Hello:

What do you suppose the world would be like today if we had declared 9/11 to have been a criminal act rather than a military one? Would we be safer today? Would we be at war? With who - Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, anybody?

I suspect those on the right would say that we'd be speaking Arabic and our women would be wearing burkas. Those on the other side would say that Ben Laden would be in jail or dead. Our Constitution would be in tact, and we wouldn't be at war with anybody.

Frankly, I don't know. Speculate for me.

excon

I think there is little doubt that our military response to 9/11 has made few friends in the Middle East. Not only that, other countries in the region (Iran) have been able to exercise more power and influence because of our unpopularity. The US has only opened itself up to more attacks by fueling extremist groups hatred of Western society. Perhaps the conservatives believe that we are fighting for a noble cause, but ask an Iraqi if he feels the same way.

War may have been inevitable, but I think we should have treated it as a criminal act in the beginning. I believe we would have at least had an easier time getting backing from other countries, so that we wouldn't have had to "go it alone," for the most part. Anyway, hindsight is 20/20.

It is true that we have made it more difficult for the governments in the region to cooperate with the US. I don't know if we would have been able to capture Ben Laden, but because we are so unpopular, I could see governments (such as Pakistan) hesitating to piss off their populace by turning him over.

Ok I like to speculate since you can't be wrong.

Let's say the Goracle won and he followed the Clintonoid playbook. He would've immediately made a finger pointing speech proclaiming the criminals would be brought to justice. He would've taken some military action however . Surplus cruise missiles would've been directed in the general area that Michael Scheuer said OBL was last seen at . The attack would've damaged some homes and killed some innocents so Gore would make the decision to suspend the attacks.

Meanwhile ;Scheuer may have in fact pinpointed the location of OBL but since there was no extradition agreement with the Taliban there would've been no legal basis to abduct or rendition him. Scheuer would at that point beg for a commando unit to put a bullet between OBL's eyes but unfortunately National Security Adviser Sandy Berger would not permit it.

An investigation would drag on and despite finding a connection with the previous WTC attacks and possibly the connection to al-Qeda planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ;still it would be determined that no actionable intel was present that justifies military intervention . We could get bogged down . The investigation would've pretty much led to a dead end. When the Goracle petitioned FISA to intercept communications between AQ and domestic sources he is turned down. Bin Laden stops using his sat phone so those leads die.

Emboldened by a lack of meaningful response OBL gives the go ahead to the next series of attacks on US soil . These involve the use of Iraqi WMD being secretly stored in the UN .

Let's see,

Before 9/11, every terrorist act committed against the USA had been declared a criminal act rather than a war crime. That included the first bombing of the WTC in 1993, the Marine Barracks bombings, the consulate bombings, the hijackings and bombings of various planes, driveby shootings against the FBI and CIA headquarters, shootings in the Empire State Building, attacks against the White House and Capital Buildings, sniper attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge, assassinations of religious leaders in Brooklyn, etc. Despite rigorous investigation and prosecution of these "crimes", the acts of violence continued, both inside and outside the USA.

Since 9/11, however, as you accurately described, acts of terrorism have been categorized as military acts, and instead of being "prosecuted", they are being FOUGHT against. And so far, the number of terrorist attacks against the USA over the past 6 years has been... give or take a few... ZERO. Not one successful attack against the USA.

So, the conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is this: prosecuting international terrorism as a crime does not prevent terrorist acts from occurring again and again. However, handling terrorist attacks as acts of war and pursuing war against the perpetrators of those terrorist attacks can be much more effective as a deterrent. Perhaps it will not be 100% effective (though it has been so far), but it is better than what we were doing before.

So we don't have to do a what-if scenario. We have 60+ years of historical data to draw a conclusion from. No, we wouldn't be wearing burkhas or speaking Arabic. But we would have suffered roughly 6-12 major terrorist attacks (assuming an average of 1-2 attacks per year, which was the average for the 60 years prior to 9/11) against the USA. By contrast, we have suffered NONE. No speculation needed. We have facts on which to base our conclusions, so there is no need to speculate.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Let's see,

Before 9/11, every terrorist act committed against the USA had been declared a criminal act rather than a war crime. That included the first bombing of the WTC in 1993, the Marine Barracks bombings, the consulate bombings, the hijackings and bombings of various planes, driveby shootings against the FBI and CIA headquarters, shootings in the Empire State Building, attacks against the White House and Capital Buildings, sniper attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge, assassinations of religious leaders in Brooklyn, etc. Despite rigorous investigation and prosecution of these "crimes", the acts of violence continued, both inside and outside the USA.

