Why havent the terrorists done this?

[AllieBaba]

The only bad guys are Americans, according to the wackos.. Never forget that. What we do for good is nothing but interfering fascism.

But what terrorists do is perfectly justifiable...because we MAKE them do those things. Or do them ourselves, and blame innocent Islamofascists.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only bad guys are Americans, according to the wackos.. Never forget that. What we do for good is nothing but interfering fascists
But what terrorists do is perfectly justifiable...because we MAKE them do those things. Or do them ourselves, and blame innocent Islamofascists.

How can you tell a "freedom fighter" from an "oppressor"?
Freedom fighters carry AK47s; oppressors carry M16s.

 

[Diuretic]

But I don't think anyone is targetting the US. As I said, if someone wanted to they could do it easily and the FBI and CIA wouldn't be able to stop them.



A bit contradictory there in your response, Diuretic? So what is it? They can do it any time they want? Or they--nor any other country--are capable of pulling it off?



Guess you didn't get the memo. Here's the crux of it: Death to America, the Great Satan.

Yep, you pulled me up, rightly, I didn't explain myself clearly at all. In the first part I was thinking of the usual terrorist attack - surreptitious. In the second point I was thinking (but not expressing) of a conventional attack, as in, we're coming to invade you.

No country in the world is capable of invading the US. As for occupying it......
It's not going to happen (although I did like "Red Dawn" and "Amerika"k but recognised them as fairy stories writ large).

The banging on about "death to the Great Satan", while it might get a run in the paddock every now and again with the obligatory marshalling of folks into the street to express the usual formulaic outrage to impress the authorities I doubt if anyone is really serious, especially in Iran where they're pissed off with their own government (and rightly so).

 

[AllieBaba]

Gee, if nobody's serious about it, I wonder who it is who keeps hacking reporters, contractors, missionaries, et al, heads off?

 

[Diuretic]

Gee, if nobody's serious about it, I wonder who it is who keeps hacking reporters, contractors, missionaries, et al, heads off?

You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?

'Cos if you are give me a frame of reference, hyperbole is too sludgey to respond to concisely and precisely

 

[Abelian Sea]

If you want to truly terrorize the Amercian people, you go after our kids.

That is true.

Yet, looking through the thwarted attacks linked to in this thread's first page, the terrorists don't seem interested in children. They seem to prefer airports and very large buildings. Now, it may just be that they aren't making public the foiled plots against schoolchildren (because doing so would itself have a terrorizing effect), but for now let's just speculate based on what's been revealed (we may as well; it's not like we really know what we're talking about here, anyway).

Here's a possible explanation for their target preference: when they think of America, the Great Satan, they do not directly think of the people, but rather of the country. It's the country they want to strike, the infrastructure and symbols and centers of power. My impression is that they are explicitly trained to target such things.

Any successful strike will cause terror. I don't think they're concerned with maximizing the terror (a case in which schools would be more tempting targets) so much as maximizing the damage to the country's functioning.

Now, you could argue that striking schools would accomplish that, but I wonder. Schools have already been attacked, though not by organizations. Parents already know that their kids are not 100% guarenteed to not be murdered at school. Hitting a school would traumatize the community it happened in, but I don't think people throughout the nation would yank their kids from school, at least not for long. I don't think the U.S. would "shut down."

The sense of tragedy and outrage would certianly be far keener, but it wouldn't have much functional impact beyond having to relocate students and repair the damage for that one school. Compare this to destroying a central bridge in a big city, or destroying a skysrcaper full of offices and records, or setting off a dirty bomb in a densely populated residential area.

These would be more difficult than driving into a school, but I think a dedicated terrorist operating in this country would prefer to take that extra effort. It's not like they have an overflowing abundance of operatives over here willing to blow themselves up for the cause; they must be selective in their targets, and their priorities seem more tilted towards hindering the business and government operations of the adult world.

That's my guess, anyway. Why do you think the terrorists haven't attacked our schools?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is true.
Yet, looking through the thwarted attacks linked to in this thread's first page, the terrorists don't seem interested in children. They seem to prefer airports and very large buildings.

Yes. And I dont know why.

Here's a possible explanation for their target preference: when they think of America, the Great Satan, they do not directly think of the people, but rather of the country. It's the country they want to strike, the infrastructure and symbols and centers of power. My impression is that they are explicitly trained to target such things.

You dont terrorize people by threatening things, you terrorize people by threatening people. This is why they attacked the WTC at 0845 instead of 0045.

