Sure, but you don’t need to be a genius to read about someone with a few guns killing 30+ people at a school in Virginia and think to yourself, “Wow, that will probably cause more terror than driving a flaming car into a security barrier.”
Hell, one old man with a car killed 13+ people at a farmer’s market accidentally.
-Joe
Well, if the first 9/11 didn’t do it, why exactly would a second 9/11 do it?
As for the contention that the terrorists are heading for Iraq rather than the US, why exactly do you think that is? They want to fight the US, right, so why head for Iraq, why not head for the US?
The answer is that it is many orders of magnitude easier for jihadis to operate in Iraq than it would be for them to operate in the US. They speak the language, they understand the culture, they have a large cadre of supporters in the population and even in the army, police, and government, the borders are easily penetrated, they are traveling from neighboring countries rather than from across the globe, and so on and so on.
And of course many of these people just as, if not more interested in killing Shi’a than they are in killing Americans. And Shi’a civilians are a lot easier targets than US soldiers.
Since I wrote the OP, I guess I should answer. For me, I can only guess at the motivations, and they’re probably quite varied depending on the group and the individual. The one main theme that seems likely to my eyes is “Get the fuck out of our backyard.” Which can mean many things, including the support of Israel, our meddling in random Mid-east nations’ affairs, and [now] Iraq. However, countless other motivations are quite possible, including various political power struggles (making my sect more influential than the rival one). This could include stirring up tensions so that they would have the political capital to denounce the West-appeasers and secularists at home, for example.
But these are just random guesses, really. It just seems to me that for a lot of cases, hitting the easier targets would be just as or more effective than hitting the big ones. If you want to get the USA out of the Middle East, terror attacks aimed at schools, shopping malls, churches, etc. followed up by videotapes detailing your demands seem much more visceral and close-to-home than attacks aimed at the Pentagon, or even the WTC. It would start a panic storm that would probably have a lot of people screaming at the government to get out of the Middle-East, just like they wanted.
If they’re playing to enflame tensions and make sure hard-liners at home get more influence, then what better way to do so than by hitting those softest of civilian targets like schools and churches? I can imagine hysterical reactions, and even just a couple of high-profile anti-Muslim retaliation incidents (from the government, or even just social unrest) would be all the ammo hard-liners need to secure an even more outraged and bloodthirsty base (and consequently keep them in power).
If they’re playing to start a sort of Islam vs. West world war, then again, hitting a bunch of soft targets will stir the most outrage, and probably the greatest reaction.
And so on…
I understand the point about there being few terrorists to go around, but big operations tend to fail, and things like planting bombs at random churches in the middle of the night and then detonating during mass seem like fairly easy and repeatable tasks. Whatever message is gonna be sent, this seems like it has more positive EV than trying to hit an airport again.
The first 9/11 did do it. It became the justification for an aggressive pursuit of terrorist infrastructure and funding that did not exist in diplomatic circles before. It also galvanized and woke up the public. But the further left your thinking is, the more desperately you want to go back to sleep and forget 9/11 ever happened.
A second attack would end this phenomenon and marginalize those who still insist that radical islam is not a danger.
That’s because the majority of Wahabbis are Sunni. But many radicalized muslims will be happier killing an infidel rather than a fellow believer.
No, all Wahabbis are Sunni. That’s like saying “A majority of Baptists are Protestants”. Sure, not all Islamists are Sunni, Iran is an Islamist Shi’a state.
Lemur866 is exactly right. They’re not doing any of the dozens of easily accomplished high casualty attacks because they just don’t have the manpower in the US. How long did it take to catch the DC sniper? That was two homeless people in a beat up car with a rifle, not Carlos the Jackal. If you can smuggle 10-15 people into the country and have them operate in one or two person cells you can start a huge terror wave. You could blow all of the bridges on the Mississippi river or start randomly mining interstate highways or blow up a bunch of chemical plants in populated areas or bomb a college football game. But they’re not doing that because they don’t have 10-15 operatives in America.
