Do you think that having had no terrorist attacks on american soil in the past two years and change is a testament to the success of america's various new security measures over the span?

simple question, tough answer....

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

well, i think that the fact that the U.S. has been making efforts to destroy governments who support terror, makes these hostile govts less likely to help terrorists if they want to stay in power (i.e. they dont help terrorists because they dont want to be bombed or conquered by the U.S.)

Terrorists need some type of support from a country in order to train their members and come up with ways of wreaking havoc. If no country wants to be blamed for harboring terrorists, they will evict terror groups from their land.

- hope that helps.

Dick Morris said something interesting the other day that I think is a pretty good answer to your question. I paraphrase:

A lot of Americans knew absolutely nothing about Islamic terror groups and state sponsors of terror before September 11, 2001. We quickly learned about their intentions, their funding, and their extent in the days and weeks post-9/11.

If someone had asked an American, or pretty much anyone around the world on September 12, "do you think there will be another terrorist attack on US soil in the next two and half years?", the answer would have been a resounding "yes".

You may disagree with the level of the effectiveness of current measures being taken, but I think there is no question that those measures have both prevented attacks, and reduced the chances of future attacks.

^^ great point.

Although we might not see eye to eye with bush on a lot of issues, i admire how he has stepped up to the plate and done the right thing with this issue.

I don't really know if the new methods of homeland security have helped stop terrorist, but they defintely have stopped and prevented attacks to America.

Of course we must also realize that terrorist attacks were stopped and prevented before Sept 11th as well, so we really can't say how effective any of these new methods are.

I do think that the new Patriot Act has made terror prevention more successful, and it is for this reason that I sense Bush wants to renew it.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

I don't think so. Terrorists have access to alot of horrible weapons and the hate against the USA, especially in the muslim world, seems to have grown since the Afghanistan- and Iraq wars. I think its a matter of time before something new happens.

War on Terror® is not the solution.

quote:

Originally posted by Virus I don't think so. Terrorists have access to alot of horrible weapons and the hate against the USA, especially in the muslim world, seems to have grown since the Afghanistan- and Iraq wars. I think its a matter of time before something new happens. War on Terror® is not the solution.

And a better solution is? Having a round table discussion with a bunch of crazed psychotic lunatics regarding the pros and cons of deliberate attacks on innocent people? Laying down and just letting them hit you until they wear themselves out?

The only problem with this line of questioning is, why were the attacks allowed to happen in the first place. Surely it wasn't for a lack of prior knowledge because the warnings were issued through various channels.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain589137.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002...ain509294.shtml

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/...News.40286.html

http://www.sfgate.com/today/0912_chron_mnreport.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/...mant020523.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...23/113839.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,589168,00.html

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/913687.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...16/103951.shtml



And secondly, why are investigations into 9/11 being blocked?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/.../default.html#8

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka And a better solution is? Having a round table discussion with a bunch of crazed psychotic lunatics regarding the pros and cons of deliberate attacks on innocent people?

You seem to forget (or maybe you just didn't know?) that we had a cooperative relationship with them for decades. What was different then, or did they just recently become psychotic?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X The only problem with this line of questioning is, why were the attacks allowed to happen in the first place. Surely it wasn't for a lack of prior knowledge because the warnings were issued through various channels.

you're right but it is obvious that actions were taken to precent another attack after 9/11. shame it wasn't inacted before given that threat. Basicly Bush was carrying out the same security measures that Clinton had used.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X You seem to forget (or maybe you just didn't know?) that we had a cooperative relationship with them for decades. What was different then, or did they just recently become psychotic?

No, they've always been psychotic, and the U.S. has generally been an appeaser on the topic, but things have really spiralled out of control in the last 10+ years. People tend to have short memories and don't connect the dots. I made a lengthy post about this in another thread regarding the terror attacks that have been carried out against the U.S. since the 70's. Finally we have a president who is willing to be proactive about the situation, and not just sit on his hands for fear of possibly offending a few other countries.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka And a better solution is? Having a round table discussion with a bunch of crazed psychotic lunatics regarding the pros and cons of deliberate attacks on innocent people? Laying down and just letting them hit you until they wear themselves out?

Good question. I think that the best thing would have been to try to better the US relations with the Arab people and for example having a less biased view on the middle-east conflict. This would have lessened the hate and therefore the risk of attacks. Frankly, I don't think the US has accomplished hardly anything by these wars except gain control over a lot of energy sources, getting very unpopular in the process. Did they find evidence of Saddams connection with Al Qaida? Did they find the WMDs? And considering the continuing deaths of American soildiers I can't see how anyone can reason that "its worth it" since there obviously didn't exist an immediate threat. Saddam is no saint, thats true, but this war has caused a lot of suffering for all the wrong reasons.

As for Afghanistan its so insecure that even aid organizations get attacked with granades. And the american military doesn't even venture outside of Kabul.

http://www.msf.org/countries/page.c...BF023A761469B0C

As I see it there is only more hate now and hate feeds terrorism. This is why I don't think the War on Terrorism is a good solution.