Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Should the US just pack their bags and let the world burn?

Options
13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,204 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    RichieC wrote: »
    Your argument is a fail, Sir. Just because the yanks won the propaganda war does not take away from the sacrifice that the russian people made in WW2. which was orders of magnitude more than the Americans made.

    Stalingrad FTW!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    Oh man I hate the question. The world will not burn if the US decides to stop playing Don Corleone.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    Oh man I hate the question. The world will not burn if the US decides to stop playing Don Corleone.

    when did you stop beating your wife?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 825 ✭✭✭Dwellingdweller


    **** man. It's a hard question to answer. you need to identify what side of the political spectrum you fall on first before answering imo. I think America has a big problem with playing not just economic or military, but a moral superpower and they use their military to impose their morals on others.this is a big no-no. but hey-you can't be as laxidaisacal as me when you've got Japs trying to bomb your country and the impending destruction of western civilization looming. (ww2)

    Another thing I absolutely do not understand is the whole 'oil wars' idea. man the americans have enough oil tied up in alaska and offshore sites to keep their petrol tanks full for the next 50 years. they really got too deep in the middle-east tho. the whole thing was a big pot of ethnic superglue and now their hands are stuck in the shi'ite (geddit? :P).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,801 ✭✭✭sxt


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    I think when people are spoon fed the western media propoganda, it is undertandable for people to start thinking that Iraq, Iran, North Korean, are the "Axis of evil" and like Libya, are intervened because U.S.A doesn't like evils done upon innocent civilians, even though they turn a blind eye to genocides multiple times worse in similar regions

    They kill an estimated 1,200,000(1.2 million) Iraqi civilans between 2003-2007 . You won't hear that reported on bbc news!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

    Madeleine Albright( this was after the gulf war) - "The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it" .The U.S.A aren't as nice as you are led to believe




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 100,241 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Honestly I think they should. All these crazies go on about America interfering etc but only because America is pretty much the only country with the ability to stage a successful military intervention. The Uk, France etc aren't anywhere near the level of the USA and never will be and it will take years before china has the same ability. I'd be happy for them to pull back just to shut people up.
    Russia ?

    Problem is that the US can stage a successful military intervention (Isreal do to) but they don't win the peace and generally leave things in a worse mess than before. Places like Afghanistan were low level civil wars until all sides started getting arms from outside , all that changed was the level of killing , the outcome wasn't dramatically affected.

    Governments kill more people than terrorists. Excess deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan are about one million. ( How many Somalians were killed in the events around "Blackhawk down" ? etc. ) Why wasn't the response to 911 directed against the country where almost all of those responsible were from (Saudai) ? Why was one of the few planes allowed to fly in the US in the week after 911 carrying the Bin Laden family - even if they aren't on speaking terms with Osama shouldn't they have been helping the police with their inquiries , passing on any info they might have suspected ?

    Haven't the US overthrown many democracies in the past and supported many dicatators who killed many of their citizens - in Chile 911 refers to the CIA coup that put Pinochet in power and resulted in a higher death toll than 911 if you count all the dissapeared. A lot of people aren't happy that the US is so two faced, they say democracy but have probably destroyed more democracies than anyone else, and many cures for terrorism are far far worse than the disease.

    The US and UK together spend more on military than the rest of the world put together. The US navy is bigger than the next 17 navies combined . Who is the threat to them ??

    Yes the US can go in and destroy infrastructure and standing armies, but that doesn't really stop the world burning, especially when they are are responsible for a lot of the arms.




    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41403.pdf
    Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by weapons
    suppliers. During the years 2002-2009, the value of arms transfer agreements with developing
    nations comprised 68.3% of all such agreements worldwide.

    ...

    In 2009, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing nations with
    nearly $17.4 billion or 38.5% of these agreements, a decline in market share from 2008, when the
    United States held a 60.4% market share.
    60% - that's really adding fuel to the fire


    TBH if the top 10 arms exporters stopped shipping arms to the developing world / other hot spots then there would be a lot less death and destruction


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    Another thing I absolutely do not understand is the whole 'oil wars' idea.

