In spite of all of the “9/11 changed everything” rhetoric, to “we’ve entered a new era where terrorist attacks will be a part of American life”, etc., I’ve never really bought it. I always figured 9/11 was just a lucky shot, a once-in-a-century sort of thing. A Pearl Harbor for this millenium. An isolated incident.
What do you think?
Did you forget about Bali, Madrid, Sinai & Beslan – or are you thinking US only? How about the Anthrax scare? Anyway there’s no way you can protect yourself indefinitely except by removing the thread entirely. I expect you’ll see another attack soon enough.
Did you also forget the Oklahoma bombing?
There are things September 11th definitely changed. First and foremost it changed how safe people feel, even if it was a lucky shot. I don’t think you can argue that most Americans are now more concerned with terrorism as a possibility, and that many people are more defensive. I’m not sure how many people expect terrorist attacks to become a part of day-to-day life, suicide bombers blowing themselves up in shopping malls anywhere in the country, etc. If there are any people who expect that, the number has probably shrunk over time. I doubt Al Qaeda ever had the ability or even the interest in doing that to America. People aren’t as worried about terrorism in America now as they were 3 years ago, and the government has overused its terror alert system so much that people have tuned it out. Still, it’s made an impact on the national consciousness.
[ul][li]An isolated terrorist incident? No - they happen all the time. In fact, the number of terrorist attacks worldwide, which had gradually tailed off in the 1990’s and should surely have been expected to peak in 2001, has vastly increased since 2001 such that 2003 was a 20 year peak, and 2004 will be even worse.[/li][li]An isolated incident by Muslims? Again, no: suicide bombs and the like abound, from Iraq to Israel to Indonesia. The scale of the attack was what ‘isolated’ it in this respect.[/li][li]An isolated terrorist incident on US soil? Perhaps. There was stuff like Oklahoma, anthrax, the Atlanta Olympics device, the DC sniper and the first WTC bomb in 1993, but given its size and population, the US is largely terrorism-free.[/li]An isolated incident by Al Qaeda? Yes, I believe so. It was a horrific “atrocity jackpot” hit by a handful of foreign Taleban fanatics financed by a rich Saudi psychopath. The name “Al Qaeda” was never used by anyone before January 2001, when a supposed informer was prompted by the FBI to testify that Binladen headed an enormous, global organisation. “Al Qaeda” barely even existed then, and it almost certainly doesn’t any more. Jemaah Islamiah, the group responsible for the Bali Bomb, had no link with Al Qaeda. The Madrid bomb was planted by a group called Islamic Combatants of Morocco (GICM), who exchanged drugs for mining explosives - again, these are hardly the actions of a global terrorist organisation. The Chechen separatists and the Egypt gunmen had no AQ link either. These groups are isolated handfuls of psychopaths - only one of them, somewhere in the world, needs to put some cheap explosives in a public place once a year and the Al Qaeda illusion is complete. [/ul]I believe that all things considered, it was an isolated incident, most importantly in its scale. The question has been posed here often: why no car bombs in America, given their ease of manufacture and the vast loss of life they could achieve in, say, an open-air music festival. The answer, I believe, is that the threat of terrorism makes government feel necessary, and so the view that it was an isolated incident is discouraged.
SM: Whether you call it Al Qaeda or simply bin Laden’s organization, what do you suppose had been going on in the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan? Surely you’re not suggesting they sprung into being in Jan 2001, are you?
Let’s flesh out that a bit more. Are you proposing that the US (or other western countries) have no reason to be concened about further terror attacks by bin Laden’s organization?
That’s simply not true. It took me twenty seconds to find this from two years before that. And I’m sure it was common currency at the time of the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa.
No John, of course not. But I’d question whether there really was a single organisation as such, and I’d certainly question whether it could be said to be “Binladen’s”.
Those training camps, which had existed in different forms ever since the mujahideen fought the Soviets, were at least partially funded by his wealth, but any command hierarchy seems haphazard and difficult to tease apart from the Taleban in general. The camps appear to have been there primarily to train groups of fighters (many of them foreign) in guerilla techniques for a generalised jihad: Outright terrorism against foreign targets only seems to have been the purview of a smaller core, perhaps numbering no more than 50 foreigners, hand-picked subsets of whom would ask Binladen for funds for any scheme they cooked up.
I’m not suggesting all was innocence and light. I merely propose that terrorism was only on the minds of a select few, and the word “organisation” might be rather loose and inaccurate.
