No attacks in U.S. since 9-11: Why?

Orlando Sentinel ^ | 4/16/04 | Peter Brown

[AngieGOP]

Amen to that.

[Taxman]

Good find, good post.

I'd like to think that part of the reason is that many Americans are more alert to "unusual activities."

The FRiday after 9-11, I flew FRom BWI to Sacramento to join my son and his wife for a weekend at the National Air Races -- which were cancelled, dagnabbit, because the USAF could not provide "air cover." As one of the race pilots we talked to said, "What are we gonna do? Take off, turn left and strafe the crowd?" Oh, well.

The point is that after I and my seatmates -- surprisingly, the plane was full -- got settled, I turned to the gentleman on my right and said "If a raghead comes down this aisle, we take him down, right?"

Before he could answer, the lady to my left (in the aisle seat) asked "Can I have some of that? I am a powerlifter, and I am pissed!" With that, she flexed an enormous right bicep at the two of us.

We both said, almost in unison, "Yes, ma'am." And we all started laughing.

The point of this story is that since 9-11 there are many Americans who have become very, very vigilant, and are determined to not allow "suspicious activity" to go unnoticed or unacted upon.

Not on our watch!

[wayoverontheright]

It was ten years from the first bombing of the World Trade Center to 9-11. To suggest that the lack of attacks recently is because of anything we have done is hubris.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Throughout history terrorism has seldom been defeated, but it has been consistently redirected. To conclude that the Bali bombings, the bombings in Spain, and others since 9-11 is not indicative that a change in strategy has occurred as a result of our, to them, shocking response may prove to be costly going forward.

The eradication of the Taliban, the very public demolition of the vaunted (to them once again) Iraqi war machine, the humiliating extraction of the Arab world's symbol of conventional power from his spider hole, the subsequent presence of the Great Satan in their midst, the capitulation of Lybia, and the most important of all consequences, the kryptonite-like spectre of the implantation of democracy in the Middle East, are reasons for our enemy to realize their previous assessment of us might have been delusional, and are sufficient in my view to at least cause them to KNOW that they could not hit us once again with impunity.

As I said in my previous post, we can never eradicate their capability, nor can we get them to love us through appeasement, but we must realize that any enemy's WILL to strike is, and always has been, vulnerable to consequences. To believe otherwise not only ignores history, but in the absence of a better plan, is defeatist in the extreme.

[John H K]

There have been a lot of train derailments, chemical factories blowing up

There havbe been a lot of train derailments and chemical factories blowing up for the entire 150 years since trains and chemical factories have been invented.

There's been no increase in train derailments, just an increase in people frantically trying to proclaim accidents as terror attacks by people that seem strangely UPSET that AQ hasn't done anything in the US since 9/11.

One thing not mentioned is that AQ simply was never as big as people imagined. There were never and are not now thousands and thousands of AQ sleepers in the US. Very dangerous people, and you don't need a whole lot of people to do something pretty aweful, but doubt that even at its peak AQ had more than 1,000 ACTUAL active "operatives" worldwide, with only a fraction of that in the US.

[IYAS9YAS]

Richard Reid the "shoe bomber" and the suspicious downing of the flight prior to his discovery (written off as structural failure) in NY still top my list. Along with the snipers. Those are all related to the religion of peace.

[pawdoggie]

IMHO, there are three main reasons why we haven't had a 9/11 style attack since 2001. 1. Osama is too focused on simple self preservation to order a new attack which could embolden the US to risk its wonderful "relationship" with the Pakistanis by invading the "tribal areas" of Pakistan in search of the Al Qaeda leader. 2. The Mexicans and Canadians are keenly aware that further terrorist incursions into this country from their countries can, and probably will, result in sealing off our borders. The Canadians have an excellent counterintelligence service in the RCMP. While the Mexican Police may be largely on the take to drug dealers, like most crooked cops they are keenly aware of any new kids in town who might cause them problems. 3. While the airline and other security measures adopted after 9/11 may not be perfect, they represent a psychological deterrent to most jihadis who wouldn't mind dying for the cause, but who seem to live in exaggerated terror of going to Gitmo without ever accomplishing their purpose.

[CAPTAINSUPERMARVELMAN]

Why no attack here since 9/11? Because we have a president who's doing a heckuva job to see that it doesn't happen again, but if Kerry gets in...

[Just another Joe]

There has been an increase in mainline, not yard, derailments in the past 3 to 4 months.
The yard derailments make it look like the number of derailments has not changed much over the past 18 to 24 months BUT the number of mainline derailments has increased in the last 3 to 4 months.

A statistical anomoly?
Perhaps
Perhaps not.

I'm not sure about the number of chemical factory explosions. It seems I have been hearing about them a lot more lately than I ever have before. I'm speculating about them from only my own anecdotal evidence. I'll have to do some digging and see for sure.

[Teacher317]

Or maybe there is another explanation. Perhaps al-Qaeda has decided it would be contrary to its self-interest to strike again in the United States, especially before November. Such an attack would almost certainly re-create a sense of national unity that followed 9-11. Politically, it would likely create a rally-round-the-president effect.

Indicator #483756 that the Terrorists support Kerry.

Silly assumption, though. The terrorists didn't attack the US, say 19 months ago (October 2002), because they were worried about November 2004? Piffle!

Using this logic, the terrorists won't attack us before November, because they want Kerry to win. After November, if Kerry wins, they're happy and don't attack. If Kerry loses, then they don't want to attack because they'll be worried about the counter-attack, AND they'll be worried about November 2008. In other words, they just won't ever attack.

Gotta admire a head firmly planted in the sand.

[wayoverontheright]

The weak responses under Clinton told them that they MIGHT succeed with 9-11.

Bingo.

I might add that if Kerry gets elected, then they will be similarly emboldened, and once again we will be in danger.