I can’t imagine a more unintentional rebuke to the fake “war on terror” if I tried.

Hey bill? The slurpy machine is getting a little slimy back there, snap to it will ya?

There is a world of difference between “scattered” and leaderless and “scattered and decentralized,” i.e. less concentration of authority in one area. One is the result of planning and restructuring while the other is a side effect of organizational collapse, get it? Maybe someone can find the time to put together a puppet show and explain it to the good “Dr.”

Holy crap what a dolt.

I agree, Buma, that New York carries a lot of symbolic weight worldwide as a representation of all things american. As for the “attack on our freedoms” thing, I never bought that overly simplistic GOP spin. The architechture angle would be amusing if not for the grisly results, but I would wager the size of the towers and their economic importance were more powerful contributing factors.

Make up your mind….either ..“the U.S. concentrated on eliminating the al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, the group would have been splintered and directionless,” or
“Now al-Qaeda has effectively decentralized and scattered, making them much harder to deal with”

Jesus…what a chucklehead…..but typical leftist tripe. Don’t fit the argument to the facts, just change the “facts” to suite your argument. Man, why do I bother….

1.)Sports event (World Series, Superbowl)
2.)New Year’s Eve in Times Square
3.)Macy’s parade on Thanksgiving
4.)4th of July (Washington, New York, Boston)

If you wanted to strike at American “decadence,” there are better targets, too.

1.)Hollywood/LAX (target of a foiled plot by…Clinton!…but I’m sure we’ll hear how he just got lucky, which he did, but not to the extent some people think)
2.)Las Vegas
3.)Times Square (okay, not so much now, but when I was a kid…whew!)

What about a purely symbolic attack on our “freedom?”

1.)Mount Rushmore
2.)Statue of Liberty (as has been pointed out)
3.)Pick any Washington monument

The WTC just offered the perfect symbolic target. It was easily the biggest and most garish building in the New York skyline, making for high visibility and clearing a path for jets barely kept aloft by half-trained terrorist pilots. The towers were gleaming symbols of America’s international monetary influence and, as many see it, economic imperialism.

The Pentagon is an obvious target as well. The world wide presence of hundreds (set to break the 1,000 mark in a few years) of American military bases is a source of considerable friction in many countries, but particularly in the Middle East, where they are seen as a religious insult. On top of that you can heap our military support for Israel and its ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, and you’d have to be a fool not to think some group might take a shot at the Pentagon if given the opportunity.

As for the likelyhood that the White House was also a target, well, duh. The center of power is always a target, that’s why its surrounded by a no-fly zone…that seems to routinely get penetrated (now I need a shower).

I haven’t even touched on our meddling in the Iranian elections and installing the Shah (that worked out well), or our continued support of oppressive regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia. Key-Rice-Tah, how could anyone be surprised that we had a major case of blowback coming our way? The families of the vitims of the WTC attack have every right to be pissed at the government for apparently doing everything it could over the past 50-60 years to build up a hornet’s nest in the Middle East and then repeatedly whack it with a stick while leaving the rest of us open to retribution. We created the Mujahadeen, funded bin Laden, supported Hussein (and gave him his old stash of chemical weapons), interfered with elections (the aforementioned Shah), continue to support nasty S.O.B.s like the Saudi royals, and now those ingredients have gelled into al-Qaeda.

So by all means, let’s bomb Iran next!

I always wondered about that. If they really wanted to scare the shit out of us, why didn’t they drop a plane on Hollywood Boulevard, right on Grumman’s Chinese Theatre?

I was referring to al-Qaeda’s operational capabilities, i.e. where all the major preparation and strategy took place and where most, if not all, of the leadership lived. No shit there are and were cells operating around the world, who do you think directed them? Had the U.S. concentrated on eliminating the al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, the group would have been splintered and directionless, not to mention demoralized since we would have captured/killed their figurehead. Would that have guaranteed success in eliminating the al Qaeda threat? No, but it would have gone a long way toward reducing the odds of a disastrous attack like 9-11. Effective use of intelligence and international cooperation would have handled the rest (accurate intelligence and international cooperation, Bush’s green and red kryponite…or maybe yellow…which is it that makes you stupid?). Invading Iraq has accomplished exactly the opposite. Now al-Qaeda has effectively decentralized and scattered, making them much harder to deal with. Of course, you could try taking a hard look at U.S. foreign policy and working to reduce those areas that help fuel anti-western sentiment, but that’s just crazy “appeasement” talk. Everyone knows that if it’s good for the U.S., it’s good for everyone. Besides, the terrorists just hate our freedom, which is why they attacked the WTC and the Pentagon rather than the Statue of Liberty or something. No military industrial subtext there. No sir.

Classic liberal argument, start off on a premise that is complete and utter bullsh*t, then run with it.

“almost entirely contained within that country”….yea, except for the twenty or so flying airplanes into our buildings, or the thousands roaming indonesia and the phillipines, or Sudan or about a dozen other places….

This is why discussing these issues is so difficult with leftists. They make up the “facts” on which they base their arguments, and you have to spend so much time correcting those that you can never actually discuss the issue at hand, just the f*cked up premise they began their argument on.

It should also be said that, at the time of the Afghan invasion, al Qaeda was almost entirely contained within that country. So, had we actually sent in the marines, so to speak, at Tora Bora, we would have, in all likelyhood, captured or killed bin Laden and effectively wiped out al Qaeda. Now the terrorist network has decentralized and spread out its chain of command to avoid such a scenario in the future. Hence the constant nonsense about capturing or killing the “number 3″ al-Qaeda leader (the Daily Show had a great chart showing everyone under #2 in al-Qaeda was “#3″)

So what is now the “long” war could have been the “short” war, or even the “over” war, but that doesn’t get Patriot Acts passed, let you freely wiretap americans, gut the budget, or pass billions in no-bid contracts to the Halliburtons waiting in the shadows. Incompetence has its rewards.

The funniest thing I have read all day. The self-aggrandizement and delusion is simply priceless.

its vaguely amusing to me that so many at this site are so threatened by opinions that question their own that they revert to marginalizing them and pretending they aren’t real….

So the likelyhood of another attack so soon after 9-11 is remote, if simply for the fact that logistically it is more difficult now then it was then. It should also be noted that the war in Iraq, which is now collapsing into civil war, will provide a big boost to terrorist ranks,pushing many radicalized muslims, fueled by rage over the U.S. occupation, over the line from angry rhetoric to violent action. That will most likely lead to further instability in the Middle East before it spreads here (if it ever does). Even with hundreds, even thousands, more terrorists in the region, that does little to empower them to acquire the necessary materials, people, and training to carry out anything as large as 9-11 anytime soon. Osama bin Laden may not even care to attack the U.S. at this point as he seems to have accomplished all of his goals in one fell swoop. G.W. has trampled all over the civil rights of americans and foreigners alike, he has boosted terrorist recruitment in ways that bin Laden could only dream about, he toppled the secularist Hussein government and put in motion events to replace it with either a theocratic one or, at the very least, a “democratic” one presiding over a civil war that will fuel further radicalism in the region. Nice work.

Seriously, how can anyone credit G.W. with stopping the terrorists? Recent security tests at airports and shipping ports all demonstrated quite clearly that security in Bushco land has been entirely about p.r. and little else. Which party has consistently blocked funding for airport and harbor security? The whole fabricated “war on terror” is just political posturing and fear mongering to spook the public into letting Bush piss all over the Constitution and international law.