I found this a rather intriguing thought as to why the U.S. hasn't had a terrorist attack since 9/11....the threat of nuking Mecca.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42272

When I first read it, I thought the premise was absolutely extreme, but it's a reasonable option when you're dealing with an unreasonable extremist.

"Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca.

Writes Wheeler: "So far, Osama has decided not to see if GW is bluffing. Smart move."


Thoughts?

I'd say a more likely explanation is that al-Qaeda is not the omnipotent monolithic destroyer that many Americans fear it is, but rather a sort of rag-tag operation that occasionally lands a lucky punch, so to speak.

Nuking Mecca would be the dumbest move GWB could ever do. That would turn the entire middle east aggresive, along with large parts of Asia as well as Europe and the US. Now only a small, but loud, minority is agresive.

I think they would love GWB to nuke Mecca. How many acts of terror did happen before 9/11?

but rather a sort of rag-tag operation that occasionally lands a lucky punch, so to speak

Although I don't agree they're rag-tag... I kind of agree they only win with luck. It was just dumb luck that they pulled 9/11 off in the first place.

Nuking Mecca would be the dumbest move GWB could ever do. That would turn the entire middle east aggresive, along with large parts of Asia as well as Europe and the US.

Well, problem is if they get ahold of nukes and use them first, we'll have plenty to retaliate with and I don't think restraint will be in our vocabularly if one of our cities gets leveled.

I agree with PROSA and his assessment of al Qaeda.

On the other hand logic dictates that the real prime directive (Survive!) would ultimately lead to nuking not just Mecca but every Islamic capital simultaneously. This is well within the US capability, could be done with a phone call. And, as has been pointed out, nuking Mecca alone would be the diplomatic equivalent of kicking a very large hornets's nest.

It is not inconceivble that this or some future leader could become convinced that there is simply no other choice, and let history decide who was right. (Especially since the survivor writes the history.) This is not the sort of thing the American people can directly control. We lived for many years with the background knowledge that had the Soviet block come rolling across the "Fulda Gap" nukes would fly.

Unthinkable? Absolutely, but there are people whose job description is "thinking the unthinkable."

Because the US has pretty much fallen right into the terrorist's trap. They are embroiled in a war that they can't win. The terrorists don't need to travel to the US. Bush just keeps sending Americans to Iraq. They just have to meet the Americans in Iraq and attack/murder/kidnap them their and save the airfare....

The only reason AQ got away with the 9-11 attacks is because those attacks were so outside the realm of anyone's imagination. With 9-11 they pretty much blew their wad, so to speak, and with the destruction of their benefactors, the Taliban in Afghanistan, they're not exactly on easy street.

I'm sure they will try again though.

By the way, since when was 3 years since an attack a big deal? The WTC attacks were nearly 10 years apart. These things take time and, IMO, 3 years is nothing to feel good about. We have to keep our guard up as always and, while I don't believe Bush ever actually threatened Mecca, I think the fact that we haven't backed out of Iraq at least proves a point.

How many acts of terror did happen before 9/11?

The laundry list is pretty extensive. One can trace the roots of the modern Islamofascism to the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979/1980, and the US' failure to confront it which in turn bred more. This isn't nearly an exhaustive list...

*The bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut, 1983
*The bombing of the Marine barracks, Beirut, 1983
* TWA 847, 1985
* Achille Lauro, 1985
* TWA 1986, ATH-FCO
* Pan Am 103
* WTC 1993
* US Consulate, Karachi 1995
* Riyadh, US military HQ, 1995
* Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia 1995
* US Embassy bombings, Tanzania, Nairobi, Kenya, 1998
* USS Cole

******************************

Since 9/11, outside of direct military engagements, there have been zero.

Speaks volumes as to the threat of the ultimate trump card. Tantamount to the Cold War theory of M.A.D. in a way.

Thats why they are called "canon food"  

*Airbuster Chief Cheerleader*

It was just dumb luck that they pulled 9/11 off in the first place.

...combined with three years of planning, multiple millions of dollars in investment, an underground support network ranging 4 continents, and over 30 dry runs before inactment--- all while being observed, yet remaining undetected.

