Why has there not been another 9/11 or worse?

[Jim]

The immigration thread has me wondering why we have not been hit again. We have, by various accounts, 11-20MM undocumented people in this country. It isn't that hard to get in and it isn't that hard to stay here. I can see why terrorists have not been able to hijack plans but, let's face it, it's not that hard to think of scenarios where a few suicide bombers could make a very public statement.

 

My theories are:

 

1. We have disrupted Al Queda at least to the degree that they haven't been able to implement a "Black Sunday" kind of scenario;

 

2. Al Queda doesn't want to start with what it considers small time acts, the stray bombers and less significant american events; and,

 

3. The NSA and other programs work.

 

We are coming up on the five year anniversary of this event and I think we have to accept that there is some cause for our good fortune other than their good intentions.

[ecoli]

Why do I doubt #3 is correct.

[Jim]

Why do I doubt #3 is correct.

 

No idea, really. It's been almost five years....

[Pangloss]

I think our destruction of the status quo in Afghanistan has had some impact in this area. Even if we've done nothing more than kick the ant hill, it's clearly been disruptive to the powers that were in charge there in 2001.

 

There was a story going around yesterday about how Osama bin Laden was able to respond so quickly with a new video tape responding to the conviction of Zacharias Mousoui (sp). The turnaround time was 19 days. Most of the reaction was about how fast that was, which is understandable given the fact that most of his tapes have been datable only within a time frame of months or years.

 

But one thing that I think is interesting about that time frame (19 days) is that it wasn't faster. What happened during those 19 days? Was all that time spent thinking about a response, or was it actually spent digging himself out of his little hole, walking to civilization, finding a video tape and a camera, finding distribution people that wouldn't get caught, and so forth.

 

Granted he's done this before, so I'm not suggesting there's anything NEW going on here. What I'm suggesting is that the fact that it took 19 days to respond indicates that his infrastructure/support could certainly be better than it presently is.

[swansont]

No idea, really. It's been almost five years....

 

And how many acts have they enacted, worldwide, since then?

 

An option you didn't list is that they were not capable of a high frequency to begin with, especially ones far from their base of operations. Add to that the removal of their encampments in Afghanistan, and I think you've explained a lot of the inactivity.

[Pangloss]

Several, actually, including major terrorist attacks in Spain, Britain and Indonesia, for starters.

 

It's fair question, though, and I agree you have to look at the big picture.

[abskebabs]

Al Quaeda cannot be described at all accurately as an organisation. It is an ideology carried out by ppl with similiar motives, sentiment and long term goals. It's organisational structure is mainly in the form of loosely knit cells thjat are self sustainable in terms of operations. Bin Laden is mainly a figurehead, and some(not by any means all) operations are only carried out after blessings are given by the sheikh or one of his deputies or representatives. Because of this kind of structure their operations are very hard to trace.

 

The US intelligence community has been taking a LONG time to adapt to this new kind of enemy but it is adapting. Ultimately it has to be recognised that Al Quaeda is not a "traditional" foe like any other organisation. It is an ideology, and to defeat the ideology we must defeat its ideas and its basis for sympathy in the Islamic world. We must stop giving muslims a reason to sympathise with islamic extremism. The west(especially the US) must win the crucial battle of hearts and minds(cleeshayed I know).

[PhDP]

They're probably involved in the attacks of Madrid/London/Riyad/Bali/Kenya/Tunisia/Istanbul + multiple attacks in Iraq (and others I'm missing). I agree the US and their allies have damaged al-Qaeda to a certain extent, however, considering how much attacks were made by al-Qaeda since 9/11 and considering they've waited 8 years after the first attack on the WTC, I'm not sure about the "good forture". I would also like to see the number of attacks made by al-Qaeda since 9/11 vs. before 9/11, perhaps it's not as pretty as you think.

[Severian]

They have been lulling you into a false sense of security.

[Jim]

And how many acts have they enacted, worldwide, since then?

 

This is a good point but my question was raised by the US immigration debate. If it is so easy for 11-20 million people to get and stay here on an undocumented basis, why are we not being hit here in America? As we strike at them, I'm certain they want to hit us and, frankly, it wouldn't be that hard to take out a soft yet symbolic target.

 

An option you didn't list is that they were not capable of a high frequency to begin with, especially ones far from their base of operations.

 

Certainly the spectacular attacks of 9/11 may have taxed their resources. I'm not so certain it explains complete inactivity. I won't give possible ideas as to what they could have done but its not that hard to imagine spectacular acts of violence which do not require the coordinated hijacking of four commercial airliners.

 

Add to that the removal of their encampments in Afghanistan, and I think you've explained a lot of the inactivity.

