It took 5-6 years of planning on both sides of the ocean, near-perfect conditions, and perfect execution by 19 guys in four different cells, to pull off 9/11.
I don't think there is evidence it took that long. In fact, while the planning and preparation was atypical, it was really attainable with relatively little money and, once 19 people were committed to the operation, a fairly straightforward process. Personally, I've never felt it was that impressive. Any 19 people who were willing to give up their lives for "the cause" could have done it.
It took 5-6 years of planning on both sides of the ocean, near-perfect conditions, and perfect execution by 19 guys in four different cells, to pull off 9/11.
Execution? Seems to me all you really needed was a day on which airline schedules were on time.
With minimal work on our own part, it's just too hard for them to get off another shot like they did on 9/11 -- they got lucky on that day.
1. So you agree that we're safer today than on 9/10, right?
2. So was the previous success luck or planning?
3. I think you may underestimate what it takes to make an organization like the United States government accomplish "minimal" tasks. The changes Bush has implemented since 9/11 have been nothing less than staggering, and none of us would have been able to believe our government could have made these changes this quickly.
I'm amazed at how short memories are sometimes.
So how about small suicide bombings? Still too much for Al-Qaida to pull off here -- compare the conditions here to those in the West Bank, for instance. They do not have a loyal base of hundreds of thousands home-grown youngsters crammed into a small geographic area, are not encouraged by the government and the culture of death around them, are not able to maintain numbers of bomb-making factories, are not able to have suicide bomber training camps, and do not have access to tens of millions of dollars worth of weapons. So, suicide bombings are out, too.
You're naive. I wish I could find a link to it, but a year ago 60 minutes ran a great episode in which it interviewed six teenager from a NY Islamic school. Every last one of them supported the idea of using suicide bombing in the United States. It obviously isn't as strong as the indoctrination of Palestinians, but this element is present in the United States and we could well see it.
Attacks on the States will always be very, very, very rare.
I really don't disagree about this. But at some point you have to give Bush credit for some level of success. The United States is NOT a more dangerous place today. Yes, certain areas of the world may be (although some would argue that Iraq is less dangerous today than before Saddam was removed, and with good support for the claim).
What we have to be concerned about is the SCALE of future attacks. Al Qaeda is not going to settle for 3,000 people next time. Personally, I believe Bush has done an impressive job, and I certainly don't want some wishy-washy nitwit like Kerry running the show. You need someone who can do the job, STICK WITH THE PROGRAM WHEN THE LEFT FORGETS, and not bow to political pressure. Kerry just doesn't fit that bill.
Consider this guy irrational and confused.
You may be, but unlike some of the others on this thread, I believe your confusion is out of youthful idealism, not out of a lack of intellect. I think you will be intellectually honest enough that when Iraq proves to have been a huge success (and it is becoming clear to me that it will be) you'll look at it and say, "I was confused, and wrong". |