    'he who controls the spice controls the universe'

    Even if the US somehow switched to 100% renewable overnight they'd still want to be 'influential' (knock the **** out of if out of line) in the oil producing countries.

    http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-World/dp/074532309X

    Interesting book on the subject ^^.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭RichieC


    No, it wouldn't be better.

    Another thing I absolutely do not understand is the whole 'oil wars' idea. man the americans have enough oil tied up in alaska and offshore sites to keep their petrol tanks full for the next 50 years. they really got too deep in the middle-east tho. the whole thing was a big pot of ethnic superglue and now their hands are stuck in the shi'ite (geddit? :P).

    lol


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 825 ✭✭✭Dwellingdweller


    'he who controls the spice controls the universe'

    Even if the US somehow switched to 100% renewable overnight they'd still want to be 'influential' (knock the **** out of if out of line) in the oil producing countries.

    http://www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-Politics-World/dp/074532309X

    Interesting book on the subject ^^.

    I saw 'New World Order' and kinda had a little :rolleyes: moment.. :p yeah. interesting, what's actually happening is that the so-called 'world police' are actually more like..emm...the world thieves? lol


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,801 ✭✭✭sxt


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    The problem is what the Pro Western propaganda media slant people are bombarded with..

    It does not make people aware of the history of the shaping of the middle east and the barbaric explotation, utter contempt for other nationalties,religions, cultures etc

    It bamboozles people into genuinely believe that the Iraqi people are better off since the American invasion because that is what they are shown...They are unaware that over a Million Iraqi civilian are corpses, over 5 million are refugees...They are NOT told that this country has no economic hope for a century to come due to the sanctions enforced, all the educated population,doctors, nurses, teachers have fled! ...A country in ruins beyond contemplation..

    An Irish times report from a few days ago for instance paints a slightly different picture of what you would see on other news channels


    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0412/1224294477760.html
    IRAQIS PROTESTING at the lack of electricity, services, jobs and rampant corruption have been targeted by US-backed and trained security forces since demonstrations erupted following the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

    In Days of Rage: Protests and Repression in Iraq , a 22-page report published today, Amnesty International points out that Iraqis began protests in Basra last June, well before people power emerged in North Africa.

    Although the Iraqi constitution guarantees citizens the right to peaceful protest, the authorities clamped down and adopted restrictive measures. However, the success of the Tunisian and Egyptian democracy movements “encouraged Iraqis to defy . . . restrictions and resume demonstrations”, Amnesty writes.

    “Many protesters widened their calls to demand the resignation of local and central government representatives, or to protest against restrictions on civil and political rights.”

    On February 25th, Iraq’s “Day of Rage”, tens of thousands marched in cities throughout the country, including Kurdistan where demonstrators have protested domination by two ethnic parties. At least six protesters have died there.

    The authorities and ruling political parties have responded by deploying guards, troops and internal security forces that have replied “from the start with excessive force, killing and injuring protesters and with frequent arrests”. The ferocity of this reaction has led to a decline in the number and strength of protests although they have continued, Amnesty observes.

    Demonstrators have also used violence, throwing stones at members of the security forces – some of whom were injured – or setting fire to public buildings. Amnesty says, however: “On most such occasions, it appears that demonstrators only resorted to violence after security forces had used force against them, including sound bombs and live ammunition.”

    Amnesty interviewed protest organisers who have been arrested, beaten and tortured. Hadi al-Mehdi, a journalist who joined the “Day of Rage” protest in Baghdad, was detained, threatened with rape, beaten and had electric shocks applied to his feet.

    Journalists covering protests have been attacked and arrested and their film or equipment has been confiscated. (Iraqis say at least 50 people have been killed.)

    Amnesty calls on the authorities in Baghdad and the Kurdish region to “uphold the right of peaceful protest”, investigate attacks and killings, ban torture, and compensate victims of rights violations.

    Colm O’Gorman, executive director of Amnesty International Ireland, observed: “Eight years on from the end of Saddam Hussein’s oppressive rule, Iraqis are still not allowed to protest peacefully, free from terror and intimidation.”