Dang, wish I had that sorta "luck"  




The terrorists don't need to travel to the US. Bush just keeps sending Americans to Iraq. They just have to meet the Americans in Iraq and attack/murder/kidnap them their

...what's sad is that you don't realize that you've just unwittingly (imagine that  ) made the point of many, if not most, of the Right on the issue of remaining in Iraq

First off, Bin Laden did not even plan the attack, it was presented to him by it's chief architect, a Kalid Sheik Mohammed (captured by the US in Pakistan in 2002), he would have known of OBL's call for Jihad against the US in 1997, so he knew that his 'planes operation' would get attention, funding and what resources AQ had at their disposal, in late 1999, it did, from OBL personally, in what would have been a very rare intervention from OBL in the fragmented world of international Islamic terror.

Originally intended to comprise of 10-12 aircraft, striking targets almost simultaneously, WTC, Pentagon, White House, Capitol Hill, FBI and CIA H.Q's, Camp David and maybe a nuclear plant or two.

But the limiting factor was not US airline security, it was US Immigration, despite their mistakes that allowed people in with too little scrunity, including known AQ suspects, they did refuse enough people to cause the scope of the attack to be scaled right down, also the much vaunted training Afghanistan training camps run by OBL, provided very little in the way of terrorists that could even live in the West without too much difficulty or suspicion, much less enroll in flight training classes.

For most of the 1000's who went through the camps were training for Islamic inspired campaigns in places like Bosnia, Kashmir or the Chechen wars, most had no interest or inclination in becoming international terrorists, they were training for conflicts in their own backyard.

One of OBL's propaganda videos is of him with a large cadre of trained up terrorists, is a deception, the 'terrorists' were just local Afghan fighters, OBL told them to wear the masks and other symbols of extreme Islamic terror, but they'd have to bring their own AK-47s for the filming, for which they would be paid for!

So in a sense of suitable personnel, Kalid Sheik Mohammed's plan, facilitated by AQ/OBL, did shoot it's bolt.

Why do the attack on the US, why proclaim Jihad against the USA in the first place?
Because from the late 1980's OBL had come to be influenced by someone by who would become his no.2, his spiritual mentor, an Egyptian doctor, al-Zawahiri.
He had some history, one of the plotters in the Sadat killing in 1981, jailed for years, then released, he had a doctrine of terror attacks to overthrow Western backed regimes in the Muslim world, like his own nation, to allow a revolutionary Islamic government to take over, for keeps.

Killing Sadat did not provide the general uprising that he was banking on, so he eventually gravitated to Afghanistan, where he and others like OBL, convinced themselves that they had not just evicted the USSR from Afghanistan, but caused that superpower's collapse.
Nonsense of course, the USSR went because at some point, the breakdown in the economic and other aspects of life within the Communist command economy, was going to happen, whatever happened in it's foreign wars.
Gorbarchev could not really undue all those decades of stagnation.

Undaunted, the Egyptian planned his follow up, when an Islamic party looked like winning an election in Algeria in 1991, the army stepped in, cancelled the ballot and repressed the Islamists.
So in response, helped by OBL and his new deputy in Sudan, a insanely vicious terror campaign was waged in Algeria, with a gloves off response from the military.

Now the Egyptian had a new idea, carry out attacks of such indiscriminate slaughter against the civil population, that in time the people would rise up and demand a 'true' Islamic government.
Just like in Egypt a decade before, it did not happen, in fact despite the repressive military government, almost all public opinion was against the Islamists.
Then the various Algerian Islamist terror groups fought agmonst themselves, each accusing the other of straying from the true path.

Out of this came a last message from one of the groups, that reflected an extreme strand of the thinking now forming in OBL and his deputies mind.
Since the people have not risen up, they must be so polluted by Western influence, that the only way to pure Islam in Algeria is for the entire population to be killed, except the few members of the group spouting this stuff.

Kicked out of Sudan, now in Afghanistan, OBL's disparate group faced defeat, all across the Islamic world, Egypt was still under an 'impure' government, so was Algeria, so was the whole Gulf region, even those that were not pro Western, like Syria or Iraq, cracked down hard on any hard line Islamic movements, they were after all a threat to the Ba'th ascendancy in those two states.

The Muslim people, despite their many privations, despite US support for Israel, despite corrupt leaders bleeding countries dry from their palaces, had not risen up to overthrow these leaders and cast impure Western influences out.
So, they themselves were corrupted by these Western influences, how to stop,
this? Or just roll it back enough to help the Islamist cause?