Since 9/11, however, as you accurately described, acts of terrorism have been categorized as military acts, and instead of being "prosecuted", they are being FOUGHT against. And so far, the number of terrorist attacks against the USA over the past 6 years has been... give or take a few... ZERO. Not one successful attack against the USA.

So, the conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is this: prosecuting international terrorism as a crime does not prevent terrorist acts from occurring again and again. However, handling terrorist attacks as acts of war and pursuing war against the perpetrators of those terrorist attacks can be much more effective as a deterrent. Perhaps it will not be 100% effective (though it has been so far), but it is better than what we were doing before.

So we don't have to do a what-if scenario. We have 60+ years of historical data to draw a conclusion from. No, we wouldn't be wearing burkhas or speaking Arabic. But we would have suffered roughly 6-12 major terrorist attacks (assuming an average of 1-2 attacks per year, which was the average for the 60 years prior to 9/11) against the USA. By contrast, we have suffered NONE. No speculation needed. We have facts on which to base our conclusions, so there is no need to speculate.

Elliot

---

So, what you are saying, and let me make sure I have this correct, is that the best course of action for the US is to continue an indefinite war against all acts we consider to be terrorism? Because, I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

Also, there have never been major terrorist attacks like that of 9/11 in the US, previously. That is, from an outside source. So, I don't see how you could justify your position. Also, I would like to see some raw numbers, that would include all terrorist attacks against the U.S in the last 50 years, compared to the number of Am soldiers killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan, since 2001.

Just because nothing major has happened in the last 6 years, doesn't mean that a far worse attack isn't going to happen, considering we've stirred up even more hate and extremism with our military campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnSnownw

So, what you are saying, and let me make sure I have this correct, is that the best course of action for the US is to continue an indefinite war against all acts we consider to be terrorism? Because, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.

---

Feel free. That's your right. But history is clearly on my side.

Quote:

---

Also, there have never been major terrorist attacks like that of 9/11 in the US, previously. That is, from an outside source. So, I don't see how you could justify your position. Also, I would like to see some raw numbers, that would include all terrorist attacks against the U.S in the last 50 years, compared to the number of Am soldiers killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan, since 2001.

---

As you wish.

1954 March 1: U.S. Capitol shooting incident by Puerto Rican nationalists, wounding five Congressmen.


1970 - The first mass hijacking occurred in 1970, the so-called Dawson's Field hijackings, when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine seized control of two American planes and one Swiss airliner, all bound from Europe to the United States. The Pan Am, TWA and Swissair planes were blown up on the ground in Jordan and Egypt.


1972 December: A travel agency in Queens, New York is bombed; the incident is attributed to FIN, a Cuban exile groups opposed to the government of Fidel Castro.


1972 December 11: New York City. The VA-Cuba Forwarding Company is bombed. Cuban exile groups opposed to the government of Fidel Castro suspected.


1974 September 8: TWA Flight 841: Bomb kills 88 on jetliner. Attributed to Abu Nidal and his terror organization.


1974 December 11: A bomb set off by the Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN in East Harlem, New York permanently disables a police officer.


1975 January 24: FALN bomb the Fraunces Tavern, killing four and injuring more than 50.


1976 September 10-September 11: Croatian Freedom Fighters hijack a TWA airliner diverting it to Gander, Newfoundland, and then Paris demanding a manifesto be printed. One police officer was killed and three injured during an attempt to defuse a bomb that contained their communiques in a New York City train station locker.


1976 September 21: Orlando Letelier assassinated in Washington by Chilean government.


1977 March 9: Three buildings in Washington, DC are seized by members of the militant African-American Muslim Hanafi sect and over 100 hostages taken. One bystander is shot and killed, and Washington city councilman Marion Barry is shot in the chest. After a two-day standoff all hostages are released from the District Building (city hall), B'nai B'rith headquarters, and the Islamic Center.


