Where Are the Terrorists?
Everyone knows our airport security is porous.
Everyone knows our port security is almost non-existent.
Everyone knows our border security is a joke.
Everyone knows how easy it is to get guns in this country-- even automatic weapons.
High explosives probably aren't too hard to get on the black market.
Radioactive material or even a nuclear bomb could probably be obtained from Pakistan, North Korea or Russia.
Everyone knows the US is a huge and essentially free country that is impossible to secure completely.
So where are the damn terrorists?
They can't all be in Iraq and Afghanistan-- surely some of the smarter terrorists must have realized there are easy pickings to be had in the US.
So where are they?
Look, I am glad we've had almost* no terror attacks in the US since 9/11-anthrax.
But doesn't it make you wonder what is going on?
Here are the possible explanations I can think of:
1) there are many Al Qaeda terror attacks that are being thwarted each week-- and we never hear about them on the news
2) Al Qaeda is laying in wait, hoping to catch us off guard befre their next big attack
3) Al Qaeda got what they want out of 9/11: the US to invade the middle-east, which would inspire world-wide jihad
4) Al Qaeda was always a minimal threat to the US and they simply got really really lucky on 9/11
5) the Al Qaeda threat to the US is, and always was, bogus
Explanation #1 definitely defies logic, given the way terror attacks and terror threats are over-played by both politicians and the media.
Explanation #2 is hard to completely rule out, but is hard to believe is a serious strategy for a terror group. An attack every five years is hardly a way to instill systematic fear and bring a country to its knees (although it was always a laughable proposition that Al Qaeda could bring down the US anyway). Moreover, waiting so long will make people think the terrorists have given up, given the ease at which some sort of major attack could be carried out on the US. If Al Qaeda only mounts some major attack every few years, it may be horrible-- but what is the point? What is the strategy? A large scale attack every few years serves western political interests more than anything else.
Explanation #3 is possible, though clearly that plan hasn't worked out with a war that was started three years ago. I would think Al Qaeda would move on to another strategy. Massive world-wide jihad was not inspired by the Iraq invasion but neither has Al Qaeda officially given up attacking western countries. Another problem with his explanation is that many high-level officials in the Bush administration wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, and thus there was a conflation of interests with the US and Al Qaeda. It seems somewhat improbable, from an official point of view, that US and Al Qaeda interests would be so similar without the two actively working together.
Explanation #4 is also officially possible, though it begs the question of whether they truly got lucky or were aided in some way. Truly, their scheme was rather hare-brained and by any stretch of imagination, they were phenomenally lucky.
The other problems with explanations 1-4 is that you have to ignore all the signs that something not quite right happened on 9/11: planes that melted into buildings, planes that disappeared into the ground, buildings that collapsed incredibly smoothly and rapidly, and an air force that was supremely ineffective at guarding even the US capital.
So really-- explanation #5 makes the most amount of sense, if you go on the proposition that in fact, 9/11 was an "inside job".
So seriously, if you believe in the official 9/11 story -- where are the terrorists????
*the Washington DC sniper back in 2003 was a type of terrorism.
Everyone knows our port security is almost non-existent.
Everyone knows our border security is a joke.
Everyone knows how easy it is to get guns in this country-- even automatic weapons.
High explosives probably aren't too hard to get on the black market.
Radioactive material or even a nuclear bomb could probably be obtained from Pakistan, North Korea or Russia.
Everyone knows the US is a huge and essentially free country that is impossible to secure completely.
So where are the damn terrorists?
They can't all be in Iraq and Afghanistan-- surely some of the smarter terrorists must have realized there are easy pickings to be had in the US.
So where are they?
Look, I am glad we've had almost* no terror attacks in the US since 9/11-anthrax.
But doesn't it make you wonder what is going on?
Here are the possible explanations I can think of:
1) there are many Al Qaeda terror attacks that are being thwarted each week-- and we never hear about them on the news
2) Al Qaeda is laying in wait, hoping to catch us off guard befre their next big attack
3) Al Qaeda got what they want out of 9/11: the US to invade the middle-east, which would inspire world-wide jihad
4) Al Qaeda was always a minimal threat to the US and they simply got really really lucky on 9/11
5) the Al Qaeda threat to the US is, and always was, bogus
Explanation #1 definitely defies logic, given the way terror attacks and terror threats are over-played by both politicians and the media.
Explanation #2 is hard to completely rule out, but is hard to believe is a serious strategy for a terror group. An attack every five years is hardly a way to instill systematic fear and bring a country to its knees (although it was always a laughable proposition that Al Qaeda could bring down the US anyway). Moreover, waiting so long will make people think the terrorists have given up, given the ease at which some sort of major attack could be carried out on the US. If Al Qaeda only mounts some major attack every few years, it may be horrible-- but what is the point? What is the strategy? A large scale attack every few years serves western political interests more than anything else.
Explanation #3 is possible, though clearly that plan hasn't worked out with a war that was started three years ago. I would think Al Qaeda would move on to another strategy. Massive world-wide jihad was not inspired by the Iraq invasion but neither has Al Qaeda officially given up attacking western countries. Another problem with his explanation is that many high-level officials in the Bush administration wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, and thus there was a conflation of interests with the US and Al Qaeda. It seems somewhat improbable, from an official point of view, that US and Al Qaeda interests would be so similar without the two actively working together.
Explanation #4 is also officially possible, though it begs the question of whether they truly got lucky or were aided in some way. Truly, their scheme was rather hare-brained and by any stretch of imagination, they were phenomenally lucky.
The other problems with explanations 1-4 is that you have to ignore all the signs that something not quite right happened on 9/11: planes that melted into buildings, planes that disappeared into the ground, buildings that collapsed incredibly smoothly and rapidly, and an air force that was supremely ineffective at guarding even the US capital.
So really-- explanation #5 makes the most amount of sense, if you go on the proposition that in fact, 9/11 was an "inside job".
So seriously, if you believe in the official 9/11 story -- where are the terrorists????
*the Washington DC sniper back in 2003 was a type of terrorism.
posted by spooked at 12:35 PM
1 Comments:
poor al qaeda has been upstaged as of late by the even more heinous hizbollah. oh what ever can al qaeda do to regain their crown of evilness?
i predict that a collaboration between al qaeda and simon bar sinister in the coming months will give al qaeda the infusion of evil necessary for regaining their title of evil incarnate.
Post a Comment
<< Home