US Report Says Terror Attacks Declined Sharply Last Year

Worldwide terror is at its lowest level in 30 years. I guess we are winning.

Do you think the War on Terror is succeeding?

The "war on terror" relies on the continued vigilence of all of the nations involved. 9/11 had an extreme psychological impact on the world, and thus far, we have had a lot of support. I believe that it probably is more difficult for terrorist organizations to act. I can't say how long the psychological impact of 9/11 will succeed in keeping the nations involved on their toes though. Only time can answer that question.

Additionally, terrorists (and I use that term loosely) can be very resourceful. I think it's only a matter of time before they come up with a new and unique way to stick their claws into us. What the impact will be, I can't say, but I'm not convinced that terrorism is going to be subdued by the "war on terror." I think it will merely change its shape.

We had a similar thread going on this once War on Terror Progress. However that old one got too big. We can all pick up the debate in this thread.

From the report cited by amlord: Okay... so there were 3,300 terror related deaths in 2001, including the 3,000+ killed in one day of attack on September 11. In 2002 there were 725 terror related deaths. This appears to be the basis for declaring a "sharp decline." Anybody else see a problem there?

In 1998 there were 741 deaths attributable to terrorist attacks. While the deaths increased from the year before, the number of attacks actually decreased, meaning the attacks became larger and deadlier.

In 2000 there were 405 deaths attributed to terrorism. Also cited in the report, 233 were killed the prior year (1999).

So exactly how dramatic is that "decline" down to 725 for 2002? Looking at the numbers, not very. I'm far from impressed and even further from saying the war on terror is succeeding.
[Edited to add below...]As with the 1998 report, the number of attacks decreased while the number of deaths increased. Terrorists have become deadlier and more destructive and, thus, no longer need to attack as often. There were 224 fewer attacks in 2002 than in 2000, yet there were 320 more people killed. In the 199 attacks considered for 2002, only 16 fewer people died than in the 273 attacks that occurred in 1998.

Taking all of these numbers into account, I wonder how successful people will still consider the war on terror.

I would say we are winning the current BATTLES against terrorists. It will be a long war. This war can only be won by changing the negative opinion of much of the Islamic world toward the US. This cannot be accomplished by bullets. Two things would help a lot 1) a succesful installation of a democratic government in Iraq 2) an even handed resolution to the Isreali/Palestinian situation. Never said it would be easy.

I think that the War on Terror has been succeeding because of the decrease in Terrorist Attacks worldwide because so many countries obviously figured that if the they didn't get rid of their terrorist problems, then the United States would step in & after seeing how badly they bruised Al-Queda & the Taliban simitaniously, they figured they might do it themselves.

The United States, while in Iraq during the battle period with the assitance of the Kurds in the North, wiped out Ansar al-Islam, the terrorist group based in the Kurdish area of Iraq

In 2001, excluding the tragedy of September 11, the annual report says "one hundred seventy-eight of the attacks were bombings against a multinational oil pipeline in Colombia—constituting 51 percent of the year’s total number of attacks."

In the year 2000, terrorist attacks against U.S. targets increased as a result of "the increase in bombing attacks against the oil pipeline in Colombia, which is viewed by the terrorists as a US target."

Looking at the U.S. report from 1999 we find: In 1998, of the 111 terrorist attacks with U.S. targets, 77 were a result of "bombings of a multinational oil pipeline in Colombia, which terrorists regard as a US target."

I know everybody will be surprised to find this out, but the 1997 report claims "approximately one-third of the attacks were against US targets, and most of those consisted of low-level bombings of multinational oil pipelines in Colombia. Terrorists there regard the pipelines as a US target."

Just to put the WOT in perspective for you. It isn't all Islamic extremists, or even people in the Middle Eastern region of the world, accounting for the bulk of international terror. Maybe I've just been sheltered the last 6 years, but I've never heard this kind of emphasis put on Columbian terrorism in the media. On the other hand, there hasn't been a shortage of profiling Islamic terrorists. [Edited to respond to goamerica]

From the 1998 report we find:
"There were 273 international terrorist attacks during 1998, a drop from the 304 attacks we recorded the previous year and the lowest annual total since 1971. The total number of persons killed or wounded in terrorist attacks, however, was the highest on record: 741 persons died, and 5,952 persons suffered injuries."