Well, who was the biggest provider of Western influence?
The USA, from arms supplies to Hollywood and rest of their vast media and range of other commercial products.

To help this re-awaking of pure Islam, who was the most unpopular Western nation in the Islamic world?
The USA ironically, almost entirely due to their massive and solid support for Israel.

Could a huge mass casualty strike upon the USA, cause them to pull out both militarily and largely commercially too, from the Islamic world?
Maybe, or maybe not, but would a furious US unleash an ill targeted and vengeful response on Muslims generally, thus massively extending the very limited support of people like OBL?

OBL was convinced by the Egyptian that this course of action was the only way forward, hence the 'Jihad' against the US being declared, the African Embassy bombings, but a really big hit was needed, so when an ambitious Islamist came asking for help for his 'planes operation' against the US, OBL was all ears.

I'd say a more likely explanation is that al-Qaeda is not the omnipotent monolithic destroyer that many Americans fear it is, but rather a sort of rag-tag operation that occasionally lands a lucky punch, so to speak.

I don't agree. I think that is underestimating the enemy, and that leads to bad things.

Yes, some luck was involved in the scheme. (Look at the video of the terrorists getting screened, and waved right thru.) However, as ConcordeBoy pointed out, they had money and lots of training.

Look how long they've tried to hit the WTC...

I think the "calm" reflects a transition periode... Maybe we'll see more, maybe we'll see less in the future...

But remember that Al Qaeda issued demands for the first time...

So maybe it is up to the US what to expect in the future?

Wether to choose the agressive way is the best way to prevent attacks, well according to the US president and the ones who voted for him again, this IS the way to walk, but personally I don't think so.

So why hasn't there been an attack in the US? Well look at the rest of the world! Spain, Russia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Indonesia just to name some hit by Al Qaeda after 9/11...

So if I read your post between the lines, then no, offensive measures has not prevented or made the situation better.

I heard Rudy Guilliani speak on election night on CNN, and he said that we needed to look at the fact, as you state, that there hasn't been an attack on the US since 9/11. But again I ask of you to PLEASE look at the world entire, do you really need your house to burn before you sense smoke?

Look at how the US still view and try to prevent Al Qaeda attacks. I think they haven't seen the full picture yet...
Why should Al Qaeda hit the US the same way as they did on 9/11? Their tactics and targets has always been a surprise... Yet the US still think that they would hijack planes and crash them into buildings...

Boaz...

If the US nuked Mecca I would think that at least one major city in the US would get nuked back eventually and it would IMO be the start of World War 3.

On the other hand logic dictates that the real prime directive (Survive!) would ultimately lead to nuking not just Mecca but every Islamic capital simultaneously. This is well within the US capability, could be done with a phone call. And, as has been pointed out, nuking Mecca alone would be the diplomatic equivalent of kicking a very large hornets's nest.

I really do not see anything that would lead the United States to take such a world-changing step, not even a terrorist nuclear attack in the United States. On the other hand, it would not surprise me to see Russia doing something of that sort, if the provocation were great enough to fuel unstoppable national outrage and lead to a regime change in Moscow. For instance, let's say Chechen rebels simultaneously pull off ten or fifteen Beslan-style massacres throughout Russia with outside assistance, Putin responds cautiously and is overthrown by military hardliners ... mushroom clouds over Mecca and other Muslim cities would not be beyond the realm of possibility. It would not be a pleasant time for humanity, that's for sure.

StarAC17 no responsible person has ever seriously suggested nuking Mecca but, as I said in post #5 no one would ever nuke just Mecca. If such a horrible course of action ever was deemed necessary you may be assured that every Islamic nation on earth would have its military dismantled within the same hour.

Again, no one is planning it or even suggesting it but give the generals and admirals a little credit for brains. In fact if things ever deteriorated to the point that our leaders and military felt that this was unavoidable, I doubt that Mecca would even be in the target package unless the Saudis militarized the area in the future.

If the US nuked Mecca I would think that at least one major city in the US would get nuked back eventually and it would IMO be the start of World War 3.

World War III started for me on September 11, 2001.

"World War III started for me on September 11, 2001."

Interesting. It doesn't look like anyone's going to "win" it, though.

Why should Al Qaeda hit the US the same way as they did on 9/11?