1977 August 3: Puerto Rican nationalist group FALN in Manhattan, New York bombs the offices of Mobil and a building containing Defense Department security personal killing one and injuring eight in the Mobil offices. In addition the group warned that bombs were located in thirteen other buildings, including the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center resulting in the evacuation of one hundred thousand. Five days later a bomb attributed to the group was found in the AMEX building


1979 June 9: Puerto Rican nationalist organization FALN exploded a bomb outside of the Shubert Theatre in Chicago, injuring five people.


1979 - US Embassy in Pakistan attacked by mob mistakenly blaming the US for radical Islamic faction hostage crisis in Mecca


1979 November 4: Iran hostage crisis, a 444-day standoff during which student proxies of the new Iranian regime held hostage 66 diplomats and citizens of the United States inside the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Continued from above...



1980 March 15: armed members of FALN raided the campaign headquarters of President Jimmy Carter in Chicago and the campaign headquarters of George H. W. Bush in New York City. Seven people in Chicago and ten people in New York were tied up as the offices were vandalized before the FALN members fled. A few days later, Carter delegates in Chicago received threatening letters from FALN.

1980 June 3: A bomb destroys most of the exhibits in the Statue of Liberty story room. No one is arrested, but Croatian separatists are suspected.

1981 May 16: One dead in an explosion in the toilets at thePan Am terminal at New York's JFK airport. The bombing is claimed by the Puerto Rican Resistance Army

1982 August 11: A bomb explodes on Pan Am Flight 830, enroute from Tokyo to Honolulu, killing one teenager and injuring 15 passengers.

1983 - Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut, 63 killed.

1983 - Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, October 23, 1983, 305 killed.

1983 November 9: U.S. Senate bombing. A time bomb consisting of several sticks of dynamite explodes at the United States Senate in response to the U.S. invasion of Grenada. No one was injured, a group known as the Armed Resistance Unit claims responsibility.

1984 - Twenty-two people were killed (two of them American) and seventy were wounded when a van loaded with four hundred pounds of explosives exploded in front of the U.S. Embassy annex in Awkar, Lebanon. Islamic Jihad (code name of Hezbollah) claimed responsibility for the bombing in a call to the media.

1984 The Rajneeshee cult spreads salmonella in salad bars at ten restaurants in The Dalles, Oregon to influence a local election. Health officials say that 751 people were sickened and more than 40 hospitalized

1985 - TWA Flight 847 hijacked, U.S. Navy diver killed

1985 - Achille Lauro hijacking, wheel-chair bound American killed by Palestinian terrorists

1985 October 11: Arab anti-discrimination group leader Alex Odeh is killed when a bomb explodes in his Santa Ana, California office.

1986 - Four Americans were killed and nine people, including five Americans, were injured when a bomb exploded aboard TWA Flight 840 as it traveled from Rome to Athens. The aircraft was able to land safely at Athens airport.

1986 April 6, a Berlin discotheque bombing killed a Turkish woman and two U.S. servicemen and injured 230 people, including more than 50 American servicemen.

1987 - A car bomb exploded outside the back gate of the U.S. Embassy in Rome and rockets were fired at the compound from across the street. One passerby was injured in the attacks.

1988 April 12: Japanese Red Army terrorist Yu Kikumura was arrested at a rest stop on the New Jerseyturnpike in possession of pipe bombs on his way to New York.

1988 December 21, Pan Am Flight 103, outbound from London for New York with 259 people aboard, was destroyed by a bomb while over Lockerbie, Scotland. All aboard the aircraft were killed as were eleven persons on the ground.

1990 November 5: Assassination of Meir Kahane head of Israel's Koch party and founder of the American vigilante group the Jewish Defense League in a Manhattan, New York hotel lobby by early elements of Al Queda.

1992 January 25: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others, see FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives.

1992 February 26: World Trade Center bombing kills six and injures over 1000 people, by coalition of five groups: Jamaat Al-Fuqra'/Gamaat Islamiya/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/National Islamic Front

1993 June: Failed New York City landmark bomb plot

1994 March 1: In the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting, Rashid Baz kills a Hasidic seminary student and wounds four on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City

1995 March 8: Terrorists in Karachi, Pakistan, armed with automatic rifles, murdered two American consulate employees and wounded a third as they traveled in the consulate shuttle bus.

1996 - Khobar Towers bombing: 19 American servicemen killed

1997 February 24: Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

Still continued...

1998 August 7: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda,
1999 December 14: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots
2000 The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.