As I mentioned before, while the number of terrorist attacks dropped this past year to 199, the number of people killed was 725, not too unlike the numbers reported in 1998. Decreases in attacks have not in the past been indicative of success against terrorism, nor do I feel they are today.

Some interesting analysis here on what impeded the WOT in the past and how we are on a path to avoid making the same mistakes again.

We can ultimately win this war, if we don't give up the fight. What worries me is that we will slip back into the world of appeasement if the wrong people are in office. It is imperative that we stay the course and not let that happen.

The enemy lies in wait, looking for the first sign of weakness. He won't see it now, and hopefully he won't see it in Nov 2004. There is not a single announced Democratic candidate that I would trust with the leadership of this country during this time of war.

ABS has gone into great detail analyzing the numbers about attacks and victims. I don't believe those numbers are great enough from a statistical POV to have any real meaning. What does have meaning is that we have not been struck here at home again.

We must remain ever-vigilant, and so must our leaders.

But are we ever vigilant? We can promise retribution but when you look at our airports and our borders to you see machine like efficiency that will detect the bad guys on their way to do the bad guy stuff? (Sorry ladies, not intended to be gender specific)

And P51, I know how you feel, I don't see a single republican candidate in office or running for the job that I would trust in a time of war.

We are slowly overcoming the political correctness that has weakened us in many ways. Airport security is just one example. We need to focus on locating bombers not bombs.

Our border security is atrocious. Our entire immigration enforcement is in serious need of repair. Political considerations, namely courting the Latino vote, must be set aside. We don't need new immigration laws, we need to enforce those already in place.

Illegal aliens are by definition, here illegaly. They must be deported. We can't expect newcomers to this country to respect our laws if we start them out by winking at the violation that keeps them here.

We are doing a better job abroad than at home. Hopefully that will change in the near future.

Forbes: 6,000 (11%) airport screeners to be cut
Not that it's terribly important news, but I thought it was funny I would see this article after your airport comment

That we haven't yet been struck at home again says nothing of the "success" in the war on terrorism, either. The first attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993, and, if we exclude the domestic terrorism of Timothy McVeigh, they didn't strike us again for another 8 years. Even including the attack in OK City we see a window of more than the (approx.) 19 months since September 11.
[Interestingly enough, OK City wasn't even listed in the 1996 report as a terrorist incident]

In my previous posts I mentioned how the terror attacks became deadlier as they reduced in number. I think September 11 stands as a great testament to that fact, reflected by the statistics. And so the numbers [of attacks] are dropping again while becoming ever more lethal. Were we a perennial target of successful terrorist attacks here at home (like Israel or Columbia), perhaps applauding our tranquility would mean something more.

Our praise of safety a mere 19 months after the greatest strike at home -- in the face of deadlier terror attacks the world over -- seems like nothing more than a precursor to a return sense of farcical invulnerability.

From the 1996 report: "During 1996 there were 296 acts of international terrorism, the lowest annual total in 25 years and 144 fewer than in 1995."
From 1998 report: "There were 273 international terrorist attacks during 1998, a drop from the 304 attacks we recorded the previous year and the lowest annual total since 1971."
From the 2002 report: "The State Department says there were 199 terrorist attacks last year, a 44 percent drop from 2001 and the lowest figure in more than 30 years."

[Edited to add: clearly the "lowest" figures don't mean a whole lot when combatting terrorism. Emphasis added]

The reason the number of terrorist attacks are so low is because every arrest of Al-Queda suspects seems to reveal a plot to attack American interests & it also heightens awareness

For example:

The arrest of the USS COLE bombing Mastermind & 6 other Al-Queda members in Pakistan revealed a plot of using an explosive-laden small aircraft to crash into a U.S. Consulate in Karachi, the same Consulate that experienced a car bombing outside it's gates a year ago.

Airline alert prompted after Intel suggested attack

If this weren't so tragic, I'd laugh.
In order to answer this question, I have to pose one of my own. What are the goals of the 'war' on terror?

Americans seem to believe that it is to get rid of the terrorists.

Europeans seem to believe that it is a ploy by GW Bush and his administration to make a grab for total world domination.

Based on recent events, (and being European) its hard not to believe that second view. With the recent terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, and the reactions this is prompting from much the press...



