According to a popular theory, Al Qaeda will probably attack the USA again within the year.
The theory says within the first year or so of a new president, they try for a big attack. WTC attack in Feb '93 (about a year after Clinton took office) and the big one Sept 11th (not even a year after GW Bush took office)
So do you suppose there is any credence to this? If so what do you think will be the target? Or do you think the American efforts have weakend Al Qaeda enough to stop them?
Hopefully Obama realizes that the reason America was attacked was because of it long-aggressive policies in the region dating back to the 1950s. With the right policy approach, the US may be better served than by adding more levels of security and fear.
It is impossible to protect the US from AQ merely by adding more security.
What theory? And are you supposed to replace Presidents every election to prevent this?
I wouldn’t be surprised; they’ll want to make Obama and the Democrats look bad and get Republicans back in office. The Republicans do things that hurt America and help Al Qaeda and similar folk; the Democrats do the opposite.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they went after New York City again. One thing I continually ask myself (as a consumer of NYC mass transit) is how much of the WTC was just luck? Could anyone who really wanted to commit another terrorist attack, or were the stars aligned on that day in such a way that the attacks were possible? Also keep in mind, they never intended for the towers to fall. The casualties far exceeded their expectations. I believe that Al Qaeda has grown in numbers, but have their capabilities increased? Because if it is true that they are now more calculated and dangerous, why has their not been another attack on U.S. soil since that day? I understand they are hell in the middle east, but why not here also? If is, after all, the United States they are railing against.
I don’t obsess over it, but I figure if they are going to plan another terrorist attack, it would most likely be New York City again. There are so many people here, a lot of them still pretty raw about 9/11. It would be very easy to reterrorize the people all over again. Still, I’m not sure where they would hit specifically. The World Trade Center was a pretty clear symbol of American capitalism. I can’t think of another landmark that has that level of symbolic meaning. I guess they could blow up a train or something, but that wouldn’t really be as damaging. In terms of horrifying symbolic acts of terrorism, it’d be pretty hard to beat 9/11.
On 9/11 there was one target I was somewhat surprised that they didn’t hit, and it would not surprise me if they hit it next time.
The Statute of Liberty.
Not many deaths compared to the WTC but one hell of a symbol.
They went after symbols of power. Lucky that they hit the newly fortified wing of the toughest building in Washington rather than the White House or the Capitol.
No, I don’t think there is any credence to it. For everything I’ve read about Al Qaeda, nowhere have I seen anything in which the senior leadership’s motivations seem to be based on attacking during a new administration. For example, the plot to blow up 12 airliners in flight over the Pacific was disrupted in 1995 before it could be carried out. Furthermore, the 9/11 report found that Osama bin Laden was interested in accelerating the 9/11 attacks to mid-2000, well before the next president would have taken office.
I have no doubt Al Qaeda would like to attack the US again, but will most likely rely on major attacks on Americans closer to their base of operations (like last year’s hotel bombing) for the near term.
Yeah, but the White House would have been hit, if not for the efforts of, well I don’t need to tell you guys the story.
I think the 4th plane (the one that the passengers took back and landed in PA) was heading for the Capitol.
That was a month after Clinton took office, not a year.
I have no evidence of this whatsoever but I’ve just had a feeling for awhile that it’s Al Qaeda’s wet dream to set off a fission bomb in NYC. There or D.C. I think they’ll come close within the next couple years, but hopefully get caught before anything happens.
Whatever the fourth plane was after will be a prime target. They seem to be obsessive. Couldn’t do the WTC right in 1993, so did it up proper in 2001. Whatever the target was, they’ll get back to it if they can, I imagine.
And I don’t hold with “Obama’s president now, so al-Qaeda won’t attack.” That No-2 guy came out before the inauguration and said Obama was partially to blame for the recent trouble in Gaza. They’ll be after him.
Oh definitely. Especially if they decide to look at him as an apostate Muslim, they might just hate him more than they hated Bush.
I think they’ll try, & fall on their collective ass.
We were too disinterested, in the past. I think we might be a trifle more…involved…this time.
Particularly, because the rich & powerful have acquired the notion that they too can be killed.
I’m with Bosda, just because it’s -fun- to characterize the government as incompetent, doesn’t mean it -is-. I’ve talked and worked with some of the people who’s duty it is to protect us. They’re scarily qualified for the task.
I have absolutely no doubt that we have the best of the best working around the clock to keep us safe, but to think they’re able to cover all possible scenarios at all times is just wishful thinking. A small group of creative, determined terrorists with nothing to lose could still attack us relatively easily. We’re not a micro police state that can know what everybody is doing at all times.
I don’t know who said it, but I like what one commentator said when asked whether or not Al Qaeda would attack again (I’m paraphrasing here):
"Al Qaeda will never attack again. How do you follow up taking down two of the largest buildings in the world with 747s? You can’t. One subway car or a mall food court or a tiny elementary school. Big deal.
They shot their wad on the WTC and now we’re ready. So since that rules out anything really big, they’ll never succeed again."
Wait a sec, I was just a kid in '93 but I remember the first bombing… Wiki says it was a Pakistani guy named Ramzi Yousef who planted the explosives, but it doesn’t mention anything about Al Qaeda. Have they since conclusively traced that incident back to the same group as the 9-11 attacks?
Do you believe that for one second? I personally find it beyond arrogant and preposterous to boot. There is no reason they can’t do something bigger with enough time, money, and support - - none of which they’re lacking, or just coordinate a nationwide series of smaller attacks. Imagine Columbine/Virginia Tech times 50.
If someone said they won’t repeat 9/11 EXACTLY again, then I fully agree. But to think they “shot their wad on the WTC” and we’re safe from any kind of attack now is just the height of head-in-the-sand stupidity, IMO.
I think this is nonsense. Al Qaeda is a loose affiliation of groups. Post-9/11, “they” did Madrid, “they” did the London Underground, “they” had hydrogen peroxide liquid bombs a few miles south of me, with a plan to bring down multiple transatlantic airliners, “they” tried to blow up London nightclubs and crashed a burning car into Glasgow airport, and “they” probably shot up Mumbai.
Yes, 9/11 was one of the most horrific acts of terrorism the world has ever seen, but there are many other things that could be done to mess with the US.
It’s not like the anthrax mailings didn’t cause mass panic, or the Beltway Sniper had a null effect, even though neither of them were actually anything to do with Islamists.