    * Two bombs exploded near a crowded market in the Iraqi city of Falluja yesterday, killing six people and injuring two dozen, while two roadside bombs in Diyala province killed 10, according to hospital and security sources. In a separate incident in the Iraqi capital, a roadside bomb killed three people.

    Violence has fallen sharply in Iraq in recent years but Iraqi forces are still battling a stubborn insurgency that carries out bombings and other attacks on a daily basis.

    Falluja, located in Iraq’s mainly Sunni western province of Anbar about 50km (30 miles) west of Baghdad, was the scene of some of the fiercest fighting at the peak of Iraq’s sectarian warfare.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    No it pains me because the president with the lowest IQ in their history did it.

    He did not have the lowest IQ of any president. There is a false report on the internet that states his IQ is 95 when in actual fact he did not sit an Aptitude test and based on his SAT scores which were used for calculating the IQs of other presidents, his IQ was between 125-129. JFK's IQ was lower. So too George Washington and Abraham Lincoln....

    Just thought I'd throw that in there...The guy was not the idiot people like to claim he was.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,488 ✭✭✭Yahew


    A note on WWII.

    The Germans - with their Russian Allies, won the war until the invasion of Russia. Russia and Germany had sliced up Poland and Europe into what Stalin, at least, thought was a permanent state of affairs.

    The Germans, and the Russians, had taken over all of central and eastern Europe. If the Nazis had never attempted to attack Russia or had pearl harbour not happened Britain would have sued for peace, or lost. Assuming the Americans did not get involved in WWII at all ( or just in the Pacific) then the outcome would have been either of these 3 - none good.

    1) Stalemate between Russia and Germany in the two totalitarian Slave States in Europe. Assuming Barbarossa had not taken place, or had taken place and the war was drawn.
    2) A German victory ( had Barbarossa taken place) which was not impossible, it depended on the weather and the timing of the start of the war.
    3) A Russian victory. There would have been no D-Day from Britain alone, so no Western troops to stop Russia. Russia would have controlled the continent from Vladivastock to the Atlantic. Whether there would have been an economic collapse of communism is therefore doubtful, and a communism which took in all of Europe, China and chunks of Asia would be more powerful economically than democratic capitalism by sheer strength of population. Little would have stopped a Russian advance on the Middle East ( as with the German advance had 2) taken place).

    Ireland would then have been either occupied, or been a controlled state of either the slave empire of the Nazis, or the Stalinists.

    so thats what we have to thank the US for.

    Quite a lot.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,488 ✭✭✭Yahew


    sxt wrote: »
    They kill an estimated 1,200,000(1.2 million) Iraqi civilans between 2003-2007 . You won't hear that reported on bbc news!

    Most of the killings in Iraq are from the opposition to Americans. You are blaming America for the killings by anti-American insurgents. Also, you ignored this

    The ORB poll estimate has come under strong criticism in a peer reviewed paper entitled "Conflict Deaths in Iraq: A Methodological Critique of the ORB Survey Estimate", published in the journal Survey Research Methods. This paper "describes in detail how the ORB poll is riddled with critical inconsistencies and methodological shortcomings", and concludes that the ORB poll is "too flawed, exaggerated and ill-founded to contribute to discussion of the human costs of the Iraq war".[8][9]
    Epidemiologist Francisco Checci recently echoed these conclusions in a BBC interview, stating that he thinks the ORB estimate was "too high" and "implausible". Checci, like the paper above, says that a “major weakness” of the poll was a failure to adequately distinguish between households and extended family.[10]
    The Iraq Body Count project also rejected what they called the "hugely exaggerated death toll figures" of ORB, citing the Survey Research Methods paper. IBC concluded that, "The pressing need is for more truth rooted in real experience, not the manipulation of numbers disconnected from reality."[11]


    From your own link.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    Yahew wrote: »
    Most of the killings in Iraq are from the opposition to Americans. You are blaming America for the killings by anti-American insurgents.

    ... and opposition to Americans is wrong?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,488 ✭✭✭Yahew


    ... and opposition to Americans is wrong?

    let me repeat what I said. most of the killings in this report were by anti-American forces. Blaming them on America is biased claptrap.