...it is becoming more and more apparent that a 'war' on terror is unrealistic. Terrorists do not fight 'wars'. The whole point of terrorism is to get what you want without direct conflict, so the term 'war' with respect to terrorism is a one sided perspective which utterly fails to take the nature of the enemy into account.

When the Lion roams the savannah, the Jackal does not come out to challenge him!

For every al qaeda terrorist, or cell discovered, there are others waiting to take their place, and if you take the time scale into account, then it is GW Bush who is losing the battle. At the moment he faces the build up to his next election, and his only real successes appear to be his 'war' efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq (both severely weakened nations) which allow him to call himself a war time president and thus appeal to the native patriotism of the American people.

The slogan, "We are at war" seems to be repeated quite often in America these days, but is it true? I don't think so. I don't see any evidence of a war.
I grew in Britain during the seventies and eighties when the IRA were at the height of their struggle, and at no time at all did a British government refer to the conflict in Northern Ireland as a 'war'. So I am skeptical about the American 'war' on terror. It seems to me to be the sort of thing you might say if you were trying to make it look like you were fighting great odds and needed a lot of support in order to succeed.



No.

The attack in Riyadh shows how weak Al Qaeda has become. Saudi Arabia is their base, attacking within Saudi Arabia is not as much of a concern as, say, an attack in Chicago or LA.

The US issued warnings to Saudi Arabia before the attacks, but they were ignored.
U.S. Asked Saudis to Increase Security
If we have knowledge of imminent terrorism in another country and we are ignored, where does the fault lay?

Let's face it: any maniac can plan and carry out a bombing. What this "war" is trying to accomplish is to dismantle the international organization of these groups, so that the entire process is disrupted. Local incidents can never be 100% avoided.

By the way, in the future, try not to use Maureen Dowd as a source of information. That woman has some deep, deep issues with this President and has not been credible for many a moon. This article, at least, had some factual evidence in it. Maybe the NYT has developed some standards of journalism?

Really, I am in disbelief at the belief that its real. The War on Terrorism is truly a spin. Its like the War on Drugs, vague, as if you could ever get rid of it. A lie.
You can use it to eternity for anything you like, a perpetual ghost, an unwinnable situation to allow any number of indescrepancies to be swiftly dealt with, with no accountability from the government, no lawyers, no public trials, no press. Its a great idea; perpetual war based on completely vague entitites, no need for public information in leu of National Security as well as silencing of dissidents, illegal arrests and detainment, it is in fact a stroke of genius, or previously known as fascist policy/thought.

amlord



Does it? I was under the impression that al qaeda's primary goal was the 'liberation' of the holy land of Saudi Arabia. Seen in that context, this attack is almost an indication of strength.



In that other country, indeed. But don't confuse what I'm saying as indicating America is actually in the wrong here. I applaud America's efforts to combat the terrorists. What I am saying is that you cannot beat terrorism by declaring 'war' on it. It must be dealt with in a more comprehensive manner.

Despite what many people these days seem to think, you can actually accomplish a lot more by political or diplomatic means than by waging war, since much is sheer chaos under war conditions, and it is too easy to lose track of the real purpose of what you are trying to accomplish. The problem is, deciding on the right course of action.



And that's exactly why it will fail. Fundamentally, terrorism does not work like some organization that can be pulled apart and thus destroyed. Terrorism is the embodiment of a human sentiment, fueled by anger and sometimes by more noble sentiments, (like seeking to liberate one's nation from an outside aggressor)
Attempting to destroy that sentiment by military means is simply counter productive. What you (I am assuming) see as the destruction of a terrorist supporting state (Iraq), many others see as a clear cut example of American imperialism.

You may argue that this is not the case, and Donald Rumsfled attempts to do just that, but the people of the middle east will take more notice of America's actions than of her words. Especially when the words are inconsistent. One day its a case of WMD's then its a matter of liberation, all the while there are other high powered Americans talking about America's best interests, and observers talking about American hegemony.

What is the angry 16 year old Saudi male to make of this? Who should he believe?

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not defending the actions of these people. What I am saying is that I believe America has chosen the wrong course of action because the governing administration of the USA is using the 'war' on terror to further its own agenda.

I have one last observation I would make about using force to fight terrorism.