Quite simply because the aviation industry is both vital to our way of life, yet VERY easily crippled.

We all know what's ensued in the nigh four years since 9/11. Another Muslim slams a jet aircraft, be it a CRJ or a 744, into a building; and it's essentially over for the airlines.

....THEN where would we be:

Reregulate the entire industry with money and infrastructure that the government doesn't have?

Rely on foreign carriers for all our aviation needs?

What happens to our single largest exporter when its worldwide business flatlines twice in less than a half-decade?

etc?

Plus, we saw this Christmas how easy it is to shut an airline down with just a simple computer problem. If that much trouble can be caused by a crashed computer system, a bigger attack on the airlines can have much worse consequences.

Harry

Another Muslim slams a jet aircraft, be it a CRJ or a 744, into a building; and it's essentially over for the airlines.

Since 9-11, Southwest and JetBlue have been doing rather well.

Airlines have used 9-11 as a carte blance excuse for every ailment that plagued them from lousy management to labor union issues. 20 years from now we'll still hear some fat cat airline exec deflect criticism of his poor business skills to 9-11.

Right now it isn't 9-11 that is stopping American or Delta from offering you a whole can of coke in coach; it's rising fuel costs. And seriously, I doubt if some Muslim or anyone else for that matter will try the 9-11 M.O. again. He may end up being run over by a mad stew' with a beverage cart instead !

There is a good book I am reading called Dollars for Terror: The United States and Islam written by a Swiss author and it talks about the past association of the US government with these extremist groups and how the US supported them to get rid of secular Arab nationalist leaders such as Gamal Abdel Nasser and replace them with US puppet leaders. It then talks about how these extremist groups eventually backlashed against the US and how US foreign policy is making them grow and helping them gain support.



I recommend the book to anyone who is interested in learning about the rise of these Islamic extremist groups and how they have been able to span the globe.

Regards

My answer to this question:
- Probably some sheer dumb luck
- That the attacks on 9/11 didn't really cause the collaspe of the USA they sought upon it's business and government
- Our reactions via Afganistan and Iraq (despite their serious flaws) and the fear that if any other country is a base of terror they too will be invaded and attacked by the USA
- The sometimes overzelous policy to boot out people from the Islamic world - that sent a message that possible terrorists will have more difficulty getting and staying in the USA
- Tighting up of access to the USA by potential terrorists
- Better awareness of the USA Public of an attack including continuing revisions of our security, intellegence, immigration, customs systems and agencies
- Saudi Aribia, other Islamic countries governments also fearing terror upon them
- Using other countries closer and easier to attack than the USA and it's Western allies, including in Iraq and Spain (the Madrid train bombings)
I disagree that 'a fear of Mecca being Nuked' is one of them. To attack Mecca would be wrong for all of the Islamic world, inlcuding the 95% whom don't support anti-western terror. We just cannot do that - it would be as wrong as if Islamic terrorists attacked and destoyed the Vatican area for Catholics/Christians.

I think the real question is... why is this question asked? Because the American people have been led to think that terrorism is our only enemy. I seem to be of the Orwellian view that there always has to be an enemy, so that the government in contrast is the savior. Now I'm not anti-government by any means, and I'm not a radical, but I have to admit that I believe that our current government uses terrorism as a distraction. Terrorism must be considered, but it is not our only problem. Why are we spending billions and billions of dollars to fight a war against terrorism that will never be one when we can solve domestic issues and international scourges with the same cost? Terrorism is a secondary issue, it is not THE issue. What will it be when the citizenry becomes bored with terrorism? Terrorist attacks will always happen, we should prevent them the best we can, and institute safeguards, but there are more pressing issues from which we cannot allow terrorism to distract. Thank you, and with all due respect and honor for those who lost their lives in any terrorist event or in wars abroad.

You think for a second that OBL cares for Mecca?

Concordeboy...

"Quite simply" that is where you continue to misenterpret what is going on...
If I may generalize a bit here... Then looking simply and roughly at issues like this, threats to your country, like gun control, like crime, drugs and communism you see a threat as a simple thing: evil or in black and white.
That is the generalized view on how the US tackles such "threats".
Now with this "new" threat you stigmatize and critisize and think that action is louder than words, but fact is that Al Qaeda believe that words are louder than action!