    As it happens I dont think America should be there, I think they should withdraw from the world and let the kiddies play with explosives.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    Yahew wrote: »
    let me repeat what I said. most of the killings in this report were by anti-American forces. Blaming them on America is biased claptrap.

    Bollocks - if America wasn't there then they wouldn't happen so let's not discount them for your propaganda.

    As it happens I dont think America should be there, I think they should withdraw from the world and let the kiddies play with explosives.

    This statement shows you up for what you are. You are saying that without US 'policing' (lol, think ownage) the world will descend into chaos and I say 'Bollocks' again. The US has done nothing but FAIL since WW2.

    I'm not buying your BS :)
    .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    'he who controls the spice controls the universe'
    Well, the whole Arrakis concept basically was written around the Middle East, so yeah.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    America needs to hold back the F-22 and have bases all over the World to fight the Transformers when they arrive :D


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,004 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The immediate post-WWII period is better known as the Cold War - when US policy was the complete opposite of isolationism.

    Typo on my part. Check my edit some 20 minutes before your post.
    If you meant the Post WWI period or Interbellum- then what about the Washington Conference of 1921/2- a so-called disarmament conference to which the Soviet Union wasn't invited and whose real purpose was to strangle Japanese expansion in the Pacific?

    The Soviet Union wasn't invited because it didn't have much of a Navy. The proper name for that little round of discussions was "The Washington Naval Treaty." Costs were getting a little out of control in the naval arms race, and the major battleship-producing nations of the era got together to try to put a lid on things. The Worker's and Peasants' Red Fleet wasn't big enough to be a concern, and neither was it growing.

    As for the idea of 'strangling Japanese expansion in the Pacific'* it's instructive to note that, unlike the British or Americans, the Japanese did not need to decomission any ships to meet with treaty compliance.

    NTM

    *Granted, this is not an uncommon view, and may have been a concern. But that was the point of all the five navies building up, so that they could temper the actions of all the others.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,004 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    let me repeat what I said. most of the killings in this report were by anti-American forces. Blaming them on America is biased claptrap.

    Bollocks - if America wasn't there then they wouldn't happen so let's not discount them for your propaganda.

    I believe the first quote is wrong. Most of the killings were caused by anti-the-other-segment-of-Iraqis forces. Things really kicked off after the Golden Mosque bombing. The amounts of deaths pursuant to attacks against coalition forces took something of a back seat to the Iraqi-on-Iraqi conflict.

    There is no guarantee that this violence would, or would not, have happened absent the invasion. However, Europeans don't need to look too far to see the results of what happens to a multi-ethnic nation when the strong-man holding it together finally dies of old age.
    This statement shows you up for what you are. You are saying that without US 'policing' (lol, think ownage) the world will descend into chaos and I say 'Bollocks' again. The US has done nothing but FAIL since WW2.

    The Koreans are probably happy enough. I'll wager most of Western Europe is too, even if just for the Marshall Plan. Vietnam can't be considered a win, but it did at least drive the point that the US was willing to place resources into the stemming of communist expansion so had a larger-sphere benefit. Lebanon was a fail, but the US departure didn't exactly make life better. Ditto Somalia, whatever the reason was for that escapade to begin with. Come to think of it, the Kuwaitis probably weren't too annoyed with the Americans in the 1990s either, and any 'fail' in the Balkans comes from letting non-Americans try running things (French generals Janvier and Morrillon come to mind).

    NTM


  • Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    Vietnam can't be considered a win, but it did at least drive the point that the US was willing to place resources into the stemming of communist expansion so had a larger-sphere benefit.

    NTM

    Nothing good came from the Vietnam War. This "larger-sphere benefit" as you call it is imaginary in your own head. Vietnam and China are still communist, USSR existed until 91 and Cuba on it's own doorstep is still at it.

    What exactly is so wrong with communist expansion on the other side of the world that excuses the use of Agent Orange?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,592 ✭✭✭GerM


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    PeakOutput wrote: »
    oh really? has there been a terrorist attack on american soil since 9/11? I was pretty sure there hadn't been. thats ten years. in the ten years before 9/11 there were at least two major attacks on the us by muslim fundamentalists that I can think of

    Here is a rock. It keeps tigers away. I don't see any tigers around here, do you? So it must work.

