Why Has U.S. Been Spared?

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2004
4,092
452
48
Why Has U.S. Been Spared?
By Peter A. Brown, Orlando Sentinel
July 8, 2005

The London bombing once again begs the question: Why haven't terrorists struck the United States in the past four years? Certainly the effects of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks are still felt by Americans.

Unfortunately, terrorists have succeeded in changing how we live our daily lives. Americans worry more about being blown up now than when thousands of Soviet ICBMs with multiple nuclear warheads were pointed at the United States.

These days, we live under the constant fear of being the next victim of a random act, a mentality that makes us more fearful and less generous to strangers and forces changes in behavior that cost us all time and money.

Nonetheless, it is useful to ponder why the bad guys haven't struck within the United States itself since 9-11. It certainly is not because Osama & Co. hate us less than they once did. If anything, the U.S. destruction of his puppet regime in Afghanistan, its invasion of Iraq and the American-led war on terror make us even less popular among Islamic extremists.

And it is not as though they have given up their efforts to wreak mayhem and havoc. The bombings in London's public transit system were similar to the attack on the Madrid rail system that took almost 200 lives in March 2004. In addition, there have been sporadic acts of terror elsewhere around the globe since 9-11.

Of course, the fear is that al-Qaeda is just biding its time planning some really horrific act, perhaps employing a weapon of mass destruction, against the United States. Sadly, that could well be the case.

Yet, we might also consider the possibility that the U.S. government's response to 9-11 has been working. What if we have thwarted active terrorist plots or discouraged al-Qaeda's planners from focusing here, forcing them to concentrate their efforts overseas?

for full article
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-edpbrown08070805jul08,0,3716232.column
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: -Cp
Great article! I think that it has become more difficult to hit here, though very far from impossible. As has been said so many times, we live in a very 'target rich' environment.
 
The answers are obvious...

1. The Patriot Act has helped immensely
2. The people in charge of seeing to it that we are safe are doing a great job (in spite of GWB's stance on immigration)
3. The Democrats and Libs are useful idiots for the Islamofascists and if they were running things, we would be either under attack or under martial law.

No kidding....
 
Of course, Bush can take credit for this. The original attack on Sept. 11, 2001 wasn't his fault, but the fact that terrorists haven't struck again sure is. Doesn't matter that they have since struck in Bali, Madrid and London.

To understand why Osama has not directed more attacks on American soil, a line from a song parody by The Fools ("Psycho Chicken") jumps out at me:

"I plucked him once, why pluck him again?" :rock:
 
Gabriella84 said:
Of course, Bush can take credit for this. The original attack on Sept. 11, 2001 wasn't his fault, but the fact that terrorists haven't struck again sure is. Doesn't matter that they have since struck in Bali, Madrid and London.

To understand why Osama has not directed more attacks on American soil, a line from a song parody by The Fools ("Psycho Chicken") jumps out at me:

"I plucked him once, why pluck him again?" :rock:

None of this makes any sense. Explain and make it coherent...................
 
Gabriella84 said:
Of course, Bush can take credit for this. The original attack on Sept. 11, 2001 wasn't his fault, but the fact that terrorists haven't struck again sure is. Doesn't matter that they have since struck in Bali, Madrid and London.

To understand why Osama has not directed more attacks on American soil, a line from a song parody by The Fools ("Psycho Chicken") jumps out at me:

"I plucked him once, why pluck him again?" :rock:
........
 
Bonnie said:
None of this makes any sense. Explain and make it coherent...................

Let me see if I can translate. What Gabby is trying to say is that, well, first off, it's Bush's fault we got hit on 9/11 (despite the fact that he'd only been in office a few months). Secondly, she's trying to say that the only reason we haven't been hit again is because we got hit on 9/11 and the terrorists don't see the point in hitting us again (relating it to a cheesy "song"), but Bush is taking credit for it becuase he's an evil puppetmaster trying to manipulate the masses by taking credit for things he didn't do. She also points out that while there haven't been attacks on U.S. soil, Al-Qaida hasn't exactly been silent, having struck Bali, Madrid, and London (a valid point), which are, of course, also Bush's fault (not a valid point).
 
Gabriella84 said:
Of course, Bush can take credit for this. The original attack on Sept. 11, 2001 wasn't his fault, but the fact that terrorists haven't struck again sure is. Doesn't matter that they have since struck in Bali, Madrid and London.

To understand why Osama has not directed more attacks on American soil, a line from a song parody by The Fools ("Psycho Chicken") jumps out at me:

"I plucked him once, why pluck him again?" :rock:

First of that line doesent make anysense because Osama attacked U.S targets before 911 so...ur dumb, second of all, anyone who belive Osama is just going to give up is truly lost third the one responsible for 911 was not George W. Bush but William Jefferson Clinton
 
Hobbit said:
Let me see if I can translate. What Gabby is trying to say is that, well, first off, it's Bush's fault we got hit on 9/11 (despite the fact that he'd only been in office a few months). Secondly, she's trying to say that the only reason we haven't been hit again is because we got hit on 9/11 and the terrorists don't see the point in hitting us again (relating it to a cheesy "song"), but Bush is taking credit for it becuase he's an evil puppetmaster trying to manipulate the masses by taking credit for things he didn't do. She also points out that while there haven't been attacks on U.S. soil, Al-Qaida hasn't exactly been silent, having struck Bali, Madrid, and London (a valid point), which are, of course, also Bush's fault (not a valid point).

Which only supports my senseless statement.. :)
 

Forum List

Back
Top