In the manual of the hijackers the main repeated theme is prayer and meditation, not hatred. This means they are doing this in a "spiritual" state of mind.
I think, personally, that killing is not allowed, no matter who does it! The terrorists where doing this because they thought that God would aprove, but God is love, ONLY.
So when you act out of fear of hatred you cannot act in a way that will bring good, because you are distancing your self from God.

I think all people need to spare the simple thoughts on serious matters. No criminal is JUST a criminal no comunist is JUST a comunist and so on, we are all individuals but we all are joined to the same band or circle.

My view...

So if you want to find the "solution" or if you want to turn the tide (sorry for use of that metaphor) you need to look into the details of it ALL, not just the imminent threat but into all, and maybe you'll see something you never knew was important...

BA you too must try to not look so at this as being as simple as those conspiracy theories, the book might just show new sides of the same story Bush preaches...

Boaz...

[Edited 2005-01-08 00:14:10]

Of course, there is the strong possibility that the one and only sleeper cell in the US, was there until Sept 11th.
A year later for example, remember the terrorist cell caught in Buffalo? I do, being in the US in Sept 2002 I saw enough of it in the news.
What happened? There was no terror cell, they were found not to be sinister people, the videos for the planning of an attack on Disneyworld was just a normal home video, it looked like a normal home video 'disguised' to hide it's real purpose, because it really was what it looked to be.

A few months before in Afghanistan, what happened to the complex command centers for OBL, in those Afghan caves, the massive array of man made tunnels full of weapons, maybe including WMD's?
Plenty of that in the press, from US government sources partly, in late 2001.
What was actually found were just some natural caves, some had a few small arms inside, abandoned while escaping from the B-52 strikes, nothing more.

Essentially, Bin Laden is a figurehead, a rallying point, more so since he lost his Afghan bases, many of the attacks since are only Al-Queda in broad terms, in the matching general beliefs of those doing them.
Maybe that's why most attacks since have not even been in the West in general, much less the USA.
As they are maybe being carried out by the second division legacy of the Afghan training camps, not up to living in and infiltrating the West for long term planning and execution of sophisticated attacks, but more fanatical than the mass who went to Afghanistan just to train to fight in places like Kashmir.

AQ need never make another attack on American soil again. The terror created on 9/11 will remain with the US for some time to come. 9/11 cost the US dearly when it happened and we will continue to see the ramifications of this for some time to come, particularly to the US aviation industry. All OBL needs to do is send out a couple of tapes threatening more attacks and mass hysteria breaks out. In my opinion it is OBL who has the Sword of Damocles dangling over the west, our fear of attack is his weapon and when we learn to conquer our fear he'll stir things up again, its going to be a vicious cycle! As for nuking Mecca that's just about the dumbest thing I ever heard!

Because the US has pretty much fallen right into the terrorist's trap. They are embroiled in a war that they can't win. The terrorists don't need to travel to the US. Bush just keeps sending Americans to Iraq. They just have to meet the Americans in Iraq and attack/murder/kidnap them their and save the airfare....

So bllinded by your own bias that you can't see the truth?

Be careful, some might ask you to tell the truth !

No, Boeing7E7 that person is you.

World War III started for me on September 11, 2001.

You're deluded. If this is a war, Britain was at war with the IRA. Given a whole lot of Irish terrorism funds came from the US, does that make us your enemy?

"Given a whole lot of Irish terrorism funds came from the US, does that make us your enemy?"

Perhaps. But then a lot of that money comes from Massachusetts, home of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, so maybe not.

We have not forgotten that you burned the Whitehouse in the war of 1812. Fortunately we also remember that it was a Canadian, captain Robert Ross who did it.

I believe currently that Al Qaeda is seeing what damage they can do in Iraq, while also following all developments in the US. I figure they have men waiting in wait. They're probably seeing what people are being caught for, and what people are getting away with, like where the cracks are. Then they might activate these men that are waiting for an order.

Michael

AQ got away with what they did because America was stupid! We had that NIMBY mentality . . Not In My Back Yard! Bullshit!

I saw first hand demonstrations of terrorism when I lived in Europe. When 9/11 happened, I had no answer for relatives and friends in the states except - "Welcome to the Real World".