2000 October 12: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port coast of Aden, Yemen, by al-Qaeda,

2001 September 11: Attacks kill 2,997 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane, originally intended to hit the United States Capital Building, crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after an apparent revolt against the hijackers by the plane's passengers; by Al-Qaeda.

Please note that I have deliberately avoided listing any domestic terrorism in the above list. All the attacks listed above are international terrorist attacks. I left off the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic Park bombing, various attacks by the KKK and the Black Panthers, etc, during the time period in question. Those would nearly double the count. But those have also been stopped by Bush's combined methods of vigilance at home and military tactics abroad.

Quote:

---

Just because nothing major has happened in the last 6 years, doesn't mean that a far worse attack isn't going to happen, considering we've stirred up even more hate and extremism with our military campaign.

---

I agree, and I acknowledge that the threat continues to exist, despite any action we take at home or abroad. That would be true whether we used military tactics or criminal prosecution to fight terrorism. That is not a reason to choose one method over the other. But do we stop fighting crime because the threat of crime still exists despite anything we can do? Do we stop fighting cancer because it still remains a deseaase that kills? Do firemen stop fighting fires because there's always a chance that anothe fire is going to break out anyway? Obviously not.

So the choice isn't between fighting terrorism and not fighting terrorism. The choice is whether to fight it by using criminal prosecution or to fight it via military tactics. The former has been an historical failure. The 40+ incidents that I listed above prove that beyond a doubt. The latter method has a 6-year track record of 100% success. Even if some new attack is successful against the USA, it doesn't change the fact that military tactics have had a better record of stopping terrorism in the USA over the past 6 years than criminal prosecution did in the prior 40 years.

So... do we go with the proven and effective method of dealing with terrorism, or do we go back to the old way that didn't work? I know what I choose.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Since 9/11, however, as you accurately described, acts of terrorism have been categorized as military acts, and instead of being "prosecuted", they are being FOUGHT against. And so far, the number of terrorist attacks against the USA over the past 6 years has been... give or take a few... ZERO. Not one successful attack against the USA.

---

Elliot,

I'm one that supports using the military right here at home in larger roles. That I know is another subject for another time. Anyway personally I think the reason we have foiled other attempts, including busted terrorist cells in major cities, is because we are currently on guard. In that respect I don't think it matters if it's under the headline of criminal or terrorist activity. After those two towers went down right before our eyes, we finally became alert.



Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Still continued...

1998 August 7: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda,
1999 December 14: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots
2000 The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.

2000 October 12: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds 40 off the port coast of Aden, Yemen, by al-Qaeda,

2001 September 11: Attacks kill 2,997 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane, originally intended to hit the United States Capital Building, crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after an apparent revolt against the hijackers by the plane's passengers; by Al-Qaeda.

Please note that I have deliberately avoided listing any domestic terrorism in the above list. All the attacks listed above are international terrorist attacks. I left off the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic Park bombing, various attacks by the KKK and the Black Panthers, etc, during the time period in question. Those would nearly double the count. But those have also been stopped by Bush's combined methods of vigilance at home and military tactics abroad.




I agree, and I acknowledge that the threat continues to exist, despite any action we take at home or abroad. That would be true whether we used military tactics or criminal prosecution to fight terrorism. That is not a reason to choose one method over the other. But do we stop fighting crime because the threat of crime still exists despite anything we can do? Do we stop fighting cancer because it still remains a deseaase that kills? Do firemen stop fighting fires because there's always a chance that anothe fire is going to break out anyway? Obviously not.

So the choice isn't between fighting terrorism and not fighting terrorism. The choice is whether to fight it by using criminal prosecution or to fight it via military tactics. The former has been an historical failure. The 40+ incidents that I listed above prove that beyond a doubt. The latter method has a 6-year track record of 100% success. Even if some new attack is successful against the USA, it doesn't change the fact that military tactics have had a better record of stopping terrorism in the USA over the past 6 years than criminal prosecution did in the prior 40 years.

So... do we go with the proven and effective method of dealing with terrorism, or do we go back to the old way that didn't work? I know what I choose.

Elliot

---

Elliot

And since 2001 September 11; surly you must have those statistics, or did you stop counting.