Now, you could argue that striking schools would accomplish that, but I wonder. Schools have already been attacked, though not by organizations.

And that makes all the difference -- random attacks by students v a concerted effort by an organization. One is a threat based on statistics, the other is a, well, determined, deliberate effort.

Parents already know that their kids are not 100% guarenteed to not be murdered at school. Hitting a school would traumatize the community it happened in, but I don't think people throughout the nation would yank their kids from school, at least not for long. I don't think the U.S. would "shut down."

They certainly would if they knew the terrorists were deliberately attacking the schools, trying to kill the kids. It would not last forever, but it would happen on a large scale. Each of these kids would need to be taken care of when not in school, which will mean, for most, that the parents stay home.

And if, say, 40% of the US workforce doesnt show up for work, for, say, a week, the results would be catastrophic.

Why do you think the terrorists haven't attacked our schools?

I dont know. As I implied in my question, it might be because we've been stopping them, or because they simply dont have the capability. There are other possible reasons, but those are what I came up with.

 

[Diuretic]

That is true.

Yet, looking through the thwarted attacks linked to in this thread's first page, the terrorists don't seem interested in children. They seem to prefer airports and very large buildings. Now, it may just be that they aren't making public the foiled plots against schoolchildren (because doing so would itself have a terrorizing effect), but for now let's just speculate based on what's been revealed (we may as well; it's not like we really know what we're talking about here, anyway).

Here's a possible explanation for their target preference: when they think of America, the Great Satan, they do not directly think of the people, but rather of the country. It's the country they want to strike, the infrastructure and symbols and centers of power. My impression is that they are explicitly trained to target such things.

Any successful strike will cause terror. I don't think they're concerned with maximizing the terror (a case in which schools would be more tempting targets) so much as maximizing the damage to the country's functioning.

Now, you could argue that striking schools would accomplish that, but I wonder. Schools have already been attacked, though not by organizations. Parents already know that their kids are not 100% guarenteed to not be murdered at school. Hitting a school would traumatize the community it happened in, but I don't think people throughout the nation would yank their kids from school, at least not for long. I don't think the U.S. would "shut down."

The sense of tragedy and outrage would certianly be far keener, but it wouldn't have much functional impact beyond having to relocate students and repair the damage for that one school. Compare this to destroying a central bridge in a big city, or destroying a skysrcaper full of offices and records, or setting off a dirty bomb in a densely populated residential area.

These would be more difficult than driving into a school, but I think a dedicated terrorist operating in this country would prefer to take that extra effort. It's not like they have an overflowing abundance of operatives over here willing to blow themselves up for the cause; they must be selective in their targets, and their priorities seem more tilted towards hindering the business and government operations of the adult world.

That's my guess, anyway. Why do you think the terrorists haven't attacked our schools?

Thought-provoking. I think terrorists are big on symbolism as well.

9/11 - WTC - the very symbol of US capitalism; the Pentagon, the centre of the military might of the US; the White House or Congress, the political centre of the US.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thought-provoking. I think terrorists are big on symbolism as well.
9/11 - WTC - the very symbol of US capitalism; the Pentagon, the centre of the military might of the US; the White House or Congress, the political centre of the US.

Sure.
But, again, if the goal wasn't -also- to kill people, thereby causing people to fear for their lives, these attacks would not have been made at a point in time where as many people that were going to be there were there.

 

[eots]

The only bad guys are Americans, according to the wackos.. Never forget that. What we do for good is nothing but interfering fascism.

But what terrorists do is perfectly justifiable...because we MAKE them do those things. Or do them ourselves, and blame innocent Islamofascists.

no the bad guys are the cabal that has taken over the white house and what they claim to do for good is fascism and terrorist who attack civilians are no better but those who only wish to drive out the occupiers are freedom fighters just like in Afghanistan in the Regan era

 

[actsnoblemartin]

one of the guys who shot up a mall was an albanian muslim, believe me if a black guy shoots up a school, or a muslim shoots up a mall you will never hear about it

thanks liberal media

I've often wondered why we haven't had suicide attacks in our malls, especially during the holiday season. Security is almost non-existent at these places--unless you're a thief.

 

[AllieBaba]

But didn't you know...the antipathy the Muslims have against all things US and Christian is simply a product of our imagination..and a product of politicians who want us to hate the undeserving and peace-loving muslims the world over.

 

[Abelian Sea]

You dont terrorize people by threatening things, you terrorize people by threatening people. This is why they attacked the WTC at 0845 instead of 0045.