    How much of the decreased terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are down to vastly increased security operations within their own territory as opposed to military operations on foreign soil? Why would terrorists from Saudi Arabia give a fiddlers about U.S. involvement in other countries, safe in the knowledge they'll never go near Saudi Arabia?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    PeakOutput wrote: »
    oh really? has there been a terrorist attack on american soil since 9/11? I was pretty sure there hadn't been. thats ten years. in the ten years before 9/11 there were at least two major attacks on the us by muslim fundamentalists that I can think of

    I loled. :)


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 100,241 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Yeah, loaded question ;). It's a tarp!

    http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j309/SIMPLYB1980/tarp.gif


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    GerM wrote: »
    Here is a rock. It keeps tigers away. I don't see any tigers around here, do you? So it must work.

    I assume you are pretending to be dense and you dont actually believe that is an appropriate metaphor

    the fact is, there was a relatively large amount of terrorist attacks up to and including 9/11. the poster I quoted said the americans have done nothing to decrease the risk of terrorist attack. the evidence says otherwise it really is as simple as that
    How much of the decreased terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are down to vastly increased security operations within their own territory as opposed to military operations on foreign soil? Why would terrorists from Saudi Arabia give a fiddlers about U.S. involvement in other countries, safe in the knowledge they'll never go near Saudi Arabia?

    because the saudi terrorists are not in saudi because saudi does not support terrorist acts against the US. they are in countries that do
    I loled.

    so you must have an example of one that I missed?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,592 ✭✭✭GerM


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    PeakOutput wrote: »
    I assume you are pretending to be dense and you dont actually believe that is an appropriate metaphor

    the fact is, there was a relatively large amount of terrorist attacks up to and including 9/11. the poster I quoted said the americans have done nothing to decrease the risk of terrorist attack. the evidence says otherwise it really is as simple as that



    because the saudi terrorists are not in saudi because saudi does not support terrorist acts against the US. they are in countries that do

    It's an entirely appropriate metaphor if you can understand it which it seems you cannot. Provide me with evidence that the U.S. involvement in Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan has prevented Al Qaeda from operating or carrying out terrorist attacks? The vast majority of Al Qaeda attacks against U.S. citizens have taken place on foreign soil always. This has continued unabated. A couple of years ago they attacked a U.S. embassy in Yemen, killing 16 people. They're more than happy to continue killing U.S. citizens it's simply far simpler to carry out these attacks away from the U.S. post 9/11 given the security policies enforced since then.

    Your idea that the U.S. invading other countries has somehow dissuaded fanatical terrorists from strapping a bomb to themselves is completely deluded. Only recently, a car bomb explosion, plotted by fanatical supporters of Islam was disarmed in Times Square which completely flies in the face of your argument. U.S. foreign action has done nothing to prevent attacks on their soil; the internal policing of terrorism and increased vigilance of citizens has done the vast majority of the work.

    EDIT: Can you list all these terrorist attacks on U.S. soil leading up to 9/11 please?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Honestly I think they should. All these crazies go on about America interfering etc but only because America is pretty much the only country with the ability to stage a successful military intervention. The Uk, France etc aren't anywhere near the level of the USA and never will be and it will take years before china has the same ability. I'd be happy for them to pull back just to shut people up.

    +1 to that. They are the last (and only) line of defence against the crazies that in habit this planet (and the whackos that support them). What if America had not been around for WW1/2? What if America had not been around during the surge of Stalinism?

    Be careful what you wish for - it might just happen.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    GerM wrote: »
    EDIT: Can you list all these terrorist attacks on U.S. soil leading up to 9/11 please?