Israel uses every forceful means it has to fight terrorism, yet still the Palestinian terrorists are able to bomb inside Israel. So far this has been going on for the duration of Ariel Sharons leadership, and it shows no sign of easing whilst Sharon continues his hard line policies.

Considering the sheer size of the USA, do you really suppose that it can be guarded by military means against a determined attacker who is not operating under any American time frame?



I shall bear that in mind.

Remember, anyone who doubts or questions Bush has deep issues and you must be warned that they are mentally flawed and probably unstable, not to mention, incapable of rational thought. If you see a person like this just stop and slowly back away.

Today in Pakistan


Today in Yemen


Monday in Saudi Arabia


It's clear how weak Al Qaeda has become because they have gone back to only striking our interests outside the country instead of that once or twice when they hit us inside the country. Obviously they are showing signs of fearing us and our power because our agressive stance is sending a clear message to them and their followers.

I never said that. Dowd has attack GWB since before he was in office, often without any proof or reason. She is just not credible as an independent observer.

No one claimed that the war in Iraq would end terrorism. But it IS a step in the right direction. Even I (humble me) said that the war would likely lead to a short-term rise in terrorist attacks.

This attack, interestingly, corresponds with a time when we are pulling our military out of Saudi Arabia. How convenient that Al Qaeda can now make claims to have "driven the infidels out" since we were leaving already. It is a recruitment tool. We knew something was up. We issued travel warnings for Saudi Arabia. We asked for increased security.

I saw a graphic the other night on the estimated number of terrorist cells in various countries throughtout the world. The graphic showed a marked decrease in the number of cells in ALL countries. Are they totally defeated : no, of course not. Are we making progress? I think the answer is yes.

Excuse my ignorance, but how do they know how many terrorists there are?

Mapping Terrorist Cells

I would also guess that they use human intelligence and interrogations of captured terrorists to get an idea of who is where.

Thanks for the link, amlord. I happen to have studied social-network theory a little, and this is a fascinating application of it.

Last year children were taken like candy from a baby.
The year before that Jaws was in the water.

While the media increased coverage of child kidnappings and the seemingly remarkable incidents of shark attacks each of these years, the numbers for each were either at their average or below average. Anybody watching the evening news, however, got the impression that there was some new wave of terror sweeping over America.

And this year we have the war on terrorism.How long did they strike on foreign soil before the attack September 11? As I've said previously both on this thread and others, that they haven't attacked U.S. soil might be of some significance if it had previously been some recurring problem for us. As it stands, nothing seems to have changed. As the public was led to believe shark attacks and kidnappings had reached staggering proportions only a short time ago...

• We are being led to believe the number of casualties resulting from terrorist attacks are down "dramatically" from the year before... the year including over 3,000 deaths in a single day of attacks. The numbers are actually up from the year before 9/11
  
• The war on terror is a success because they haven't struck us at home in the less than 24 months since that attack... despite the windows of several years between successful attacks in the last decade or so.
  
• The number of attacks are down! Unfortunately the number of deaths associated with attacks are up "dramatically." I've mentioned it before... does the higher efficiency of a terrorist attack really make you feel any safer?

Whenever the next terrorist strike of a grand scale happens to occur, I have no doubt the media and public will be astonished to think terrorists could have carried out such a plan. In the land of the blind...

The attack in Casablanca & Saudi Arabia are proof that yes Al-Queda is still as active as a chronic hyperactive 5 year old child but it also shows that it is weak

It attacked 3 western-residential compounds in Saudi Arabia & a synagoge in Casablanca

This goes to show that they are aiming at low-secured targets because they are too weak to do anything big like try to hijack another plane because they will either get shot by an air marshal or pilot

They are too unorganized and everything is more secure. They will continue to take out things, but not high-security things because that would be too hard for a weak organization

American



You must remember that al qaeda's stated goal is the liberation of Muslim countries from the clutches of the evil Zionist American great Satan. ( Thats you by the way )

Attacking the American main land is not something which any foreign terrorist organization can do at will or with impunity. They may never be able to do it ever again. It could be that al qaeda was just as weak on September 11, for the attacks that day may have been the sum strength of their resources in America, but in order to get the maximum effect, they threw all those resources into one grand attack.