 

Certainly, Afghanistan, has something to do with our good fortune thus far. I also think the policy announced immediately after 9/11 has helped, i.e. that the US would not distinguish between terrorists and the nations that give them sanctuary.

 

I'm also wonder if the NSA program contributed.

 

They're probably involved in the attacks of Madrid/London/Riyad/Bali/Kenya/Tunisia/Istanbul + multiple attacks in Iraq (and others I'm missing). I agree the US and their allies have damaged al-Qaeda to a certain extent, however, considering how much attacks were made by al-Qaeda since 9/11 and considering they've waited 8 years after the first attack on the WTC, I'm not sure about the "good forture". I would also like to see the number of attacks made by al-Qaeda since 9/11 vs. before 9/11, perhaps it's not as pretty as you think.

 

Yes, but they obviously still want to attack the US, particularly now. Unless they do not believe they can move agents into Mexico without our knowing, it wouldn't be that hard to come in through Mexico with a few explosives and then hit a soft, symbolic target.

 

I think our destruction of the status quo in Afghanistan has had some impact in this area. Even if we've done nothing more than kick the ant hill' date=' it's clearly been disruptive to the powers that were in charge there in 2001.

 

There was a story going around yesterday about how Osama bin Laden was able to respond so quickly with a new video tape responding to the conviction of Zacharias Mousoui (sp). The turnaround time was 19 days. Most of the reaction was about how [i']fast[/i] that was, which is understandable given the fact that most of his tapes have been datable only within a time frame of months or years.

 

But one thing that I think is interesting about that time frame (19 days) is that it wasn't faster. What happened during those 19 days? Was all that time spent thinking about a response, or was it actually spent digging himself out of his little hole, walking to civilization, finding a video tape and a camera, finding distribution people that wouldn't get caught, and so forth.

 

Granted he's done this before, so I'm not suggesting there's anything NEW going on here. What I'm suggesting is that the fact that it took 19 days to respond indicates that his infrastructure/support could certainly be better than it presently is.

 

Doesn't this suggest that they may have gone low tech, at least to an extent of no one in the chain risking email of the video file, to avoid NSA monitoring?

[swansont]

Several' date=' actually, including major terrorist attacks in Spain, Britain and Indonesia, for starters.

 

It's fair question, though, and I agree you have to look at the big picture.[/quote']

 

So, on average, roughly one major attack a year since then, and some smaller ones.

[Jim]

They have been lulling you into a false sense of security.

 

Not me so much as the rest of the country.

[GutZ]

What I don't understand is how the US is suppose to stop it. People blame the US for the invasion, and all that, but really, it's different if you know your the primary target. Anyways.

 

As long as America is the "evil" country, Someone will always stand up to it, You don't need Osama or Saddam dead because their place will be taken. Even if you bombed the country to the ground, SIX times over with Hydrogen Bombs Someone from somewhere will emerge with a new religion extremist regime. It's getting to a point where all these S-bombing/missions are getting rediculious, its slapping humanity in the face. What happened to our primal instincts! We still keep stupidity around, why not rage and destruction?

 

As much as I don't agree with bush he's had a rough period to be president. I'd be droppin bombs.

[bascule]

I have a rock that keeps Al Qaeda away. That's why.

[padren]

Perhaps their primary goal was to create a rift between Saudis and the US, expecting us (given the number of Saudi hijackers) to invade there instead of Iraq, with the majority of the Muslim world falling in line behind the Saudis.

 

They are extreemists, they expect other muslims to secretly feel the extreemists are right, but to not have the courage to accept it when things are comfortable. A war between the West and the Islamic world would be expected to "shock" the moderate muslims into seeing they had been seduced by western culture, and expose that they are really like.

 

What happened on 9/11, was the majority of the world, including the majority of muslims rallying around the US and feeling that terrorism is a global threat to everyone. We've erroded that support better than anyone could have imagined since then, but I am sure the memory of it is still strong in their minds, and they don't want to increase support against them.

 

If the US does decide to use tactical nukes in Iran though, I can't imagine that anyone would have sympathy for us if they nuked New York and DC. Whether the delivery system is a cruise missile or a suitcase, a nuke is a nuke.

[Tetrahedrite]

No idea, really. It's been almost five years....

Ideologies and hatred have the capacity to last decades and centuries (eg israel/palastine), so five years is quite insignificant. The real question is, do you think the actions of your government have made the USA a smaller or larger target in the long run? My impression is that the USA has lost a large part of the credibility that it once had with muslim and non-muslim countries alike, and this will only serve to make you a bigger target for the idologues.

[Pangloss]

Or maybe they figure the ideologues are oafishly discrediting the US just fine and don't need any help.

[john5746]

1. We have disrupted Al Queda at least to the degree that they haven't been able to implement a "Black Sunday" kind of scenario;

 

We are coming up on the five year anniversary of this event and I think we have to accept that there is some cause for our good fortune other than their good intentions.