Certainly. I didn't mean to imply that they don't care about killing people. I meant that killing people was not their primary priority when choosing targets, although it obviously was important to them. In the 9/11 attacks, for example, I would argue that the death consideration mainly influenced their timing and probably had little to do their choice of targets except to limit them to well populated areas.

And that makes all the difference -- random attacks by students v a concerted effort by an organization. One is a threat based on statistics, the other is a, well, determined, deliberate effort.

They certainly would if they knew the terrorists were deliberately attacking the schools, trying to kill the kids.

Hm. Good point. This would be especially true if there were a series of attacks, like one a week or something.

I dont know. As I implied in my question, it might be because we've been stopping them, or because they simply dont have the capability. There are other possible reasons, but those are what I came up with.

My latest guesses:

(a) There have been plots against schools, and those plots have been foiled. These plots have not been openly reported so as not to panic parents.

and/or

(b) The jihadists are trained to target infrastructure and centers of corporate/political power since these things most directly represent what they'd like to destroy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My latest guesses:
(a) There have been plots against schools, and those plots have been foiled. These plots have not been openly reported so as not to panic parents.

I would certainly buy that. Knowing that they were targeting schoosl would have an effect similar to the schools actaully being attacked.

(b) The jihadists are trained to target infrastructure and (populated) centers of corporate/political power since these things most directly represent what they'd like to destroy.

Well...
It doesnt seem to me that the terrorists are openly concered with 'corporate power' or whatnot, as these things do not directly run against their ideology.

Now, if about liberals/socialists were plotting/carrying out the attacks, I'd say you have a point.

 

[Diuretic]

Sure.
But, again, if the goal wasn't -also- to kill people, thereby causing people to fear for their lives, these attacks would not have been made at a point in time where as many people that were going to be there were there.

Quite true, the timing of the attacks was to kill as many people as possible.

 

[Diuretic]

one of the guys who shot up a mall was an albanian muslim, believe me if a black guy shoots up a school, or a muslim shoots up a mall you will never hear about it

thanks liberal media

The DC/Md/etc snipers? Sort of a cross between serial and mass killers I admit.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Yep, you pulled me up, rightly, I didn't explain myself clearly at all. In the first part I was thinking of the usual terrorist attack - surreptitious. In the second point I was thinking (but not expressing) of a conventional attack, as in, we're coming to invade you.

No country in the world is capable of invading the US. As for occupying it......
It's not going to happen (although I did like "Red Dawn" and "Amerika"k but recognised them as fairy stories writ large).

The banging on about "death to the Great Satan", while it might get a run in the paddock every now and again with the obligatory marshalling of folks into the street to express the usual formulaic outrage to impress the authorities I doubt if anyone is really serious, especially in Iran where they're pissed off with their own government (and rightly so).

Thanks for explaining your post in a gentlemanly manner. I just disagree with your hypothesis. It doesn’t really matter if a country is capable of invading the U.S. Any country with long-range missiles is capable of attacking America and destroying our way of life. Why do you think the USSR and the US did not use their weapons against each other during the Cold War? (Clue: see last five words in previous sentence) You have heard how the Western countries do not think it is a good idea for Iran to have nuclear missiles? Why do you think that is?

As far as disregarding “death to the Great Satan” as so much huff and puff: Western countries have a fondness for “huffing and puffing”, but not the Arabs. To disregard their “big talk” will endanger not just America, but all Western countries. From the different sources that I’ve read (and you have probably read as well since we all want to know what’s really on the Arabs’ minds), I fully believe that the radicals’ plan is to establish a world-wide theocratic government under Shariah law, with Muslims as the rulers, and Allah as the only god to be worshipped. They openly tell you that. To dismantle the West, they have to start with the lead domino, America.

 

[Diuretic]

Thanks for explaining your post in a gentlemanly manner. I just disagree with your hypothesis. It doesn’t really matter if a country is capable of invading the U.S. Any country with long-range missiles is capable of attacking America and destroying our way of life. Why do you think the USSR and the US did not use their weapons against each other during the Cold War? (Clue: see last five words in previous sentence) You have heard how the Western countries do not think it is a good idea for Iran to have nuclear missiles? Why do you think that is?

Firstly, you're welcome and thank you for your always reasonable discourse (not just this thread but in all of your posts).

I remember why the US and the USSR didn't go to war with one another. I was 12 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I remember it very well. I have, as an adult in my late 50s, a huge amount of regard for Adlai Stevenson (this is weird, I have my mp3s on shuffle and on comes "Talking World War III Blues" by Bob Dylan...amazing).