Bin Laden even said in one the video's released after the attack, that it succeeded better than they ever anticipated. To me this indicated that he himself did not expect the attacks to succeed as they did because he knows how weak al qaeda is outside the middle east.

The question at hand though, is whether or not the war on terrorism is having any effect. Well in order to answer that question, you have to understand the nature of terrorism itself.

If you take the example of the IRA; they never once perpetrated a single action which ever came any where even close to the death toll of Sept 11. Yet they managed to continue to strike at Great Britain, for thirty years, even blowing up Thatcher and her government.

Would you describe the IRA as weak on the basis of how many people they killed?

Broadly speaking, the above statement is correct and with a few name changes could equally apply to American goals.

Broadly speaking, again, the 'war' against terrorism is most definitely working.
But not on the battlefield.
It is working on the mindset of selected World populace, not only in America?.
It is working on the perception we once had of good and bad, right and wrong and even worse, true or false.

Let me define terrorism according to three of the 30 dictionaries I have collected.

1..THE UNIVERSAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 1918.
Method of government by inspiring terror by acts of brutality and savagery.
2..OXFORD ILLUSTRATED DICTIONARY. 1960
Those attempting to further their views or to rule by system of coercive terror.
3..THE MACQUARIE DICTIONARY (AUS). 1985
A method of resisting a government or of governing by deliberate acts of armed violence.

Now... I am not suggesting any of the above applies to Israel or even it's glove puppet America. What I AM suggesting is to take note of these definitions, dig deep and enquire of yourself these questions.

[B]DO ANY OF THESE DEFINITIONS APPLY TO RECENT AMERICAN ACTIONS?, and , DO ANY OF THESE DEFINITIONS APPLY TO RECENT ISRAELI actions?.[B].

If NO, please roll the dice and try again.
If YES, please hand the dice to the next person along with a few dollars and a yankee promise.

Regards...........Alan

Exactly. I would classify the Mohammed and Malvo as weak too. But they were able to bring Virginia, Maryland and Washington to their knees with fear in a matter of weeks.

Al Queada had cells all over the place like including France and Germany...do you really think we're working together with those countries as easily as before? Without that kind of cooperation we can't be all that sure of anything.

I doubt they would attempt to hijack planes again but even if they did...look how often the metal detectors have been found to be unplugged...look how often people trying to test the system, usually reporters, report they have been able to get through security with knives or weapons.

Being cocky about our success will only prove to make us complacent like we were before.

If the FBI and CIA were somehow able to miss something as big as 9/11 there is always a chance it can happen again...no matter how much surveillance they get or how diligent they are in their jobs. It's simply not something we will ever be able to say with certainty that we've defeated terror or we've won the 'war' on terror any more than we will ever be able to win the war on drugs.

Authorities are better aware of what they're dealing with. States are broke and laying off those that are on the front line to catch terrorists at home. To me, one cancels out the other. Also the fact that Bin Laden and Al Quaeda are extremely patient makes any claims that we are even close merely speculation. They do things on their own timetable and it's not unusual for them to wait years to carry out an attack but that doesn't mean they aren't planning and perfecting it every day. Look at the first WTC bombing and how long they waited to finish the job. It looks like they are simply trying to make a statement right now to show that they can. I think anyone who can take this as a sign of weakness is being naive. I think it's just a reminder that they are still there and have not forgotten and want to make it very clear they are targeting Western interests.

So they tell us to leave Muslim nations by blowing stuff up? That'll just make more people determined to want to take their heads off

Who says terrorists need another plane? Hijacking four planes on September 11 and turning three of them into piloted missiles was an unprecedented action. If they really wanted to put fear into our hearts and kill Americans because they hate who we are and the way we live, there is little stopping them.

Where I live we have a Christian church with probably well over 1,000 members who attend regularly. There is nothing stopping any terrorists from parking alongside with car bombs or from entering the building for a suicide bombing. Being Louisville, KY, I imagine there are plenty of other churches and secular facilities throughout the country will many more people to serve as targets.

If they just wanted to kill people they don't need airplanes, airports or Super Bowls. They could easily sweep the country into a real panic with but a few coordinated attacks on a quiet Sunday morning. Not only could they kill many American lives, but they could also kill members of an often conflicting theology.

