If the war on terrorism isn't working, then why haven't we had another attack since 2001?

Question

Democrats feel free to answer this :)

Using the reason of "time-frame" for another terrorist attack doesn't explains why there hasn't been at least attempts of terrorism.

Al-Qaeda make threats all of the time on their videos, but haven't been able to follow through

"Don't you remember the one in London that killed 51 people?" ......
that was horrible, but I'm talking about in the USA.

Answer 1

Excellent question! Like you, I look forward to reading the answers from the anti-Bush Party. I find it fascinating that, while they freely blame him for everything from Hurricane Katrina to Global Warming, they simply refuse to give him credit for anything positive.

While obviously disingenuous, such double standards are truly laughable.

Answer 2

Quite a few good points made here.
We have had other attacks, but nothing as devestating as 9/11. That attack took I believe 2 yrs (I could be wrong) to plan.
Anyways, my point is, is that they are still planning. There are still going to be attacks. This is going to be an on-going issue no matter what we do. Now I am all for the war that we are waging overseas right now...but I do believe that there is always going to be a threat.
I do however believe that things would not have gotten as bad as they did, if the previous president did a better job at taking the information that he was given, seriously.
George Bush is always going to get flack from people because he didn't do the right thing....or he doesn't speak well in public.....or we didn't respond quick enough here or there......That's why we have different parties.
Personally, I don't care if he stutters or not. He gets the job done.

Answer 3

I'm a very liberal democrat and I am very aware that there have been no more attacks and I am very aware that it is the actions of the government agencies and military that are preventing them.

However, you like many conservatives, are linking seperate issues into one. I am pro military, and pro military solution. If the war in Iraq had had anything to do with terrorism and not a secular fascist government in the middle east, your question would make sense. But thanks to a poorly planned Jingo war in Iraq, Al Qaeda is spreading-not receeding. And while we were wasting billions of dollars there, the Taliban fell back and regrouped, and is now a military threat again.

One thing at a time, people. The US military can solve lots of problems, but Iraq isn't one of them. Afghanistan was. The afghanis wanted freedom, but all Iraq is doing with its new freedom is sectarian violence, which is what the administration was warned about and ignored prior to the invasion.

Shiites have too much power now, and Sunnis are violently trying to get theirs back.

It's the actions of Homeland Security, Special Forces and the CIA that are keeping us safe. The invasion of Iraq is not a part of that, and I support and pity the troops who are doing 3 and 4 tours in the country just to satisfy Bush, who will never, ever, ever admit that there isn't a way to achieve any kind of victory there. He drones about staying until there is victory, but they are killing us AND each other at the same time.

I don't see a formal surrender coming, do you?

Answer 4

Well, I think they did what they wanted to do, which is make us live with the fear that it could happen again. If you don't think that is true, then I will point you in the direction of all the evacuations and percautions that have been done for "suspicious" packages left, or phoned in bomb threats, or planes flying off course and ending up in restricted air space. . .

They wanted to inflict FEAR. I think they've done just that. So who is the real winner here??????

Signed,
The Democratic Volleyballchick

PS - maybe there have been no attacks on US soil, but if we were truly defeating terrorism, would there have been the bombings in England's subway and transit system? Obviously all we are doing is killing some, but not all. And you never will.

Answer 5

There are no democrats who are opposed to hunting down terrorists. It is George W. Bush who refuses to fight a legitimate War on the terrorists. Here is what he has said about bin Laden: Q: Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? . . .

BUSH: So, I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. . . .

Because George W. Bush has surrendered to the terrorists: Bin Laden wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia - Bush removed the US bases from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden wanted chaos in the Middle East - Bush has turned the once simmering Middle East into the beginnings of World War III. Bin Laden continues his fight with the West and Bush continues to refuse to go after him. Instead, he has diverted our resources away from bin Laden and into the folly that is the War in Iraq. This war has cost a trillion dollars and over 600,000 lives, including well over 3,000 American lives. Why would Al Qaeda go to the expense of attacking the US? Bin Laden's greatest ally is in the White House. Bush has spied on us, destroyed our freedoms, wasted lives and money, and ruined our reputation throughout the world. Why should bin Laden attack us? He is winning for free.

Answer 6

First off there have been MORE terrorists attacks on our overseas interests and those of our allies since 9/11, secondly we didn't have one from 93 to 01 either does that means Clinton's administration did as good or better a job at fighting terrorism? it's a longer stretch than what you're citing and if you DON'T believe terrorist attacks have increased worldwide explain this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802181_pf.html

Will you look at that you smack them upside the head with the truth and you get 2 thumbs down, Ostrich's with their head in the sand

Answer 7

There will be when the government decides it's time to take away more of your freedoms, civil liberties, and wage more unlegit wars.

Looking at whats happening in the world at the moment, I would have to predict the next attack will be in a developed western city (or Israel), and it will most likely be a dirty nuclear bomb. This will give the government greater public support to attack nuclear countries (and Iran, which isn't nuclear- unlike Israel [but who cares if these warmongers have more nukes than the rest of the middle east, right?])

Answer 8

Uh. Countries have long gaps between major terrorists attacks often, and that was prior to the war on terror. Such events are rare, that's why they're a big deal.

That's like saying 'If my lucky hat isn't working, then why haven't I spilled my milk since I started wearing it every day?'

It's two factors that aren't nessecarily connected.

EDIT: And IF the world were doing such agood job of fighting these attacks, the UK wouldn't have had one major one following 2001 and a big scare earlier last year?

Answer 9

How often did we have terrorist attacks before 911. Not often but none of the other Presidents wanted to start a war - they had nothing to gain but George Bush did - control over oil.

George Bush is really an intellectual imbecile. He has done nothing positive.

Answer 10

Don't pretend that the war in IRAQ is the war on terror because it is not. The increased security within our borders has helped but our foreign policies continue to make the US the most hated country in the world. We may not have seen another 9/11 on US soil but there are attacks on US interests about everyday.

Answer 11

If you are referring to 'outside' terrorists...they could not have come up with a more perfect attack than our own government did on 9-11. It served their purpose...an excuse to invade Iraq.
Did you not know that the U.S. funded and created Al-Quida??? BTW....I am neither a Dem nor a Rep.
Oh, as far as the anthrax...that was nothing more than another 'scare tactic.'