<knocks heavily on wood>
Is there a particular reason that random, Israel-style bombings of buses etc. haven’t occurred in the US? Seems like those would be infinitely easier to plan and execute than these over-the-top 9/11-style plots that they always seem to be working on. And they might even prove to be MORE terrifying, speaking from a potential victim’s point of view.
It has happened, but not with Muslims, & decades ago.
The same question could have been asked of Britain, 18 months ago. I can’t see how any answer can be given other than “because nobody has done it”, or “because nobody has done it yet”.
I regret to say it, but it’s only a matter of time.
Given recent precedent, Al Qaeda and affiliates, in “target” countries, seem to tend to muster simultaneous multiple attacks, which tend to take longer to organise than yer average Palestinian loner on a bus or in a pizza parlour.
I can think of a couple reasons…
-
Constant attacks would be problematic, from a logistical view. Most of the terrorists that came all the way to the U.S. were smart and well educated; they’re not going to settle for bombing a bus or a local cafe, they want something big, especially if their curtain is going down. There’s just not enough of a local population to draw terrorists from to sacrifice in a sustained campaign.
-
Our occupation of Iraq. It’s a lot easier for some would be terrorist to visit Iraq than the U.S., and it’s attractive too due to he fact they get to kill American soldiers and “expunge them from the holy lands” and all that. Oh yeah, and there’s an extra incentive to kill the Islamic infidels (whichever sect you don’t like, 'natch).
-
It’s risky politically, because additional attacks on the U.S. would make her look like a sucker punched victim and draw sympathy rather than approval. From their view, it’s better to let the U.S. be hated around the world – you know the old adage, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
-
Al-Qaeda already achieved their goal of sparking a war in the Middle East, so further provoking the U.S. wouldn’t do much for them. This isn’t to say that a different group couldn’t do random attacks, though.
Three of the London bombers were British-born, the other grew up here. Two went to university. Why is it not possible for American terrorists to come from similar backgrounds?
mstay, I think you laid out some good reasons there. Personally, I’m partial to #1. There just isn’t the culture of constant war and oppression here that fuels suicide bombers. I would also like to offer as corallaries:
1a. It is much harder to obtain the necessary explosives in this country than it is in the Mid-East. C-4 isn’t something you pick up at the local hardware store. Sure, you can use dynamite, but it, too, is subject to some rather particular controls.
1b. Ditto IEDs. I could whomp something up easily enough, but there aren’t that many people who can build such things without a handy supply of RPGs as source material.
Go back to the London bombings yet again. Homemade explosives do the job just fine.
It would be possible and will happen someday, in my esimation. But the OP was referring to “Israeli-style,” which in my mind carries the connotation of constant bombings, not once every several years.
Also a WAG, I’ve seen discussions of assimilation and how the UK is doing a not so good job, and also polls that say that a surprising amount of UK Muslims pretty much despise the status quo. But for I know that’s all bunk.
OK, fair point. Proximity to Palestine is the simple answer to that. (FWIW I read ‘Israeli-style’ as meaning random public attacks by suicide bombing, irrespective of frequency - the OP can perhaps clarify the question)
I’m not denying that one!
Those polls tend to be very problematic - it’s pretty much impossible to arrive at such a result without using leading questions in the first place.
don’t forget that there arent THAT many people in a given society who are WILLING to do this sort of act. Even in the middle east you have to remember that it’s a relatively small number of nutjobs that do this compared to the over-all population.
To have something like that happen in the US, you’d have to pretty much send the victims over and that increases the odds of catching them or finding out about them early on by a large factor.
Finding locals opens you up to being found out before you can do anything, aside from the fact that culturally this isn’t something that would be acceptable to those angry enough to want to lash out at the gov.
I’d personally be more worried about an Oklahoma style hit than suicide bombers.
Remember that this was carried out by people who were born and raised in America and were part of an American kind of radicalism (Fascist militia movements, something that dates back to the Ku Klux Klan during the Reconstruction and the incipient Fascism of Father Coughlin and the German-American Bund during the 1920s and 1930s). So we don’t really need to import bombers, but at the same time we have very few people willing to be bombers in the first place (even if they expect to survive their own attack) and even fewer coming in from abroad.
I suppose I should expand on my post: I think the reason America has so few violent radicals is because most people think it’s possible to change the system by working within it, by running candidates and voting on propositions and so on. That is why groups that could otherwise turn violent are content to remain physically peaceful and use the ballot instead of the bullet. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that the PLO or whoever is bombing Israelis these days doesn’t believe it can achieve what it wants within the system, and in Iraq there is no system in the first place.
Piffle. Ammonium Nitrate does just fine. Witness the Alfred P. Murrah building.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Oklahoma_City_bombing.jpg
No. The biggest reason is that it is hard to start organized uprisings/terrorism in communities where most people are employed & well-fed.
Exactly. Luxury breeds complacency. If people have pretty much what they want (or believe they’ll get pretty much what they want) they’re much less likely to get to the point where they see violence as the only answer to any problems that there are.
Then explain why the 9/11 hijackers, who came from well-off families and had lots of money to spend, were so enthusiastic to end it all?
I’ve heard one theory that only the pilots of the 9/11 hijackers knew that it was a suicide mission. Forgot where I heard that though.
After researching this, I begin to wonder if I was wrong.
Cite—
Also, it is still possible to live mostly free of government interference/ oppression in the US. Provided you pay your taxes (no matter how much you loathe it) and live peacably with your neighbors, you don’t have to put up with too much crap from THE MAN. One of the reason that Waco and Ruby Ridge are so well remembered is that they’re rare cases.
I get to hear the other side of this all the time from my libertarian friends as well as the members of the public who don’t like all the hoops they have to jump through to get a development order or the like.
Not so much bombers, but we do have a rash of school, work, random killings followed by suicide. Guns seem to be our preferred mode of killing and suicide though many of the individual/small groups had crude bombs as part of their arsenal. Not much is driven by ideology though. Much is driven by depression, perceived persecution, legal problems. We don’t have large sections of populations hopelessly discriminated against to draw from. Large racial riots of the past notwithstanding, seems you need a large population to generate the small number of fanatics who see a personal dead-end as furthering the cause.