I think there are two reasons that an attack of the 9/11 scale hasn’t reoccurred.
The response of the United States. Ever since Reagan pulled the Marines out of Beirut following the barracks bombing in 1983, the United States pretty much just kept taking the hits without striking back in any significant way. This continued through the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations. This lack of response emboldened the terrorists who planned for a huge attack and pulled it off. The expected more of the same. What they got most likely came as an unpleasant shock. Which leads me to the next point.
It’s harder to plan, finance and carry out large scale attacks when you are running for your life and many of your compatriots are dead.
Well, perhaps I am misinformed, but I was under the mipression that Binladen did not use any name for his “organisation” until he heard what the informer had talked about to officials in January 2001. I do not deny that he was involved in terrorist acts and plans before then, and any press reports written after that date will likely use the name that even Binladen had started using.
But I may be wrong on this detail. That still does not invalidate the conjecture that the organisational aspect of Binladen and his associates is massively overblown.
They should be concerned about terror attacks, and even about terror attacks by groups of Islamist psychopaths, but only in proportion to, say, the British “concern” reagarding republican splinter groups. Whether Binladen has anything to do with them is rather a red herring, I feel, but still possible I suppose.
The question here is “how many of them are there, realistically?” The ones who carried out the attack themselves are all dead. The guy who gave them the money seems to still be alive (but his ability to fund anything from now on would seem almost nil), as might the sick monster who conceived the planes operation in the first place. Could it simply be two guys who comprise the entire “they”, instead of a global network of organised and co-ordinated terrorists?
Ridiculous. One of bin Laden’s primary goals is to provoke an all-out war with the West, the theory being that such a war will inevitably result in the triumph of the Islamic people (who can’t lose because Allah stands behind them), the creation of a single united Islamic government (as existed very briefly in the days after Mohammed), and the purification of Islamic faith and culture. That theory is ridiculous, of course, but it’s quite clear that they wanted and expected a full-out war.
Yeah, bin Laden definitely looked scared for his life and out of breath in that video a few weeks back. And goodness knows that terrorists are never replaced by new recruits after they get martyred. :rolleyes:
In point of fact, it wasn’t all that terribly difficult to plan, finance, or carry out the 9/11 attacks. What happened was that they found a very, very weak point that offered the prospects of tremendous damage and casualties. I’m not going to go re-read the 9/11 Commission report, but my recollection is that the whole thing cost less than $1 million to pull off, and the only serious planning consisted of studying the flight schedules to find planes that would all be in the air at the same time and taking a few flights to study things like cockpit doors and flight crew practices.
9/11 was not an “isolated incident,” if you’re thinking just in terms of terrorist attacks, which continue across the globe and which, I’m sure, will one day return to the U.S. But if you’re thinking in terms of hijacked airliners being crashed into buildings, then it certainly was an isolated incident.
I don’t think that removing this thread will take away the threat. Maybe for a little while but not indefinitely.
My personal opinion is yes, it is just an isolated incident.
I think it would be very difficult to match or increase the number of deaths in a single terrorist attack after September 11th. How would you do it? You’d have to detonate a huge bomb at a major sporting event or something. It would be very difficult to acheive that level of destruction, murder and mayhem in the US ever again.
You can never remove the threat of terrorism. You just can’t do it. You can make it very difficult, but there is just no way to remove the threat entirely.
I think 9/11 was an isolated incident as regards the scale of the attack… that will all but impossible to duplicate. 4 planes ? No way.
Will it happen every 8 years (difference between attacks on the WTC)… ? Probably not. Maybe an isolated incident here or there… but nothing much. Especially since its been pointed out repeatedly… AQ has little interest in hitting the US itself now… and Iraq has plenty of neat targets.
9/11 was the cumulation of a decade of increasing terrorist activity and threats that were mishandled badly by the United States.
I didn’t forsee the exact nature of the attack, but after seeing the embassy bombings, the Cole bombing, and other attacks, it seemed pretty clear to me that each attack was upping the ante to get attention and further the cause (whatever that may be). I was pretty damn sure that there was going to be a large scale terrorist attack on NY or DC next.
We fool ourselves if we think the worst must be over. These terrorists think very long term. Waiting decades to strike a perfect blow is well within their capabilities. It may be that this one attack was the big one and an isolated incident. It might also be that this is a prelude to even bigger attacks in the years or decades ahead. We just don’t know.
Oh, I don’t know about that. I’m pretty sure Bin Laden is out there somewhere in his cave reading SDMB.