 

I think that is it in my opinion. What we did in Afghanistan did the trick. But, they got their war with Islam when we invaded Iraq and Iran in the future(unless we get a Pres that can actually talk to someone).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The other possible option is that they are simply taking their time to set up their next "perfect" attack. With tightened security, I imagine preparations and training may take some time.

[Jim]

Ideologies and hatred have the capacity to last decades and centuries (eg israel/palastine), so five years is quite insignificant.

 

Five years is an eternity if you are worried about a cruise missile coming down your chimney. I have to think that if they could have, they would have. They would be particularly keen to strike during Bush's watch.

 

No one has answered my questing as to why they can't get into Mexico, penetrate the border with a bit of explosives and take out a soft but symbolic target (e.g. high school football game, middle American court house, etc.) It is hard for some to accept, but it is entirely possible that much has been done quietly right in the war on terror.

 

The real question is, do you think the actions of your government have made the USA a smaller or larger target in the long run? My impression is that the USA has lost a large part of the credibility that it once had with muslim and non-muslim countries alike, and this will only serve to make you a bigger target for the idologues.

 

That is a fair question but the "real" test is in results. It just strikes me as odd that Bush gets no credit for having kept US soil terror free for almost five years. I also think it is plausible that there would be a connection between the most sophisticated electronic monitoring program in the history of the species and this result.

 

I think that is it in my opinion. What we did in Afghanistan did the trick. But, they got their war with Islam when we invaded Iraq and Iran in the future(unless we get a Pres that can actually talk to someone).

 

Condi does a pretty good job in this department. Europe simply did not like Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Of course, if he had not, we'd still be dithering with Saddam as he worked towards a renewed WMD capability, paid families of terrorists, sucked down oil for food profits to fund his efforts and maybe threw in another high level assassination attempt into the bargain. Libya might have nukes but, hey, facts never get in the way of a good case of group think.

[zyncod]

I think that the question that has not been asked here is: why did it never happen before? I mean, we have had myriad terrorist groups operating around the globe since the 60s, and yet we never had a foreign terrorist action on American soil prior to 9/11 (yes, there were airplane hijackings - but those stopped abruptly with higher airline security measures). Europe, on the other hand, has been the victim of terrorist actions for a long time, and continues to be a target.

 

Since this is "scienceforums.net," I feel that it is necessary to point out that the non-recurrence of a completely unique event cannot be attributed to anything. At all.

 

And, since the NSA's actions are repugnant to a large percentage of Americans, I feel that the onus is on them to prove that their actions are beneficial.

[sabbath]

May I ask what the said ideology Al Qaeda is standing up for?

[sabbath]

I know many will have a violent/negative reaction to what I am going to say but...I am actually entertaining the possibility that the 9/11 attacks were staged or taken into action to further American campaigns in the middle east. It gave justification (at least to Bush's administration) for USA to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. I will be careful to say however, that it might have something to do with the rich oil reserves that are present in the said countries.

 

This angle may be farfetched but it may be possible nonetheless. It may also be that the Bush administration saw an opening and took advantage of the situation to further American interests in the Middle East.

 

So to answer the OP on this line of thinking, I think the reason why there hasn't been another 9/11 is because there hasn't been any need for it. The recipe for an all-out attack against terrorism has already been laid out. The US can now play Universal Police and attack any nation they think has WOMD. And they'll find justification for it.

[padren]

We should first finish the sentence: "They view an attack on the US is valuable to them because..."

 

Within the context of their goals, is it worth expending that level of effort in an attack on US soil, or is it more of a liability?

[swansont]

I think that the question that has not been asked here is: why did it never happen before? I mean' date=' we have had myriad terrorist groups operating around the globe since the 60s, and yet we never had a foreign terrorist action on American soil prior to 9/11 (yes, there were airplane hijackings - but those stopped abruptly with higher airline security measures). Europe, on the other hand, has been the victim of terrorist actions for a long time, and continues to be a target.

 

Since this is "scienceforums.net," I feel that it is necessary to point out that the non-recurrence of a completely unique event cannot be attributed to anything. At all.

[/quote']

 

It did happen before. The World Trade Center was car-bombed on Feb 26, 1993. (Embassies have also been attacked, as well as the USS Cole.) The 8.5 years between actions on US soil is one reason that I don't find a need to ascribe the lack of followup to any new/special/specific action taken since the 9/11 attacks. Especially so considering Jim's point about how easy it should be to get into the US. Perhaps the logistics of non-native personnel, unfamiliar with the language and customs of the US, make it difficult enough to carry out attacks more frequently, given the normal law enforcement efficiencies and the capabilities of the terrorists.