What would be their motivation for blowing up random stuff in the US now?
But why would those filthy leftists want such a thing?
-Joe
To distract public attention from the quagmire in Iraq.
Because in the aftermath of 9/11:
Military spending was increased
The CIA budget was increased
The Patriot Act was passed
Security and investigation measures that mightily offend ACLU types were put in place.
Finally, members of the general public that don’t know Al Queda from ALL detergent woke up to the fact that there were acutually bad people out there who want to kill us. And which party has more credibility with the general public on national security issues? And if you want to fight the conclusion I’m dragging you to with an Iraq smokescreen, which party had more of that credibility in 2001?
I think the more important question will be which one will have more of that credibility in 2009, don’t you?
-Joe
That has nothing to do with your original question or my reply, but I’ll answer anyway.
It is an important question. If the Democrats win the White House and a 9/11 scale attack happens and/or the response to that attack isn’t viewed as aggressive enough, the democrats will lose national security credibility for a generation or more.
That has nothing to do with your original question or my reply, but I’ll answer anyway.
It is an important question. If the Democrats win the White House and a 9/11 scale attack happens and/or the response to that attack isn’t viewed as aggressive enough, the democrats will lose national security credibility for a generation or more.
Exactly. It’s one thing to assert that people remembered how Reagan kicked the commies in the nuts back in the 80s, and so they were more willing to go with Republicans when more nut-kicking wa in order after 9/11. Except in 2009 people aren’t going to be remembering Reagan, they’re going to be remembering Bush.
OK, I guess central to the OP then is: Why don’t they have even 10-15 operatives in America? Is it because it is so difficult to get across our borders? Heh, sorry, even I can’t ask that with a straight face.
I think we can all agree that if a decently-motivated terrorist group wanted to, it’d be quite easy to send people through Canada or Mexico, right? Millions of Mexicans have already done it, I can’t imagine why somewhat-organized terrorists couldn’t do it.
So why don’t they? Do most groups just think it’s not worth the effort? Have their goals already been achieved (i.e. gotten the US to do something stupid like invading Iraq)? Is it easier to motivate people to attack Americans in Iraq?
I think they were blinded by ideological motivation when they executed 9/11 and didn’t think through the practical consequences. The reaction might have been more than they bargained for. And they might be thinking that another attack would make nicities like Pervez Musharaffs political position in Pakistan irrelevant and the bombs would start to fall where they live again.
And it’s certainly easier to be cannon fodder in Iraq for reasons mentioned above.
The key to me is whether their thinking is motivated by theology or logic. If it’s theological, all bets are off because it’s hard to put yourself in their shoes. If they are thinking rationally and strategically, my scenario above comes into play.
By “operative” do you mean foot soldiers who actually execute the plot? Perhaps not. But I’ll bet there are many more than 10-15 who are inside our border in supporting roles.
Maybe because they’re not as formidable as we’ve been led to believe?
If the reaction was really so kick-ass, where’s Osama? If it was such a success, why isn’t his head on a pike in the National Mall?
Their goal was to draw us into an extended guerrilla war in Afghanistan where we had much longer supply lines than the Soviet Union, whose ass this same group kicked with our help in the 80’s. They never dreamed we would be so stupid as to invade Iraq, which had fuck all to do with 9/11. Their goal was to bleed us, and they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams because of the previously unfathomable level of stupidity shown by our leaders.
I think there really is evidence - you’ll have to forgive me, I’ve read too many articles about this stuff to remember a source - that AQ pretty much expected the US to give up after being attacked on September 11. Despite all the failures we know about, that didn’t happen, so to that extent they could have been caught off-guard by America’s response. I don’t think Evil Captor is right that they’ve been deterred from attacking here for practical reasons, but he may not be completely wrong.
Has this tactic ever worked, for anybody? In history? Especially against the US or England? You’d think that people who can learn to fly jet airplanes could crack a history book once in awhile.