Kill two birds with one stone.

Just because they haven't hijacked another plane or struck here in the "homeland," don't think they aren't well capable of it. Perhaps they don't just hate every American or every Christian as some other extremists might have us believe. Perhaps even in their killing of innocents their actions actually do have some greater political focus than we may be willing to acknowledge. Maybe it isn't just about our wealth or our freedom.

Those who would rather limit it to hatred of such things might take a closer look around at the places they gather. Certainly if this is all the terrorists want -- to randomly shed the blood of innocent Americans -- you will be hard pressed to find a safe haven.

Church, the grocery store, your local mall or local club, the popular strips of road that line crowded beaches during the summer... if all they wanted was your blood and the blood of any American, they'd probably already have it by now.

This is a success story for the war on terror.

This article talks about all sorts of horror stories of things that could have happened

Al-Queda in America

First, the so-called ‘war’ on terror is nothing of its sort. You don’t have a war, Britain never declared war on the IRA, the whole point of this vague sentence was to lead the emotional American public into the Bush agenda of hegemonic domination of the key geo-strategic areas of the world.
Secondly, very few people understand the origins of Al Quieda. Osama Bin Laden in a strategic alliance with the Americans headed the original nucleus of Al Quida when they were fighting the Soviets. Contrary to popular myth that alliance of interest continued on a financial and political realm throughout the nineties. Al Quida were involved during the Kosovo war and it has been documented of the Bin Laden financial links with the Bush Administration.
Bin Laden was the figurehead for a international network of Islamist militants, he had no genuine power and his existence has always been in Americas interests. Rather the cell-like groups affiliated to Al Quida may get advice from the relatively small number of professionals but as can be shown, most terrorist attacks are done by domestic Islamists, following their own agendas.
9/11 was a very convenient (too convenient?) thing for the hawks within the Bush Administration who have been lobbying for years for a expansionist foreign policy. Moreover through the fake ‘War on Terror’, they could use the events of the WTC to manipulate the American public into attacking Iraq. This has all been written down by these people, most notably the PNAC:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Rebuilding America's Defenses: A Report of The Project for the New American Century (published - September 2000)

PNAC

Anyway back on topic, I don’t deny that there is a international Muslim community but Al Quieda have always been up to now strategic allies of the Americans, despite their anti-American rhetoric. However, this may have changed, more than before Bin Laden is now only a propaganda figurehead, in practise Al Queida has fragmented into a vast collection of different cells across the world.
What we need to do is to stop seeing every terrorist attack, whether in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia or wherever, as part of some ridiculous conspiracy theory of a Great Muslim Conspiracy, but rather local/regional afflicted Islamist militants fighting for their own agendas.
Thus, the Saudi Arabian terrorist attack needs to be understood within the context of a bitter power-struggle within the House of Saud between reformers and fundamentalists. Most Saudis hate the Western presence and their rich corrupt elite, which explains why Muslims were killed in the blast. Was there any connection between the militants and their fellow travellers within the Saudi power structure? I do not know, but it is this kind of thinking that we need.
Is America winning the ‘war’ on Terror? If that means stopping terrorist attacks on their homeland, I would say yes up to now. If that means reducing the level of hate in the Arab/Muslin world, it is a resounding No. If the war means extending American power and military strength across the world, than a resounding yes. If the war means stopping all terrorism, than its clearly failing. (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article3868.htm )

Before you define the success or not of the war on terror, you need to explain what exactly is the ‘war on terror’?

Once we get all the top leaders of Al-Queda, we will have cut part of their link, then we can get info out of them to catch the individual cells and stop plots before they are initiated. Once then, we will have succeeded in crippling Al-Queda to the point where they will never be able to re-organize as an efficent group

Every time you 'get' a top leader an underling pop's up and takes his place. And there are lot's of new recruits. Thanks to the Iraq invasion and occupation they have plenty of willing trainees.

And what makes you think we have any chance at getting ALL the top leaders. Our intelligence has proven to be worthless...we suck at finding the people we want most like Bin laden and Saddam. Not to mention the Anthrax Mailer or those WMD's.

If your analysis is correct we will still be fighting this war on terror fifty or sixty years from now and be right where we are now.

