Why suicide attackers haven't hit U.S. again (Jeremiahs =Cheney)

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/whysuicideattackershaventhitusagain;_ylt=AtPcWIXa.bLr__O0_LOfC1KWwvIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NGRzMjRtBHNlYwMxNjk5
Why suicide attackers haven't hit U.S. again
By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY Mon Aug 8, 7:02 AM ET

After the bombings in London and Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, the question that rivets America is one that has no sure answer: Why haven't Muslim militants executed another suicide terror attack on the U.S. home front?

If suicide bombers can strike daily in the Middle East and hit the capitals of Europe, why does 9/11 remain a spectacular exception?

There are theories about why the United States still hasn't had a homegrown attack like the ones last month in London. Suicide bombing isn't that easy. The USA isn't that vulnerable. American Muslims aren't that militant. Foreign terrorists aren't focused, not yet, on a domestic strike.


Over the past four years, Jeremiahs as varied as Dick Cheney and Osama bin Laden have said another attack is inevitable. It could come at any time, and it could come from within; homegrown suicide terrorists are notoriously difficult to identify before they strike.

[bemildred]

1. Why should they?

Things are just ducky the way they are, why risk changing it by another attack on "the homeland"?

Going after Britain makes some sense, weakens Bliar, maybe peel off another one of the COW. Italy better watch out too. But attacking
NYC again might get us to withdraw before they are done bleeding us
and destroying our Army.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. I disagree

EDITED for typing

Your analysis would work if one US Muslim were just like the next. I'm sure one could find a few misfits and malcontents among US Muslims if one looks hard enough. Then there are people like John Walker Lindh. I'd be willing to guess that his conversion to Islam had a lot to do with his being a misfit in the first place.

In any case, even if 999 out of a thousand are content, it's the one who isn't that we would have to worry about.

Bear in mind also that all of the September 11 hijackers were foreigners.

What I'm saying is that even if we have less to worry about than the British, there is no reason to suppose we cannot be attacked again.

The Israelis, who have a great deal of experience with terrorism, have a "behavior based" system of profiling potential attackers in lieu of racial profiling. For example, Israeli police are trained to watch for the difference between the way one might normally walk and the way someone would walk when wearing a belt bomb. That might be worth looking into. It sounds like it would be a lot more effective than just targeting anybody with a turban or a ghutra and bows toward Mecca to pray.

[bemildred]

3. Good argument.

:thumbsup:

Still:

1.) So where are they? We had a couple guys caught right after 9/11, since then not much. Why not?

2.) It's the organized fellows rather than the irate whackos that worry me.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. If I knew where they were, I'd alert the FBI

The thing is that there are ways of getting them in here and ways of sending them on a mission.

Your other questions bring up a good counterpoint. These kinds of misfits don't join anything. Such a person attaches himself to a cause almost by fantasy and acts it out. The terrorism that such a person might commit would be one that is less likely to require an accomplice, such as a political assassination. It may be possible to carry out a suicide bombing without help, but it would be rather difficult.

[bemildred]

5. Could it be the "Homeland Security" fellows have been effective?

I'm sure they would like that interpretation.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. It's probably a combination of factors

One of them is probably luck.

There were eight years between the that grotesque Keystone Kops attempt to blow up the WTC with car bombs in the basement and the September 11 attacks. In between, we had the Oklahoma City bombing and the Eric Rudolph bombing spree that, of course, had nothing to do with militant Islam, but was terrorism nevertheless.

I don't think we're out of the woods. If they can strike in London or Madrid, they can strike in Los Angeles or Chicago.

[bpilgrim]

8. thats what makes me nuts, we are surrendering FREEDOM over a lone NUT

or 2 and that our foreign policy fuels their instability :argh:

peace

[Corgigal]

7. I thought they want this attack

to be more spectacular then the Sept 11th. That takes planing. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

[agincourt]

9. They either want something big,

or they figured out tim bin laden and the BFEE are connected. Only amateurs will blow themselves up.

[Gyre]

10. Perhaps they're too smart to want to

help smirk. :shrug:

Gyre

[Dirk39]

11. U.S. Muslims want the American dream, not jihad.

Hello from Germany,
I get it now: after the Iraqis didn't welcome their "liberators" with sweats and flowers, why not mentioning the happily-ever-after muslims, who already live in the promised land of the free?

Orange alert once, red alert twice: who cares anymore?

If you're not as happy as we are, with the paradise brought to you by missiles, torture and depleted uranium, we will just mention the muslims, who did already escape to paradise:

"The United States has assimilated immigrant Muslims more successfully than Western Europe, where there is a higher proportion of poor, alienated Muslims, according to Ahmed Bedier of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. American Muslims seem to have more of a stake in keeping peace."

No more patriot act, no more homeland security, we're all happy and free in the land of the Free, Fox-TV and Cheney/Bush.

The war on terror is over,

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Response

You're right. Iraqis didn't welcome us a liberators. They were right not to welcome us as liberators. But there aren't any American Muslims in Iraq.

You're right. Most of the Patriot Act is steer manure. We don't need it.

America was what is was long before Bush and Cheney set about dismantling the Bill of Rights and the New Deal. When the Bushies are gone, we Americans of every race and creed will set about the huge task of undoing the damage they have done.

Democracy is a wonderful thing, but it is not without risks. Because a true democracy requires a set of civil liberties to guarantee open discourse on civic affairs, it is the only system of government that enshrines the right of citizens to undermine it; before we call such a person nuts, we will allow a citizen to stand up and advocate restricting the democratic rights of others. Almost paradoxically, if we didn't allow whackjobs like Ann Coulter the right to subvert democracy in this way, it wouldn't be democracy. Democratic states are susceptible to demagogues. In World War II, we interned Japanese Americans; nowadays, we scapegoat American Muslims and too often listen to those who say we at war with all Islam rather than just a handful of fanatics.

Up to now, we've managed to survive them. The anti-democratic alliance of neoconservatives and the religious right that put Bush in power has presented a grave threat to American democracy, but I think we'll come through again.