Center buildings just happens to be the same security for the airliners used on 9/11.

Also it just so happens its the same security organization that just happens to "catch and prevent" these supposed attempted attacks on Americas "Freedoms" that is spoonfed to the mainstream media...

Funny how the so called "sleeper cells" here in the U.S. can pull off the most complicated terrorist stunt the world has ever seen, which just happened to destroy all 7 World Trade Center buildings....is not able to do the most simple terror act that would be impossible to prevent...like open fire in a mall or a homemade bomb in a public place...suicide bomb in a public place...etc....

A majical terror act that they will not follow... just happened to hit the Pentagon not only in the only area undergoing construction renovations but also 9/11 just happened to occur in the only section of the Pentagon reinforced for a possible impact.....which just happened to make it an act of war instead of just a domestic criminal act........to get the U.S. into where the oil is but the so called "sleeper cells" here in the U.S. cannot pull off the most simplest terror attack......

 
Last edited:

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
They seem to be doing a pretty good job of that, really.

But they're disorganized - good for us. . . and lack in areas where many other villians have been successful (like Hitler - he had a country in his favor) and they likely suffer from Hitler's issue: where the leader wants to make *all* the military decisions even though he has no clue what he's doing.

But note - we had to teach them *in* Iraq how to do everything that's essential to military-survival. They seem, overall, to be extremely dysfunctional in that entire region (not just *the* terrorists - but everyone) and as a people (good or bad) they lack in basic organizational skills which are necessary to get a group of men together and then train them to do something in unison - and with success. Public, private, terrorist . . . all these areas are very underdeveloped and suffer from the same issues.

I, honestly, just don't think they're a 'unified people' in nature - and it shows by how their countries are underdeveloped, undereducated and unorganized in general. They're quite primitive . . . with few breaking away from that norm over the last few centuries.

If the general public is primitive - then it makes sense that their terrorist sects that break away will be, too.

I agree with a lot of what you said but really, do you honestly feel that EVERY attack reported as a suicide bomber is actually a suicide bomber in Iraq or Afghanistan? I do not. I think it is easy to assume the guy who is now dead did so for reason A or reason B but I would contend that a great many--if not most--had no idea that they were about to die. They were told to meet someone somewhere and bring a package that was likely delivered to them. The guy they were supposedly going to meet is wanted so they couldn't have--the story goes--they couldn't have the package delivered directly to him so they sent it to a friend of the family. And they get him to bring the package to the market or the store or the office building where the supposedly wanted man is supposedly waiting and boom.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's likely very hard to get people to volunteer to commit suicide. Especially since the 19 volunteers on 9/11/01 did nothing but bring more death and destruction to fellow Muslims than any ones before.

And before you come back with "they have suicide bombers over there" let me just say this; most of the news reports I hear are sometimes 5 hours after the attack or earlier. Just because a guy gets blown up on a bus or in a market doesn't mean he meant for it to happen. I would suspect that quite often a guy is told by his employer who happens to be with the insurgency to take a car from point A to point B. Little does he know that when he drives by a market that a remote control detonator will blow the car up. It will be reported on ABC and CBS as a suicide driver.

It doesn't make me wonder that the officers in Al Queda and other terrorist groups can't find people to volunteer to die.

My point is that it wouldn't take suicide bombers or hijacked airlinners to bring our economy to its knees. Sniper fire at large shopping malls would do just fine. Drop a few moms and kids at the Mall of America and a few others and nobody'll be shopping. Why is that not happening?
 

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
If you would notice...the same security for 9/11 at the World Trade Center buildings just happens to be the same security for the airliners used on 9/11.
The security company at the airports was Huntleigh. The "airliners" (often called airplanes) had no onboard security force. They (Huntleigh) were not in charge at the World Trade Center. Please source your statement.


Also it just so happens its the same security organization that just happens to "catch and prevent" these supposed attempted attacks on Americas "Freedoms" that is spoonfed to the mainstream media...

Funny how the so called "sleeper cells" here in the U.S. can pull off the most complicated terrorist stunt the world has ever seen, which just happened to destroy all 7 World Trade Center buildings....is not able to do the most simple terror act that would be impossible to prevent...like open fire in a mall or a homemade bomb in a public place...suicide bomb in a public place...etc....
It isn't funny at all. Your statement is naive. Why set a fire to a mall and injure a few hundred...maybe...when you can nurture and use the same asset to kill 3,000 and terrorize millions. Sun Tzu said, "Kill One, Scare 10,000". What are you implying...that there was government help?

A majical terror act that they will not follow... just happened to hit the Pentagon not only in the only area undergoing construction renovations but also 9/11 just happened to occur in the only section of the Pentagon reinforced for a possible impact.....which just happened to make it an act of war instead of just a domestic criminal act
The pilot overshot the building and came back. We got very lucky; if you want to call it that. Again, why not come out and state what you think instead of the innuendo?

........to get the U.S. into where the oil is but the so called "sleeper cells" here in the U.S. cannot pull off the most simplest terror attack......


That I agree with; the need to seize the oil now for the use in the future was there and the attacks were a pre-text for that. Its sort of silly to think that the only way we could have gone into the middle east was to destroy buildings over here. The war in Iraq--where the oil is--was never popular unlike Afghanisatan.
 
Top Bottom