In the interest of doing something constructive for a change, what would you suggest we do from here? Leave Iraq now? Remove our troops from Afghanistan? Tell North Korea to go right ahead and expand their nuclear arsenal? Maybe send some troops to help bolster the Iranian mulllahs? Do nothing but cross our fingers and hope for the best? Group hug maybe? What?? What would the left do besides whine??

Why do you continue to address me personally or comment about my posts when you know I refuse to discuss anything with you? Must I put you on my ignore list?

Stop asking me questions and stop attacking my posts. If you have a problem with something I say (such as your inappropriate accusations of Bush bashing, being off topic, or whining) take it up with a moderator.

I will not be defending or explaining any of my posts to you no matter what the topic or how hard you try to bait me into it. If you would simply phrase your questions or comments in a general way instead of a personal manner it would make ignoring you much simpler.

Thank you.

I don't really think that the war on terror is "succeeding." Here we are, after tons of efforts, and we still haven't caught the chief people we're looking for. Does that sound like a success? We've gone after them and failed, so they're gonna be pretty *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. To me, this spells out more terrorist attacks on us. So whereas the level of terrorism may be down now, it's gonna skyrocket in the future, no doubt.

Does this meant that we should stop all of our futile efforts to accomplish anything? Heck no. Even if we stopped trying to get rid of terrorism, and let everyone calm down for a while, there would still be terrorist attacks made. So, the best we can do is what we're doing right now, and fight who we can, when we can, and where we can.

Actually, if you read articles of captures, some would mention that with the help of the CIA, Pakistani forces/police catch the bad guys.

Sadly i can't show you a link to prove this because i'm on another computer

I only have one thing to say: THE WAR ON DRUGS IS FUNDING TERRORISM. the DEA should be held accountable. End of story.

Sources? Examples?

It's not that I disagree with you, but support would make a much stronger argument.

goamerica
I understand we've gotten Pakistan's help and of course the CIA and we have caught many many terror suspects. (Since we haven't tried them I can't yet call them actual terrorists.)

My point is that while we catch some there are more and more joining the ranks. Terrorists are like cockroaches, they breed all over the world and you can't get all of them. If you promise the world you will hunt them all down and kill them you will be fighting a losing battle. It's much more sensible to figure out the best way get them out of your house and spend all your energy and resources on keeping them out.

It's very late...I hope this analogy makes as much sense to everyone else as it does to me right now.

THAT is insulting to peace loving cockroaches everywhere. Cockroaches don't try to kill people, they just live off the garbage that is around...

As far as your assertation that we can never get the leaders, I must disagree.

Sure, someone takes the position, but the original guy was the TOP guy for a reason. He was probably better than the guy that is going to replace him (since both were available for the position in the first place and the guy in charge was selected over the other). Of course, this isn't universal, but I think the general principle applies.

Correct me if I am reading your posts wrong, but are you saying that we haven't caught any top leaders yet?

Sure, OBL himself is at large, Saddam also might be...

You seem to think intelligence work is some kind of overnight operation, where if we decide today that Joe Smoe needs to be found if we don't have him by tomorrow we have failed. We (our allies and the US) have captured or killed thousands of Al Qaeda leaders and operatives. It is fallacious to say that since they will be more tomorrow that capturing the current crop is futile. People need to learn from someone. People tend to join successful groups, not ones that are on the run (such as Al Qaeda). Again, that is not universal, but it's a good general rule.

Personally I'm wondering if there will be any more major terrorist attacks from Al Quieda. Their whole goal ( from reading some of Bin Laden's speeches ) was to drive all of the infidels out of their land, meaning Saudi Arabia. Well after that last major attack in Rijhad I heard most of the Americans packed up and left.

So if that was their plan then they have succeeded and should bother us no more.

Time will tell.

And if not we need to find out WHERE and WHY this anti-American hatred grew in such support and power and find ways to heal the wounds.

Osama Bin Laden is more like a symbol than a man. Heck he might not even exist anymore and that doesn't really matter. What matters is what drives the terrorists and what can we do to end their hatred.

It might be the abandoning of Afghanistan after the Cold War, it might of been the 35+ resolutions against Israel we vetoed. Whatever it is the truth needs to come out.

Because thinking the World Trade Center was an unprovoked attack is, in my opinion, ignorant.