It seems to me that would be important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

Elliot,

I'm one that supports using the military right here at home in larger roles. That I know is another subject for another time. Anyway personally I think the reason we have foiled other attempts, including busted terrorist cells in major cities, is because we are currently on guard. In that respect I don't think it matters if it's under the headline of criminal or terrorist activity. After those two towers went down right before our eyes, we finally became alert.



Bobby

---

Israel has a closed border, troops in the streets and check-points through-out the country- yet bombings and shootings continue. You can give-up all your liberties and still not be safe.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. Giving me a list of casualties of terrorism unrelated to the threat at hand, does not do much to bolster your argument. The fact is, this is not terrorism instituted by governments, but religious extremists. We are surely giving these people a reason to fight, and they don't fight with conventional weaponry. One of the reasons we haven't had any major attacks on US soil, is because they don't need to come here to attack us. As near as I can tell, they're doing a pretty good job at the moment.

That we cannot sustain the type of fighting we are currently employing. We do not have the man power, funds, or will of the people to do so. This is a short-term answer to a long-term problem, and we've made it more difficult and costly on ourselves by using our military.

I do not claim that treating 9/11 as a criminal act would have solved all our problems, but I think the future will show that our reaction was a big mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

What do you suppose the world would be like today if we had declared 9/11 to have been a criminal act rather than a military one? Would we be safer today? Would we be at war? With who - Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, anybody??

I suspect those on the right would say that we'd be speaking Arabic and our women would be wearing burkas. Those on the other side would say that Ben Laden would be in jail or dead. Our Constitution would be in tact, and we wouldn't be at war with anybody.

Frankly, I dunno. Speculate for me.

excon

---

Jefferson answered that… "Men of energy of character must have enemies; because there are two sides to every question, and taking one with decision, and acting on it with effect, those who take the other will of course be hostile in proportion as they feel that effect." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1817. ME 15:109

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Israel has a closed border, troops in the streets and check-points through-out the country- yet bombings and shootings continue. You can give-up all your liberties and still not be safe.

---

Israel and the US don't even compare on security levels. We don't have the Gaza strip located next to Brooklyn. Mexico and Canada are not at our throats daily. True anything can happen at any given time, but I wasn't speaking of doing away with the police. Just an extension to airport security, undercover ops, etc.. I'd rather give the military more work at home, than abroad.



Bobby

That is the job of FBI task forces; the military is for killing people. You may get your wish but if the problem gets that bad it won't be pleasant. I prefer the military come home, go to their respective bases, and continue training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

That is the job of FBI task forces; .

---

The FBI and other agencies need all the help they can get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

the military is for killing people.

---

No! Respectfully... I see that as too broad a statement. The infantry 0311 (grunts), Beret and Rangers, Deep Recon, Tank and artillery personnel, fighter pilots, Naval gunners, and the Seals are trained in killing when peaceful objectives cannot be achieved. Most civilians are not intelligent enough to be trained in Deep Recon, Seals or become a fighter pilot. It's a select group and adaptable in learning. Also there are many many other facets of military life and duties (MOS).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

You may get your wish but if the problem gets that bad it won't be pleasant.

---

I don't know that it has to be bad. In view of the fact that the unpleasant occurred on 9/11, I'm suggesting potential helpful work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

I prefer the military come home, go to their respective bases, and continue training.

---

I do agree on bringing them home.



Bobby

Besides ,the premise of the question is wrong. Anti-terrorism has been treated by the President as BOTH military and as criminal investigation . Another falsehood has been the statement that we go it alone. We have had allied cooperation and have in turn cooperated with allies in both the military and the criminal intelligence gathering .

The Eye of the 9/11 Storm
By Victor Davis Hanson

Another anniversary of 9/11 is near. It's been nearly six long years since a catastrophic attack on our shores, and we've understandably turned to infighting and second-guessing - about everything from Guantanamo to wiretaps.

But this six-year calm, unfortunately, has allowed some Americans to believe that "our war on terror" remedy is worse than the original Islamic terrorist disease.

We see this self-recrimination reflected in our current Hollywood fare, which dwells on the evil of American interventions overseas, largely ignoring the courage of our soldiers or the atrocities committed by jihadists. Our tell-all bestsellers, endless lawsuits and congressional investigations have deflected our 9/11-era furor away from the terrorists to ourselves.

All this tail-chasing comes only with the illusory thinking that the present lull is the same as perpetual peace. Have we forgotten that experts still insist that another strike will come, carried out by those already here or shortly to enter the United States?

Look back at jihadist near-misses in this country since 9/11 - along with a disturbing recent Pew poll that found one in four younger Muslim-Americans approve, at least in certain circumstances, of suicide bombing to "defend Islam" - and the dire predictions seem plausible.

Recall the jihadists arrested in Albany and near Buffalo, N.Y. or the recently uncovered plot to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. Past foiled targets included the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Brooklyn Bridge, JFK Airport in New York and the New York Stock Exchange.

Some angry loners - mouthing jihadist propaganda or anti-American slogans - simply act on their own to try to kill Americans. Iranian-American college student Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar hit several University of North Carolina classmates with his car in March 2006. Last summer, Omeed Aziz Popal was arrested for a hit-and-run rampage in San Francisco. And Naveed Afzal Haq is charged with shooting several women last summer at a Jewish center in Seattle.

Recall also the American residents and citizens with direct connections to al-Qaida's terrorism network.

American Jose Padilla (aka Abdullah al-Muhajir) was just convicted by a jury of terrorist conspiracy. Khalid Abu-al-Dahab, a key al-Qaida recruiter, operated out of California's Silicon Valley. "Sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman advised Egyptian jihadists from his American jail cell - after his conviction for helping to plan the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. U.S. visitor and asylum-seeker Ramzi Yousef was convicted of the same crime. His partner, the indicted American citizen Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to pre-war Iraq. Another American, Adam Gadahn, regularly narrates al-Qaida communiques.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed - mastermind of the 9/11 mass-murder and the Daniel Pearl decapitation - studied in North Carolina for a number of years. Egyptian-American and U.S. Army veteran Ali Mohamed helped plan the destruction of American embassies in East Africa. The convicted "20th-hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui attended flight school in Oklahoma.

Two things seem clear here. One: There have been, and are now, plenty of Islamic terrorists and their helpers in the United States. And two: We are dangerously shortsighted about the ongoing threat they pose.

Meanwhile, Islamic-American organizations and sympathetic civil-liberties associations file lawsuits about supposed American security excesses and illiberal vigilance.

Last fall, for example, several imams were taken off a flight from Minneapolis when the group's erratic behavior scared fellow passengers. After the incident, one of the so-called "flying imams," Arizonan Omar Shahin, called for boycotts of the involved airline and legislation to stop supposed anti-Muslim profiling.

But the brazen Shahin, it turns out, is more than just a bullied Islamic scholar; he's also helped raise funds for an organization that the U.S. government has tied to Hamas.

Our experts are too often in denial or disarray. Former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clark, former CIA operative Michael Scheuer and former CIA director George Tenet now make widely publicized strident attacks on ongoing efforts to stop terrorists and level charges against others - and each other. They rarely talk with any humility, much less apprise us of what we can learn from their own failures to stop the 9/11 jihadists during their long tenures.

In short, six years of quiet at home since 9/11 have fooled some into thinking that terrorists pose little danger here - or that we may be doing far too much rather than too little to stop such killers. No matter that this past week a jihadist plot to destroy U.S. facilities in Germany was thwarted.

Others make the mistake of endlessly re-fighting the past six years - who let al-Qaida grow?; who "lost" Osama bin Laden?; who fouled up postwar Iraq? - instead of concentrating on the storm ahead.

Before 2001, the excuse for American complacence and in-fighting was naïveté. But what will be the reason for the next successful strike against us by the jihadists?

More naïveté - or is it simple hubris?

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing [email protected].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Besides ,the premise of the question is wrong. Anti-terrorism has been treated by the President as BOTH military and as criminal investigation . Another falsehood has been the statement that we go it alone. We have had allied cooperation and have in turn cooperated with allies in both the miltary and the criminal intelligence gathering .

---

Tom-

I agree. We can see elements of both doing their work. Although the military allied cooperation diminished somewhat over the past few years. I'm headed to work. Everyone have a good day. :)



Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Elliot

And since 2001 September 11; surly you must have those statistics, or did you stop counting.

It seems to me that would be important.

---

Um... roughly... ZERO!! That was my entire point, DC. Before 9/11, we suffered attacks by international terrorists roughly every year, sometimes twice a year or more. Since 9/11, the number has gone down to zero.

Elliot