Since 9/11 many here have been predicting terrorist attacks on US soil on every major holiday and event.


Well folks, we've had New Years, Thanksgivings, 4th of July's, 9/11 anniversaries, Super Bowls, you name it - and........


NO ATTACKS.


Many hear state they are "99% certain" of an attack on New Years Eve.  

Guess what?  Didn't happen.

So, anyone willing to back off on the predictions, or do you just think our security is really that good?

Shouldn't that be homeland security?

Isn't that what I said?

[tinfoil]An attack DID occur. If you look carefully they were replaying last years celebration. It's a big cover-up.[\tinfoil]

He's comparing it (the homeland security) to Nazi Germany, which was the Fatherland.

Like most polls, where you have to pick one of several answers, you can't find the right one!

I am 99% sure we will see occasional terrorist strikes on our soil for the next 100 years.

I am also reasonably sure that the number of those strikes have been vastly reduced because most of the freaks are running to Iraq to try to kill American soldiers there.  Some recent Al Queda communication indicates that is a game plan of their's (to shed our blood in Iraq).  Great plan.  It's easier to kill them when they congregate in one spot.

I also suspect that beefed up ID checks at airports have helped to reduce the threat, and am reasonably sure that some of the no shows in France were terrorists that were blocked from entering the country.

But, for the most part, I feel that Al Queda has shot their wad and will never be as strong again.  Their idiot spawn keep blowing themselves up.  That will help to limit the future damage too.  Osama bin Laden, if he isn't already a rotten corpse, will be soon.

Of course that's what you said.

That's my take on things as well.

Well said.

They (terrorists) don't have to do anything. The Dept of Fear Mongering does all the work for them keeping the pot stirred.

Easy feller.

Maybe they ran out of box cutters.

Yeah, MUCH better to NOT give out any warning when they hear something might happen.  I mean, NO ONE would get upset if there were an attack, we had warning it might occur and didn't announce it or take precautions, right?
[rolleyes]

Perfect!

They are unconventional warriors.  If you were in their place, would you assault a heavily secured area like an airport?  No, you'd look for a method or a place where security was the weakest.  Waiting for an attack in a big event or on a holiday is most likely a waste of time. I'd guess that they're planning an attack that will cause mass casualties in a manner that will be very difficult to detect until it's too late.

The Neutral Observer is certain there will be another attack on U.S. soil.  That said, the war is going well for us overall.  AlphaBob said it best.  The new security measures are helping matters; that much is certain.  The amount of bitching that takes place about them is a good indication that they were well crafted.  Half the people here are bitching that they are not stringent enough; the other half are screaming about totalitarianism.  Given the demographic of this site, that indicates that a good moderate position was taken with regards to the effectiveness vs. intrusiveness trade-off.  The Neutral Observer is of the belief that history will show Bush to be one of the great wartime presidents.

Vat deet yoo say, hmm?

combination of taking the fight to them and increased domestic security

I don't know where it originated but I remeber it from watching the Little Rascals. I think it was Butch who said 'When you least expect it expect it'.

#1 - If you were a terrorist, would YOU attack on a holiday when security is heightened and risk not completing your mission?

#2 - If you were the Director of Homeland Security, wouldn't YOU raise the alert level just to cover your butt and then take credit when something doesn't happen just so you can say "See what a good job we're doing?"?

www.infowars.com

hhmmmmmmm......nasty little web site isn't it?

Some attacks have probably been broken up, but in the end we're playing defense when preventing terrorist attacks. They only need to be good or lucky once, while we have to be perfect.

Overall I think al Qaeda is being smacked around pretty hard. Luckily they're not very bright. They picked a fight with the Saudi government, and as a result they've lost a good part of their infrastructure there. They've also been bomb-happy in ways that alienate the muslim base, as in the car bombings in Karbala or Turkey.

The problem is that they don't need a huge, well-oiled organization to pull off some attacks. The best we can hope for right now is to prevent them from being organized enough to pull of something really horrific, like a bio attack or a nuke. But we'll have to live with the possiblity of car bombs for decades. Any idjit can pull that off, as McVeigh demonstrated.

My guess is that they'll do _something_ before the election. They seem to be trying for a spectacular, but if they can't do that they'll probably settle for something smaller, just to prove they're still relevant.

1) AQ preferrs to keep their operatives alive. While there have been a few suicide attacks, the 'pattern' AQ op involves the use of a remote or time detonated charge... This contrasts the Pali terrorists who use suicide attacks almost exclusively...

2) I think AQ will wait untill AFTER the election, so as to increase their chances of getting a new opponent who will 'Clintonize' foreign policy... For now, any AQ ops will be directed at Iraq, trying to make it look like the 'quagmire' that the media/dems so desperately seek.

3) Also, I believe that the reason for no successful attacks since 01 is that we've secretly broken up a bunch of plots, without telling anyone... What would put people's minds more at ease: a regular stream of 'Today in Nevada, we busted terrorists trying to blow up the (whatever)' and such, OR a complete lack of attacks...