Rickmanx

That is a little misleading. The group of Americans in Sauid Arabia which raised objections were those connected to the US military, which has operated bases there since the 1991 Gulf War.

US pulls out of Saudi Arabia
Their pull-out was announced well before the Riyadh bombing(which occured in May).

I can almost guarantee you that there are going to be plenty more attacks made on us by the terrorists.
I'm afraid that I couldn't get the whole article, but for those of you who have an online account or a subscription, read the newsweek article: Al Qaeda in America: The Enemy Within.

AGB...here you go: Al-Queda in America

I posted it in this thread earlier. You must have missed it. Basically, it talks about what al-queda's other plots were.

Amlord:


OH MY GOSH!!!

I actually agree with you.

Let's personalize this then. If Al Qaeda terrorists came in and bombed a shopping mall killing your wife/brothers/sisters or all of them at once and then somehow got an edge on America and started winning, are you honestly going to tell me you'd join the Al Queda ( the winning group? )

I think not.

And what about our own Revolutionary War? From what I remember the Americans were majorly outnumbered by an invading force, but stuck it out and fought using guerilla tactics:


Source: http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/wv/Marion/marhistory.html

Sounds kind of like what the Iraqis are doing now doesn't it? ( You'd think we'd learn from history )

So, sometimes its not about who's the winning team. More like its what you believe and what you consider to be right and wrong, and would you fight and die for it.

Rickmanx

How can we succeed in the war on terror with our boarder so wide open and our troops engaged in a war(occupation) with a country that has little to do with the threats against our Nation.

IMO, we should be diverting more resources to our ports and to our two HUGE, inadequately guarded boarders with Canada and Mexico. You hear constantly about illegal Mexicans sneaking across our boarder successfully and sometimes dying attempting to come north. We need to crack down on the illegal smuggling by these b@stards taking advantage of those poor people. We concentrate so much of our time and resources on the war on drugs, which is in vain. We have the longest peaceful boarder in the world with Canada, and look what was found at the turn of the millennium, a truck full of explosives! HOW MANY OTHERS MADE IT THROUGH!?

Sorry about the rant.

Iraq was a threat. In the Bush: What Should We Do with him, i stated that there were more reasons than just WMD. You have the terrorists he has supported

Terrorists are a threat to us right? Well, if saddam is cosing up to terrorists, then that is a threat to us



The Canucks won't like us sending military personnel to our side of the border & P.M. Chretin doesn't care about his side




What do you think all the busts on illegals is all about? The Feds and the INS have been cracking down.





Last Paragraph: Canucks lost Millieniym bomber

I'll concede your points, to an extent. America is too pooris. I think we should tighten our boarders. That's our first priority. If we don't, it won't matter if we take Saddam out, or Bin Laden, because the people they have influenced for their causes are already here or can easily get into our country. We have inadequate tracking methods for non-citizens and inadequate boarder security. Example: I'm against the war on cannabis, but it's so obvious how poorly we're loosing the war on drugs and if it's easy for large amounts of drugs to be smuggled, it's even easier for our enemies to infiltrate our land. You can't conquer terrorism as long as we make it easy for the terrorist to work our system and enter our country illegally.

Not only that but it wastes resources better used on real threats. Pot isn't going away, ever. It's not even as big a deal as alcohol if you take the propaganda and scare tactics out and look at it rationally. Of course no one wants kids or on duty airline pilot's smoking it. But how has the war on drugs done anything to change the chances of that happening anyway. Jobs can still refuse to hire anyone testing positive and parents can still have their kids tested and look for the signs.

Why are we wasting so many prison cells and dollars for tracking and trying and housing pot smokers when we have more important drugs to deal with and much bigger threats facing us. I'm starting to think it isn't really about reality but about the principal of the matter. Spending all those years in vain is something no one wants to accept so we ratchet up the rhetoric and keep on fighting it.

A sensible immigration plan with the best information technology to manage it and a huge border security and intelligence force would be a lot better way to spend that money, imo. Here we are spending tons of money to go to war and terrorists can sneak over the Mexican or Canadian border or take their chances coming in like the Cuban's do and it's all for nothing anyway. Nothing will keep us safer than protecting our borders and keeping up our immigration information. Even if there are weapons in the world...if I feel confident they have a low chance of getting in I'm satisfied.