It will happen again, when, where, how, who knows . . . the TSA, FBI, CIA, etc aren't going to stop it . . . they can preach all the bullshit they want and throw all the millions of dollars at it they want. If, IF, OBL and/or whomever wants to make another run at the US, they will perhaps have bit of a tougher go at it, but with time, could probably succeed . . .

GDB opines there might only have been one sleeper cell in the U.S. and it carried out the 9/11 attacks . . .to that I say bullshit. That's like saying the U.S. only has one spy satellite?! There are more . . .may never get the magic "call" but they are there.

Geeez, and in another thread, someone wants to know why I carry a gun!?!?!?

Spare me.

Airlines have used 9-11 as a carte blance excuse for every ailment that plagued them from lousy management to labor union issues.

Oh, I agree with you in that matter, don't get me wrong.... but irregardless of that, one more whacked-out Muslim slamming any form of jet aircraft into a building, and this industry falls to its knees. Plain and simple.






Uh Windshear,
in case you need be reminded... you didn't ask for a sweeping overview on why Arabs/Muslims/Boobootheclown hates American-- but rather why would Al Quaeda prefer to once again attack the nation using its aviation industry  

I think it has nothing to do with nuking Mecca, which is a drastic step. I think, in part, it has to do with greater vigilance on the part of the west, and in part, the fact that Al Qaeda blew it's wad for a long time to come. I think they will try another such attack, but, whether they admit it or not, such an attack can't happen every day with that organization.

Prosa
"I'd say a more likely explanation is that al-Qaeda is not the omnipotent monolithic destroyer that many Americans fear it is, but rather a sort of rag-tag operation that occasionally lands a lucky punch, so to speak."

That was one hell of a lucky punch, the attacks in 2001 showed the extent of Al Qaeda's organizational ability and (for lack of a better word) imagination. If you want to write them off as a ragtag operation, do so at your own peril. The next time they attack, or try to attack, it will not be where we expect it. Hopefully all the money being invested in the intelligence agencies will prevent this from happening.


Ltbewr
"Our reactions via Afghanistan and Iraq (despite their serious flaws) and the fear that if any other country is a base of terror they too will be invaded and attacked by the USA"

The reaction to Afghanistan was not at all flawed, it was totally appropriate in both principle as well as the result. The connection between the Taliban and Al Qaeda was clear, but going forward it might not be so easy to link Al Qaeda to specific countries, we don't even know where Bin Laden is.


SlamClick
"We have not forgotten that you burned the Whitehouse in the war of 1812. Fortunately we also remember that it was a Canadian, captain Robert Ross who did it."

This took place over 50 years before the founding of Canada. Robert Ross was a British military officer (he also fought against the French in the Napoleonic wars), so please, don't blame Canada, blame England.  

I'm not sure if the War of 1812 is covered much in American history classes. It's an interesting event, wikipedia has a good summary of it here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

This topic has been pretty well covered, but to answer the topic question let me say that we have had three years of constant vigilance by our government agencies (in spite of calls from many to have them back off for fear of curtailing the civil liberties we hold dear), heightened awareness of our populace who are much more aware now, and not likely to allow a similar incident to take place, therefore causing the enemy to seek other avenues of attack, and the fact that the known terrorist leaders are not able to plan at their leisure an attack.

Those that are free are hiding out and sleeping on the run, the rest are dead or sitting in Gitmo. Our prosecution of the war on terrorists has definitely put serious pressure on their communications, money flow, mobility, and face time with followers. This is not to say that there will be no more attacks, it is just hindering their ability to make war against us. Falcon is right, they expended alot of resources to get 9-11 to work, and they ensured there will never be another hijacking again where the terrorists are able to control the passengers. People that know they are going to die will not cooperate, and 150 pissed off passengers will be able to overcome a half dozen knife wielding men any day. The next attack will come from another direction, and hurt us in a different way. We may be surprised by the method or place, but we cannot be surprised when it happens. We simply will have to redouble our resolve to prevent terrorists from winning by allowing their actions to dictate to us how we will fundamentally conduct ourselves. We may tighten up on security, but we will always be a self-determining, freedom exercising nation/set of nations that they will hate because we allow people to make their own choices about how they will live and whether and how they will worship.

