« Impulsive Bibi | Main | Christopher Hitchens, Ironist »

August 08, 2005

Comments

I believe what the US economy needs to flourish is raw materials including cheap fuel and markets to sell goods and and services to (people). What the middle east now has is fuel, but few people who want or need goods and services and little resources. What currently makes the US interested in the middle east is entirely cheap fuel, IMO.

If Al Qaeda is successful in forcing America to give up on the mideast, this will not happen until or unless America finds alternative cheap energy sources. The more successful Al Qaeda terrorism becomes based on your premises, the more likely America will indeed find alternative fuel sources sooner. Now my grand point or question to you is, if due to terrorist tactics the US does feel the need to find alternative cheap fuel sources sooner, where does that leave Al Qaeda and the middle east people in general and will the majority of middle east people be happy in that position?

I just figured al Qaeda prefers the spectacular, and has no particular interest in middling attacks, or in inducing true terror among the American populace.

Around here, meaning the DC area, it was very clear to us shortly after 9/11 that terrorists truly determined to cause panic could do so at low or no cost, as the John Allan Muhammad -- the DC sniper -- did. If the follow-up to 9/11 had been an unending series of random shootings, mall bombings, etc., that would have induced terror.

But of course, there's also a great difference between the most likely reaction to an attack here, and one in, say, London. The recent London attacks were calculated to induce widespread opposition to continued involvement in Iraq, and that sort of reaction is, I think, much more likely in Europe. Americans, by contrast, are much more likely to react angrily, and lash out, no matter at whom. I think that's probably well-known in terrorist circles, and so an attack in the American homeland is going to have to be worth the price.

This, presumably, is the backwards logic by which American conservatives are able to conclude that we're safer under Bush than under any Democrat. Bush may never take pro-active, targeted and sensible steps to prevent terrorism or root out its practitioners before they can strike, but he's far more likely to lash out incoherently and with great and untargeted force in the aftermath.

...it’s very possible that we’ve fought the war Bin Laden always wanted us to fight...

[Bush i]s far more likely [than any Democrat] to lash out incoherently and with great and untargeted force in the aftermath.

Jumping off these points one may posit that bin Laden's goal was to use Bush to get rid of Hussein. I think this jump may be absurd because the September 11 attacks were surely being planned before anyone knew Bush would be in office (though who knows, maybe bin Laden had a great polling outfit -- hey wait, maybe bin Laden rigged the Florida elections!). And, as I think Kagro intimates, it seems unlikely that Gore would have taken us into Iraq as a response to 9/11.

But on many other levels, as DHinMI articulates, this view makes sense. So if bin Laden and Pinky are in a cave somewhere planning the same thing they do every night, and step #1 was "use Bush to overthrow Saddam," then what is step #2? I'm guessing to unite Muslims under a leader/puppet of choice -- who & how?

I believe bringing down the WTO Buildings was their primary objective,not an Attack on the US per se.The Washington Propaganda Machinery want's you believe that every one of us is in Danger of Al Qaeda "Terrorism".
They(A Q) realized a long time ago,who is financing the Terrorist State of Israel,and all the other subversive US Activeties around the Globe.
Had the twin Towers been in Timbuktu,they would have been brought down there,just my personal Opinion.

It's always seemed to me that we should consider that the actions of al Qaeda are primarily focused on politics in the Middle East and their strategic vision of the territorial dar al-islam.

We need understand al Qaeda's strategy with this in mind.

We aren't the focus. But attacking us / using us is part of their overall strategy.

For reasons quite a few of our victims would understand, Bin Laden wants to destroy America.

Having said that, when we pressed the self-destruct button in response to 9/11, would it not be redundant for OBL to execute another 9/11 type of attack?

Also, remember OBL is much smarter than Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi gang combined. It may be possible that OBL does not want to launch another 9/11 type attack that could regenerate the international support that the US enjoyed immediately after the first attack.

As somebody once said, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. It is more than likely that OBL is dead and his organization does not exist anymore but somebody just have to produce a cheap video of somebody threatening America with another 9/11 to make us spend a couple of billion more in additional "security".

Self-destruct countdown clock continues to tick.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad