Why hasn't Al Qaeda perpetrated an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11?
January 12, 2005 9:33 AM Subscribe
Why hasn't Al Qaeda perpetrated an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11?
To some extent - and I can't believe I'm saying this - the US government deserves credit for disrupting internal terror cells or at least intimidating them into laying low for a while.
Osama bin Laden is still alive, but he probably has very little ability to communicate with other leaders. Many of the other guys have been apprehended.
The big worry is not "Al Qaeda" in the form of OBL and his gang, but imitation "Al Qaedas" sprouting up among Iraqi insurgents, bored Saudi and Palestinian teenagers, and other jihadists with only loose ties to each other and the preexisting Qaeda network.
The short answer though is the decreasing efficacy of two terrorists communicating with each other within US borders. While I can understand the pessimistic view of "they're waiting for us to let our guard down," I don't think that tells the whole story.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 9:39 AM on January 12, 2005
Osama bin Laden is still alive, but he probably has very little ability to communicate with other leaders. Many of the other guys have been apprehended.
The big worry is not "Al Qaeda" in the form of OBL and his gang, but imitation "Al Qaedas" sprouting up among Iraqi insurgents, bored Saudi and Palestinian teenagers, and other jihadists with only loose ties to each other and the preexisting Qaeda network.
The short answer though is the decreasing efficacy of two terrorists communicating with each other within US borders. While I can understand the pessimistic view of "they're waiting for us to let our guard down," I don't think that tells the whole story.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 9:39 AM on January 12, 2005
2 theories:
1. they were never much of a threat to begin with. fact is, 15 guys exploited loopholes in the system and the fact that no one thought they would do what they did (ie if someone took planes hostage today the hostages wouldn't allow themselves to be killed in such a manner). 15 guys basically opened a national obsession with nightmare scenarios, which are possible but not exactly likely. in fact we went to war with iraq largely based on nightmare scenarios.
2. they're planning something big (see 1 about nightmare scenarios fear)
Hard to say which theory is right, as it does seem ridiculously easy (if it was your suicidal obsession) to do such things.
posted by alkupe at 9:42 AM on January 12, 2005
1. they were never much of a threat to begin with. fact is, 15 guys exploited loopholes in the system and the fact that no one thought they would do what they did (ie if someone took planes hostage today the hostages wouldn't allow themselves to be killed in such a manner). 15 guys basically opened a national obsession with nightmare scenarios, which are possible but not exactly likely. in fact we went to war with iraq largely based on nightmare scenarios.
2. they're planning something big (see 1 about nightmare scenarios fear)
Hard to say which theory is right, as it does seem ridiculously easy (if it was your suicidal obsession) to do such things.
posted by alkupe at 9:42 AM on January 12, 2005
I don't think they are in any rush. They took about a decade between attacks on the World Trade Center.
posted by caddis at 9:43 AM on January 12, 2005
posted by caddis at 9:43 AM on January 12, 2005
1. People are doing their job and the elected officials aren't sleeping at the wheel anymore.
2. When you have 150,000 Americans that are within 1000 miles of your HQ, why bother going to the other side of the world to kill them?
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:47 AM on January 12, 2005
2. When you have 150,000 Americans that are within 1000 miles of your HQ, why bother going to the other side of the world to kill them?
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:47 AM on January 12, 2005
You could also consider that they have had no real need to do so. The US attack on Iraq served to turn a significant portion of the Arab world against the US (and didn't do it many favours in the rest of the world either). Besides costing the US a fortune, this has massively increased instability in the region which means change and the potential for organisations like Al Qaida to achieve their goals, for example, the toppling of the House of Saud and the withdrawal of US forces from Saudi Arabia.
posted by biffa at 9:51 AM on January 12, 2005
posted by biffa at 9:51 AM on January 12, 2005
Because merely the fear of an attack alone is doing a fine job of getting us to devote a lot of resources to security and abandon our civil liberties, thank you very much.
posted by googly at 9:52 AM on January 12, 2005
posted by googly at 9:52 AM on January 12, 2005
As they have been relatively active in other parts of the world, Bali and Madrid, specifically, I don't think it isn't for lack of trying.
Personally, I think it has alot to do with an increased focus on terrorism, particularly within the police and intelligence agencies. Say what you will about the upper echelons of management, but the FBI ain't no joke. They generally kick some serious butt despite any given administrations attempts to tinker with them.
However, the total lack of terror convictions here in the US is a might bit troubling.
posted by Freen at 9:53 AM on January 12, 2005
Personally, I think it has alot to do with an increased focus on terrorism, particularly within the police and intelligence agencies. Say what you will about the upper echelons of management, but the FBI ain't no joke. They generally kick some serious butt despite any given administrations attempts to tinker with them.
However, the total lack of terror convictions here in the US is a might bit troubling.
posted by Freen at 9:53 AM on January 12, 2005
Great question. For all the security measures taken since 9/11, it would still be easy for someone to cause mass casualties (or, more to the point, mass terror) on U.S. soil. Why have we not seen a suicide bomber in the middle of a crowded church on Christmas Eve? Or a crowded mall anytime? Or a truck bomb crashed into the underside of the stands at a pro football or baseball game and detonated? Or among a crowd along a packed parade route? I could go on but it's freaking me out even thinking about how easy it would be.
No, the answer has little to do with the government's security precautions, which have focused mostly one what's been done before, and very little on what we haven't seen yet. Which of course will be the nature of the next attack.
I think the answer is that whomever is calling the shots on these things is just biding his or her time. Terror doesn't require regular attacks, just the debilitating fear of regular attacks. The target society does the rest of the damage to itself -- limiting civil liberties, governing by fear and threat, and in general eroding from the inside the open society that existed before.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 9:53 AM on January 12, 2005
No, the answer has little to do with the government's security precautions, which have focused mostly one what's been done before, and very little on what we haven't seen yet. Which of course will be the nature of the next attack.
I think the answer is that whomever is calling the shots on these things is just biding his or her time. Terror doesn't require regular attacks, just the debilitating fear of regular attacks. The target society does the rest of the damage to itself -- limiting civil liberties, governing by fear and threat, and in general eroding from the inside the open society that existed before.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 9:53 AM on January 12, 2005
They are not Hamas and have little to gain from random small bombings. Their audience seems to be in the Middle East, not America. The next attempt will likely be something a bit more spectacular than a mall or church bombing.
posted by caddis at 9:59 AM on January 12, 2005
posted by caddis at 9:59 AM on January 12, 2005
I think that they feel if they were to try doing things like bombing a football game or sending some guy to blow himself up at a church, their image would suffer. They want something big, like 9/11, but they can't currently get that with a sufficiently high likelihood of success. A failed 9/11-like attempt would do a number on their image.
posted by shoos at 10:06 AM on January 12, 2005
posted by shoos at 10:06 AM on January 12, 2005
I think they'd have a lot to gain, terror-wise from random small bombings. I often wonder why we haven't had suicide bombers. If I was them, I would have followed the months after 9/11 with a bunch of them - people would STILL be baricaded in their homes if that had happened.
posted by agregoli at 10:15 AM on January 12, 2005
posted by agregoli at 10:15 AM on January 12, 2005
their image would suffer
You don't think they understand, then, the corrosive effects a lot of small bombings would have on U.S. society? That civil liberties would basically get shut down, that neighbors would be recruited the spy on one another, that habeas corpus would become a bad joke?
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:19 AM on January 12, 2005
You don't think they understand, then, the corrosive effects a lot of small bombings would have on U.S. society? That civil liberties would basically get shut down, that neighbors would be recruited the spy on one another, that habeas corpus would become a bad joke?
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:19 AM on January 12, 2005
the sheik's ego is way too pumped up for random small bombings. I guess we need to define what we mean by 'al qaeda.'
posted by shoos at 10:27 AM on January 12, 2005
posted by shoos at 10:27 AM on January 12, 2005
The current issue of The Atlantic has an "imagined history" of the next attacks, written by Richard A. Clarke.
posted by Dean King at 10:32 AM on January 12, 2005
posted by Dean King at 10:32 AM on January 12, 2005
I think they'd have a lot to gain, terror-wise from random small bombings. I often wonder why we haven't had suicide bombers.
This is probably because suicide bombers are a finite resource. As someone said upthread, they are not Hamas bombing Israel. They presumably need english speakers capable of entering the U.S., obtaining bomb-materials and finding a target. Seems like quite a lot of training for such a relatively small return.
I also think you're overestimating the damage one church bombing would have on the U.S. It'd be frightening, of course, but then we did surprising well with that on 9/11 .
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 10:39 AM on January 12, 2005
This is probably because suicide bombers are a finite resource. As someone said upthread, they are not Hamas bombing Israel. They presumably need english speakers capable of entering the U.S., obtaining bomb-materials and finding a target. Seems like quite a lot of training for such a relatively small return.
I also think you're overestimating the damage one church bombing would have on the U.S. It'd be frightening, of course, but then we did surprising well with that on 9/11 .
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 10:39 AM on January 12, 2005
A failed 9/11-like attempt would do a number on their image.
If agencies are doing their job, then a failed 9/11-like attempt would be stopped soon enough before it even appears dramatic. I'd say that the odds of an action movie style, last minute rescue would be much slimmer - and much, much less desired - than simply freezing a bank account and turning the heat on suspects weeks, months, or even years in advance.
Wasn't there a 9/11-like attempt foiled in the UK recently? It never seemed to make much of a dent in the news. Was it simply not credible enough, or...?
Getting back to the question itself, I'd say that Al-Qaeda and other groups are all simultaneously disrupted, regrouping, biding time, and planning something big. The loose, franchise-like structure of Al-Qaeda helps a great deal here. Smaller attacks would certainly spread terror, but they would not act as a clarion call for Muslims the world over to rise up against the West, as 9/11 was supposed to have done. Furthermore, smaller attacks wouldn't do diddly to recreate the Caliphate. No - it would have to be something big and theatrical. They'd be much, much more interested in blowing up the White House, say, than killing millions across the nation through a tainted food supply.
Then again, who knows? I'm as ignorant as anyone else on this matter.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:49 AM on January 12, 2005
If agencies are doing their job, then a failed 9/11-like attempt would be stopped soon enough before it even appears dramatic. I'd say that the odds of an action movie style, last minute rescue would be much slimmer - and much, much less desired - than simply freezing a bank account and turning the heat on suspects weeks, months, or even years in advance.
Wasn't there a 9/11-like attempt foiled in the UK recently? It never seemed to make much of a dent in the news. Was it simply not credible enough, or...?
Getting back to the question itself, I'd say that Al-Qaeda and other groups are all simultaneously disrupted, regrouping, biding time, and planning something big. The loose, franchise-like structure of Al-Qaeda helps a great deal here. Smaller attacks would certainly spread terror, but they would not act as a clarion call for Muslims the world over to rise up against the West, as 9/11 was supposed to have done. Furthermore, smaller attacks wouldn't do diddly to recreate the Caliphate. No - it would have to be something big and theatrical. They'd be much, much more interested in blowing up the White House, say, than killing millions across the nation through a tainted food supply.
Then again, who knows? I'm as ignorant as anyone else on this matter.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:49 AM on January 12, 2005
Shouldn't we also consider the possibility that they've tried and been stopped?
posted by rschroed at 10:53 AM on January 12, 2005
posted by rschroed at 10:53 AM on January 12, 2005
You don't think they understand, then, the corrosive effects a lot of small bombings would have on U.S. society? That civil liberties would basically get shut down, that neighbors would be recruited the spy on one another, that habeas corpus would become a bad joke?
and innocent people would die, too. Let's not forget that.
posted by jonmc at 11:13 AM on January 12, 2005
and innocent people would die, too. Let's not forget that.
posted by jonmc at 11:13 AM on January 12, 2005
It doesn't make much sense why they would attack the US again, so soon. OBL himself has explained his reasoning. He's not interested in perpetrating random terrorist attacks and there'd really not be much of a point (the risk/reward would be extremely high). His primary goal seems to be along the lines of rallying the Arab world against the US and bankrupting the US. In this sense, only huge, spectacular strikes make sense. It's also important not to set a pace they can't sustain. A new 9-11 every 2-3 years doesn't really compute. It'd make sense for him to wait until the very end of Bush's term. The scary thing, of course, is that he'll need to raise the bar.
posted by nixerman at 11:46 AM on January 12, 2005
posted by nixerman at 11:46 AM on January 12, 2005
Al-Qaeda exists, it simply isn't a centrally powerful bogeyman. It's more of an ideological franchise, with isolated cells having wildly varying power and connection to other cells - most having nil of the former and little of the latter. Bush milks his exaggeration of Al-Qaeda to spread fear and centralize an enemy where there is no enemy centralized. Others deny the existence of Al-Qaeda to downplay the existence of terrorist organizations at all.
That does not mean, however, that there's no one out there. Certainly, the idea of Al-Qaeda as Terror, Inc. (Osama bin Laden, CEO) is a myth, but if there were to be another attack on American soil, whoever responsible would be connected, even if only through several common allies and goals. A virtual connection, to be sure, but what else is new in this day and age.
At any rate, I hear that within the Islamic radical community they reference Al-Qaeda themselves less and less, going more for the general "international jihadist" moniker.
A rose by any other name...
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:48 AM on January 12, 2005
That does not mean, however, that there's no one out there. Certainly, the idea of Al-Qaeda as Terror, Inc. (Osama bin Laden, CEO) is a myth, but if there were to be another attack on American soil, whoever responsible would be connected, even if only through several common allies and goals. A virtual connection, to be sure, but what else is new in this day and age.
At any rate, I hear that within the Islamic radical community they reference Al-Qaeda themselves less and less, going more for the general "international jihadist" moniker.
A rose by any other name...
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:48 AM on January 12, 2005
Because it would further empower Bush
posted by Fupped Duck at 11:51 AM on January 12, 2005
posted by Fupped Duck at 11:51 AM on January 12, 2005
Shouldn't we also consider the possibility that they've tried and been stopped?
Yes.
posted by Juicylicious at 11:53 AM on January 12, 2005
Yes.
posted by Juicylicious at 11:53 AM on January 12, 2005
They (assuming for the moment that they exist) have already done that. What, exactly, would be the motive for doing it again?
The question appears to assume that they just hate you for your freedom but it is not at all obvious that terrorising the american population was the goal of the attack. In the last few years, the reputation and prestige of the US has plummeted without their further intervention. Perhaps there is nothing to be gained by further attacks.
on preview, what nixerman said.
posted by Zetetics at 12:06 PM on January 12, 2005
The question appears to assume that they just hate you for your freedom but it is not at all obvious that terrorising the american population was the goal of the attack. In the last few years, the reputation and prestige of the US has plummeted without their further intervention. Perhaps there is nothing to be gained by further attacks.
on preview, what nixerman said.
posted by Zetetics at 12:06 PM on January 12, 2005
Because they've got the Great Satan right where they want 'em. The U.S. has provided the Islamic jihad movements, and the rest of the world, with a vivid display of the limits of its power.
The U.S. is spending a billion dollars a week proving that a guerilla force with nothing stronger than homemade bombs, RPGs and mortars can render impotent the greatest military force on Earth.
OBL is likely saving his own cadre for another time.
posted by sacre_bleu at 12:10 PM on January 12, 2005
The U.S. is spending a billion dollars a week proving that a guerilla force with nothing stronger than homemade bombs, RPGs and mortars can render impotent the greatest military force on Earth.
OBL is likely saving his own cadre for another time.
posted by sacre_bleu at 12:10 PM on January 12, 2005
I'd say AQ succeeded beyond its wildest dreams, and doesn't feel a need to do anything more at this time. I mean, my god, it's like nearly everything they ever wanted has come true!
posted by five fresh fish at 12:41 PM on January 12, 2005
posted by five fresh fish at 12:41 PM on January 12, 2005
Shouldn't we also consider the possibility that they've tried and been stopped?
No. We would know about it. Really. Although I do think when FBI (?) found detailed Al Qaeda schematics of banks and financial institutions earlier this year.
Its well-known that Al Qaeda attacks have a five-year or so germination period. These attacks are well planned.
posted by xammerboy at 12:47 PM on January 12, 2005
No. We would know about it. Really. Although I do think when FBI (?) found detailed Al Qaeda schematics of banks and financial institutions earlier this year.
Its well-known that Al Qaeda attacks have a five-year or so germination period. These attacks are well planned.
posted by xammerboy at 12:47 PM on January 12, 2005
I'd say that the odds of an action movie style, last minute rescue would be much slimmer
Though it would be totally sweet if it included Rummy going all commando like the Sec. of Defense in 24 the other night.
posted by mkultra at 1:08 PM on January 12, 2005
Though it would be totally sweet if it included Rummy going all commando like the Sec. of Defense in 24 the other night.
posted by mkultra at 1:08 PM on January 12, 2005
I think nixerman has it: OBL has indicated in one of his tapes that his goal is to bankrupt the USA. I'm not sure about the actual budget numbers, but sacre_bleu mentioned a billion a week for maintaining our presence in Iraq. Add to that the gargantuan cost of trying to "secure" our huge land mass against all intruders and you're talking about massive spiraling debt. Which, of course, the Republican party is famous for ignoring. Didn't OBL recently say he hopes Bush wins the election? I think he meant it.
Meanwhile, OBL has been more frequently releasing videotapes to the world. This means he feels more secure now that we've failed to catch him for several years, and he is also now beginning to position himself as a more significant leader by saying things like "so-and-so is a true prince of the cause. Honor him and do what he tells you." Clearly, by naming others "prince," he's maneuvering himself towards "king." He's playing a long game here.
Nixerman also mentioned that the terrorists will need to raise the bar next time. I agree that they will try to. I truly hope that our spies and agents are able to stop them from getting their hands on any kinds of REAL weapons of mass destruction, or we're in for one hell of a ride.
posted by Jonasio at 2:28 PM on January 12, 2005
Meanwhile, OBL has been more frequently releasing videotapes to the world. This means he feels more secure now that we've failed to catch him for several years, and he is also now beginning to position himself as a more significant leader by saying things like "so-and-so is a true prince of the cause. Honor him and do what he tells you." Clearly, by naming others "prince," he's maneuvering himself towards "king." He's playing a long game here.
Nixerman also mentioned that the terrorists will need to raise the bar next time. I agree that they will try to. I truly hope that our spies and agents are able to stop them from getting their hands on any kinds of REAL weapons of mass destruction, or we're in for one hell of a ride.
posted by Jonasio at 2:28 PM on January 12, 2005
They presumably need english speakers capable of entering the U.S., obtaining bomb-materials and finding a target.
Hmm, use people already living here or enter the country illegally, which, is REALLY EASY to do; make a visit to a hardware store; and find a place with a lot of people.
Doesn't seem all that hard to me.
posted by agregoli at 2:29 PM on January 12, 2005
Hmm, use people already living here or enter the country illegally, which, is REALLY EASY to do; make a visit to a hardware store; and find a place with a lot of people.
Doesn't seem all that hard to me.
posted by agregoli at 2:29 PM on January 12, 2005
Rummy going commando? [represses vulgar imagery, shudders in horror]
Bad mkultra. No cookie.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:32 PM on January 12, 2005
Bad mkultra. No cookie.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:32 PM on January 12, 2005
capable of entering the U.S.
They're already here.
obtaining bomb-materials
Blanket a few home and garden stores for fertilizer. Get a panel truck.
and finding a target
Malls, high-rises, apartment buildings, schools... potential targets are virtually limitless.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:26 PM on January 12, 2005
They're already here.
obtaining bomb-materials
Blanket a few home and garden stores for fertilizer. Get a panel truck.
and finding a target
Malls, high-rises, apartment buildings, schools... potential targets are virtually limitless.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:26 PM on January 12, 2005
I tend to suspect they have tried and succeeded and these are not being reported, at least not as such.
One of the tip offs: When you are listening to breaking news of a five-minute old disaster, and someone comes on and says, "We have no idea what caused this. It's definitely not terrorism."
Some of my favorite candidates from the past couple years: An entire building at Yale University demolished by explosives; the systematic firebombing of three synagogues in a 20 block radius in upper Manhattan over a period of weeks; the explosive demolition of a Staten Island oil refinery (the plume of smoke was visible for 50 miles); a "loud bang" heard from the vicinity of the 23rd St power plant, followed by a 3 day outage.
Oh, and the 2 day blackout that deprived the entire Eastern seaboard of power a year and a half ago? That was a tree branch that did that, yup. Took 'em 9 months to identify the single tree branch in question. But as soon as an hour into the outage, it was definitely not terrorism.
How does an unidentified tree branch look different from terrorism, I'd like to know?
I've written a great deal more about this in my livejournal, but I hesistate to link to it, because the kind of responses I get divide into two categories: either people say "Yes, completely obvious," or "You're a raving nutter."
Used to be you could just say, "Don't you know there's a war on?" but that seems to have escaped the attention of a lot of people.
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:45 PM on January 12, 2005
One of the tip offs: When you are listening to breaking news of a five-minute old disaster, and someone comes on and says, "We have no idea what caused this. It's definitely not terrorism."
Some of my favorite candidates from the past couple years: An entire building at Yale University demolished by explosives; the systematic firebombing of three synagogues in a 20 block radius in upper Manhattan over a period of weeks; the explosive demolition of a Staten Island oil refinery (the plume of smoke was visible for 50 miles); a "loud bang" heard from the vicinity of the 23rd St power plant, followed by a 3 day outage.
Oh, and the 2 day blackout that deprived the entire Eastern seaboard of power a year and a half ago? That was a tree branch that did that, yup. Took 'em 9 months to identify the single tree branch in question. But as soon as an hour into the outage, it was definitely not terrorism.
How does an unidentified tree branch look different from terrorism, I'd like to know?
I've written a great deal more about this in my livejournal, but I hesistate to link to it, because the kind of responses I get divide into two categories: either people say "Yes, completely obvious," or "You're a raving nutter."
Used to be you could just say, "Don't you know there's a war on?" but that seems to have escaped the attention of a lot of people.
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:45 PM on January 12, 2005
I tend to suspect they have tried and succeeded and these are not being reported, at least not as such.
Considering how this administration has trumpeted numerous minor immigration cases and lying-to-the-FBI cases that started out labeled as "terrorism" cases, it's tough to imagine keeping Ashcroft et. al. from the press conference room after an actual foiled plot.
Except for the homegrown American terror plot, of course.
posted by sacre_bleu at 4:22 PM on January 12, 2005
Considering how this administration has trumpeted numerous minor immigration cases and lying-to-the-FBI cases that started out labeled as "terrorism" cases, it's tough to imagine keeping Ashcroft et. al. from the press conference room after an actual foiled plot.
Except for the homegrown American terror plot, of course.
posted by sacre_bleu at 4:22 PM on January 12, 2005
ikkyu2, what did you think of TNT's Smallpox movie a couple of weeks back?
posted by billsaysthis at 4:31 PM on January 12, 2005
posted by billsaysthis at 4:31 PM on January 12, 2005
Hmm, use people already living here or enter the country illegally, which, is REALLY EASY to do; make a visit to a hardware store; and find a place with a lot of people.
For one person, maybe. But how many of these trained suicide bombers that can effectively infiltrate the U.S. does al-qaeda have on hand? I would think that if they had more, they'd have used them on 9/11.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 5:25 PM on January 12, 2005
For one person, maybe. But how many of these trained suicide bombers that can effectively infiltrate the U.S. does al-qaeda have on hand? I would think that if they had more, they'd have used them on 9/11.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 5:25 PM on January 12, 2005
I tend to agree with Sacre Bleu; they don't need to come to us, we've come to them.
posted by atchafalaya at 6:40 PM on January 12, 2005
posted by atchafalaya at 6:40 PM on January 12, 2005
ikkui2: "old on. You have to slow down. You're losing it. You have to take a breath. Listen to yourself. You're connecting a computer bug I had with a computer bug you might have had and some religious hogwash. You want to find the number 216 in the world, you will be able to find it everywhere. 216 steps from a mere street corner to your front door. 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere. "
posted by absalom at 7:03 PM on January 12, 2005
posted by absalom at 7:03 PM on January 12, 2005
the systematic firebombing of three synagogues in a 20 block radius in upper Manhattan over a period of weeks
Wait, what?! I know about the Riverdale (Bronx) one; which ones are you referring to?
posted by Asparagirl at 8:09 PM on January 12, 2005
Wait, what?! I know about the Riverdale (Bronx) one; which ones are you referring to?
posted by Asparagirl at 8:09 PM on January 12, 2005
And don't forget the mysterious radioactive ship in New York harbor on the one year anniversary of 9/11 that was shown as a breaking news story on the local CBS affiliate, then "disappeared" from news coverage, then got searched by special ops, and then eventually blamed on imported Spanish ceramic tiles. Seriously.
(Contemporaneous self-link)
posted by Asparagirl at 8:21 PM on January 12, 2005
(Contemporaneous self-link)
posted by Asparagirl at 8:21 PM on January 12, 2005
Didn't obl say after 9/11 that the "rain of airplanes" will continue as long as the US keeps "attacking muslims" (or something to that effect)? Since that speech, Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded by the US, but there's not been one drop of airplanes.
posted by shoos at 12:29 AM on January 13, 2005
posted by shoos at 12:29 AM on January 13, 2005
Nice one, shoos. Way to remind them.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:12 AM on January 13, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:12 AM on January 13, 2005
I don't think they are in any rush. They took about a decade between attacks on the World Trade Center.
This use of "they" really bugs me. The question was about al Qaeda, and the first WTC bombing was not done by AQ. Way to lump all terrorists into one big grab bag.
posted by norm at 7:27 AM on January 13, 2005
This use of "they" really bugs me. The question was about al Qaeda, and the first WTC bombing was not done by AQ. Way to lump all terrorists into one big grab bag.
posted by norm at 7:27 AM on January 13, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by TetrisKid at 9:37 AM on January 12, 2005