We will not hear about the successes we have had, nor about the ones we will have. We will definitely hear about the times we cannot foretell or stop an attack, and our press will call it a failure or blunder. What we must remember is that the terrorists only have to get lucky or good once, whereas our security forces must be good, lucky, and persistent all the time. We must also have the heart and courage to stand up to the terrorists in the face of the fact that they want to kill us in order to make their points. The leaders of the terrorists have 15th century morals and desire absolute power in their section of the world, and if they had that would then seek to spread their influence in the name of God.

Should we nuke Mecca? Hell no. THat would solve nothing. How about making all the worlds Holy Cities international protectorates under the supervision of the UN, and administered by a group of theologians and clerics from all the worlds religions? Then declare the cities to be open to all for peaceful purposes, and hammer the hell out of any group that takes umbrage and threatens them. Empower a permanent legion of peace enforcers who will operate under a special UN charter to maintain the peace in these new mandates and have each city elect its own internal leaders but have them work within the constraints set down by the world. This would be the only way to end wars over the so-called Holy Cities of the worlds religions. It would piss people off until they were assured of free access to all peaceful practicioners and economic and education improvements worldwide make it impossible for terrorist organizers to find willing followers.

No one will go for it, but theres an idea that reduces the need to create any glass parking lots.

(in spite of calls from many to have them back off for fear of curtailing the civil liberties we hold dear)

Are you saying we SHOULD give up our civil liberties to feel safer?

If you do, then you have a big problem with me.

cuz Rsmith6621a is still in the planning stages......

Falcon is right, they expended alot of resources to get 9-11 to work, and they ensured there will never be another hijacking again where the terrorists are able to control the passengers. People that know they are going to die will not cooperate, and 150 pissed off passengers will be able to overcome a half dozen knife wielding men any day.

Absolutely, definitely, correct.

Geez, I wish I'd said that . . . .

If you think there will be another plane flying into the a building in NY or the 5 sided funny farm (affectionate name for the Pentagon for some of us that have worked there) or a field in Pennsylvania . . . ain't gonna happen.

It will be entirely, completely, totally different. And just as deadly, if not more so.

Who knows what, when, where, why and how . . .

No, Boeing7E7 that person is you.

Wanna compare notes? I've been there, have you? All you have is the media for information.

I have a good quote, it's something like:

He who would give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

ANC, the point I as making is that no matter what desire various groups may have to attack the US, they are limited by the number of dedicated people who can live in the West and then perform co-ordinated, mass casualty attacks.

As for the flippant comments about IRA support, it was far more extensive than a few people in John Kerry's backyard, it was from across the US, not only the East Coast, but Miami, Arizona, California to name three, all had extensive IRA fund raising activities, maybe this attitude shows the essential double standards in the perception of terrorism by many in the US.
You didn't give a shit unless US citizens were in the firing line, were quite happy to sometimes bend to terrorist demands (as Iran-Contra showed).

I know this, after the 1993 attempt to topple the WTC, while everyone was very glad it failed, the widely held opinion over here was 'well maybe some of them will be less keen on supporting terrorism elsewhere, now they've had a taste of it on their soil'.

We in the UK are guilty in some ways too, after the overspill from the slaughter in Algeria reached French soil in the 1990's, bombs in Paris, an attempt, foiled by French commandos, to crash a hijacked airliner on to the Eiffel Tower, the French security services compiled extensive information and informants within Islamic terror cells.

When some operatives left France due to security pressure, they were tracked and security services abroad were warned, not least in London.
But M.I.5 did not really take these people to be serious threats, at least outside of their original homelands, some of them even used the UK's then rather liberal laws on immigration to contest efforts to be extradited to France, there was after all, an extensive industry of well heeled legal professionals dedicated to protecting these 'underdogs' and 'oppressed'.

Which is why the security services here since Sept 11th have worked hard to make sure that mistake is not repeated, they've been possibly over-compensating since, the only excuse for the lapse in the 1990's, if there is one, is that the security services had their hands full with the IRA, later it's dissident factions.

As for Sept 11th being 'unimaginable', that's a bit of a cop out, granted 4 aircraft in one go almost was, but not the principal of using aircraft, as the December 1994 attempt on Paris showed, as some captured terrorists from the WTC 1993 attempt, admitted too.

That France has so far avoided a major attack (a near miss was an Islamist attempt to bomb the crowded Strasbourg Christmas markets a few years ago, that would have been a slaughter, luckily this plot was busted), has everything to do with their experience and knowledge and intelligence on at least some of these groups, without good intel, you are blind.
But France does not have an counterpart in size to the NSA, to the CIA, no constellation of spy satellites, but also seemingly little inter service rival or political interference in the security services, they also have no need for a French 'Patriot Act'.