I don't see the US as a target because it's pointless. Back in the 1950s (and as I pointed out I'm old enough to remember much of them) there was a definite and clear struggle between the West (capitalism/liberal democracy) and the East (command economy socialism/Marxism-Leninism). One may have prevailed over the other but the struggle lasted years. It's probably easy now to forget the size (geographical) of the old Soviet Union and to forget its influence (don't forget Cuba is still nominally Communist) but back then it was a close run thing. That ideological war is over. Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution has been blunted. What drove the Soviet Union's (after Trotsky's death which of course was ordered by Stalin) imperialism wasn't so much ideology as economic need, much like Hitler's idea of lebensraum. That takes total control. The US, as the most advanced, capitalist society in the world, is not going to be invaded and controlled by outside forces.

As far as disregarding “death to the Great Satan” as so much huff and puff: Western countries have a fondness for “huffing and puffing”, but not the Arabs. To disregard their “big talk” will endanger not just America, but all Western countries. From the different sources that I’ve read (and you have probably read as well since we all want to know what’s really on the Arabs’ minds), I fully believe that the radicals’ plan is to establish a world-wide theocratic government under Shariah law, with Muslims as the rulers, and Allah as the only god to be worshipped. They openly tell you that. To dismantle the West, they have to start with the lead domino, America.

As I understand it the objective of AQ is to resume the caliphate. It's delusional. It will not happen. If you read Marx (with an open mind) you'll be comforted (paradoxical I know). Marx approved but criticised Hegel but he still understood how humans progress. We might decry his ideas of dialectical materialism (derived from Marxist thought, Marx didn't use that term) but it is a really interesting explanation of how humanity progresses (Marx talked about "historical materialism"). Hegel proposed that humanity progresses in a linear fashion - thesis - anithesis - synthesis; synethsis becomes thesis and so the cycle begins again (not a new idea I think it goes back to the Socratic dialectic in terms of its logic). It's a universally driving force in humanity and it's almost embedded in us. AQ and their associates are, in a sense, fighting against this. They want (apparently) to drag history back to Mediaeval times. Not going to happen. The forces that Hegel, Marx, Engels et al identified, are embedded in our humanity, we will continue forward (there's an argument about the nature of progress which is a bit beyond me but I'm sticking to this one for now) and those forces will not be denied. AQ may appeal to their invisible friend Allah, to guide and help them. They may as well piss into the darkness.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I certainly agree with you that the aim of the radical Islamists is to drag us all back to the 6th or 7th century when their culture was preeminent in the world. Their aims are delusional pipe dreams, as you say, but they have absolutely no understanding that that is the case. They firmly believe that it was they who defeated the Soviet army in Afghanistan and that they can defeat the American military as well.

This is a delusional but determined bunch we are dealing with. They are patient and find a way to carry out their plans. The West--not just America--will be battling the radical Islamists for many years to come, and the biggest mistake to be made is not to take these guys seriously. Their plan to attack seven of America's largest cities in one fell swoop might seem like a pipe dream, but not to them. Don't think for a minute that plan is ludicrous. Who would ever have thought that 19 men could bring down the Twin Towers in one of America's largest cities in broad daylight so the world could see that they were a force to be reckoned with?

 

[eots]

I certainly agree with you that the aim of the radical Islamists is to drag us all back to the 6th or 7th century when their culture was preeminent in the world. Their aims are delusional pipe dreams, as you say, but they have absolutely no understanding that that is the case. They firmly believe that it was they who defeated the Soviet army in Afghanistan and that they can defeat the American military as well.

This is a delusional but determined bunch we are dealing with. They are patient and find a way to carry out their plans. The West--not just America--will be battling the radical Islamists for many years to come, and the biggest mistake to be made is not to take these guys seriously. Their plan to attack seven of America's largest cities in one fell swoop might seem like a pipe dream, but not to them. Don't think for a minute that plan is ludicrous. Who would ever have thought that 19 men could bring down the Twin Towers in one of America's largest cities in broad daylight so the world could see that they were a force to be reckoned with?

oh ya a force to be reckoned with for sure 19 guys a couple box cutters ,Intel tips from flight schools ,FBI AGENTS LIKE JOHN O'NEIL ALL IGNORED...imagiine what would happen if the Russians or china plotted a attack. if the defense system is so weak that some careless planing a plane ticket and a box cutter is all you need