It's the non photogenic, boring stuff, the grind of intelligence work that counts, for example the ability to turn and cultivate informers, the latter is something the US agencies seem almost historically unable to do, maybe the UK has been lucky so far because M.I.5/M.I.6 are still regarded as being pretty good at it.

Having said that, the US has had a major, but almost forgotten success, the guy I mentioned in my first post, the chief planner of Sept 11th, Kalid Sheik Mohammed, in Pakistan in 2002.
How was he caught? A full scale military invasion of where he was thought to be? A well placed smart weapon? Did the suspension of some civil liberties in the US do for him?
No, it was good old fashioned intel, unglamorous, in co-operation with other nations, that got the man who may well have been planning a follow up to Sept 11th, maybe nabbing him and some of his associates has stalled any new attacks on the US for some time to come.

One can trace the roots of the modern Islamofascism to the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979/1980, and the US' failure to confront it which in turn bred more.

Exactly, the failure to respond to the Iranian hostage crisis by a paralized Jimmy Carter was in the long term, the biggest single failure of that blighted administration. Ironicly the reason why Carter was so ineffective with dealing with the Islamic menace was his fear of getting people killed, I wonder how many more people have been killed by these Iranian funded terror groups and islamic terror groups because of his complete lack of leadership and resolve.

Airlines have used 9-11 as a carte blance excuse for every ailment that plagued them from lousy management to labor union issues.

No argument here.

"One can trace the roots of the modern Islamofascism to the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979/1980"

You need to look further than that.

One can trace the roots of the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979/1980 to the strong support the United States gave to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who crushed civil liberties, used systematic torture and other dictator type of stuff. When he was eventually overthrown in the 1979 the Iranian revolutionaries were understandably pissed at the US for supporting the bastard. So you can trace this 'islamofascism' to the US and other countries (UK, France, Russia) supporting these brutal dictatorships over the years.

Falcon...No, I am not saying we should give up our civil liberties, I am simply commenting on what the protestors to the Patriot Act are saying.

Civil liberties are a complicated issue when you get past the easy stuff.

I mean, why should I not have the right to spout racist stuff anytime I wish? Why can I not mug a person on the street? What is the good reason for me not being able to take a piss on the corner of Piedmont and Peachtree at 5pm? These are all abilities I posses, whether or not I would do them is another story, but why are the denied to me now?

There are some liberties we deny ourselves in the name of societal order. We, as a society, have curtailed certain liberties in order to preserve the greater society and have done so willingly. It is illegal to smoke on an airplane. It is illegal to choose employees based on your personal religious or ethnic prejudices. Drunk driving is illegal everywhere because it can harm others. You cannot operate a motor vehicle on public roads without a permit. We have certain portions of our paychecks taken by our elected government whether we agree with how it is spent or not.

Our civil liberties must be curtailed in order to restrain the baser or anarchistic elements of our society from bringing about chaos and harming others. We decide in our society what freedoms are to be curtailed in order to preserve the majority of others. I would die to preserve our society, but I also think that our Constitution (which defines the parameters of American society, as well as influences societies outside ours) is not a suicide pact, and if a bomb is being defused in a public building, well I am ok with temporarily denying access to that building until the bomb is defused.

What is important is that we have open debate and public scrutiny of any curtailments of our liberties, and we re-establish our right of entry when the bombs are defused.

I am pissed about being denied the right to go see my wife off at the airport gate, or pick her up at the gate, but I understand it. I am willing to sacrifice that one if it helps preserve my ability to meet her a little farther away because some terrorists who have declared themselves our enemies threatened us. I would like to see all the top secret stuff we have at Aberdeen and Nellis, but I am willing to be denied this in order to keep it a secret and I trust the elected officials we put in there to do what is right for us. If I think they are going too far I will vote against them the next time. If I feel strongly enough about it I will actively campaign for them or against them the next time.

And if anyone ever tried to take away my basic rights...the ones enumerated in the Constitution and the Amendments, outside of due process of the laws under which I agree to live .... I will fight that with every means available to me.

Lets debate the issues, and use the open society we have to keep our leaders honest.