    I will do my best, I have tried to leave out obvious acts of domestic terrorism so the unabomber and oklahoma city for example has been left out. attacks in bold are those that happen close enough to 9/11 that the actions taken by the us would have made no difference.

    the tldr versio is: in total there were 17 terrorist attacks or attempts from 1988 until 9/11 and shortly afterwards. since the US invaded afghanistan in 2001 and iraq in 2003 there has been 5 'successfull' attacks, two of which were students who happened to be muslims deliberately knocking people down with their cars, and 3 foiled attempts. also there is a noticeable difference in the amount of attacks against us targets abroad before the 9/11 attacks and after but i didn't include either

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

    November 5 1990: 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.

    January 25, 1993: 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.

    February 26, 1993: 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,[5] see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, Ramzi Yousef.

    June, 1993: Failed New York City landmark bomb plot, see FBI Most Wanted Terrorists

    March 1, 1994: In the Brooklyn Bridge Shooting, Rashid Baz kills a Hasidic seminary student and wounds four on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City in response to the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.

    March 5, 1994: In Salt Lake City, Utah, a gunman with a homemade bomb held several people hostage in the downtown public library. Police mortally wound the gunman before he is able to kill any hostages.

    July 27, 1996: Centennial Olympic Park bombing, killing two and wounding 111.

    February 24, 1997: Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, 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". His widow claimed he became suicidal after losing $300,000 in a business venture. In a 2007 interview with the New York Daily News his daughter said her mother's story was a cover crafted by the Palestinian Authority and that her father wanted to punish the United States for its support of Israel.

    December 14, 1999: 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

    December 31, 1999 An arson fire causes one million dollars in damage and destroys the fourth floor of Michigan State University's Agriculture Hall. In 2008 four people that the U.S. government claimed were Earth Liberation Front members were indicted for that incident.

    April 30, 2000 The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) claimed responsibility for causing over $500,000 in damages to construction equipment in Elettsville, Indiana. Fourteen pieces of logging and construction equipment were destroyed by the perpetrators, who filled gas tanks with sand, cut fuel and hydraulic lines and set a tractor-trailer filled with wood chips on fire. Graffiti found at the scene read, "Go develop in Hell," "ELF" and "This machine is evil." The equipment was being used for a state-run project to build a four-lane highway in the area. In their written statement, the group writes, "the government and developers are mad with greed and there will be no limit to what they destroy until we take away the profit from their schemes."

    September 11: Attacks kill 2,973, and many more later from exposure to toxic dust 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 Capitol Building, crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after an apparent revolt against the hijackers by the plane's passengers.

    Anthrax attacks on the offices the United States Congress and New York State Government offices, and on employees of television networks and tabloids.

    December 12: Jewish Defense League plot by Chairman Irv Rubin and follower Earl Krugel to blow up the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California, and the office of Lebanese-American Rep. Darrell Issa, foiled.

    December 22: 2001 shoe bomb plot.

    July 4, 2002: An Egyptian gunman opens fire at an El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles International Airport, killing two Israelis before being killed himself.


    2001 invasion of afghanistan
    2003 invasion of Iraq (March 19–May 1, 2003)

    zero attacks on us soil in 2003 and 2004, 2005

    2006, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-born graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, drives an SUV onto a crowded part of campus, injuring nine.

    2006, A major anti-terrorist operation by British Police disrupts an alleged bomb plot targeting multiple airplanes bound for the United States flying through Heathrow Airport, near London.

    2006, An Afghani Muslim hit 19 pedestrians, killing one, with his SUV in the San Francisco Bay area.

    2006,Federal Agents disrupt Derrick Shareef’s attack on an Illinois shopping mall planned for December 22. His intent was to commit “violent jihad” just before Christmas

    May 7, 2007, A group of six radical Islamist men, allegedly plotting to stage an attack on the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey, were arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on.

    2008 A bomb goes off outside an empty military recruiting station in Times Square.

    2009, Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempts to detonate an explosive on an aircraft enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit. During the incident, the suspect ignites himself on fire until he is extinguished and overpowered by two passengers. The aircraft lands safely in Detroit with the only injuries reported to be the suspect himself and two others.

    2010, New York City, New York, United States New York's Times Square was evacuated after the discovery of a car bomb.[46] US government believes radical Islamists in the Pakistani Taliban directed the plot, and may have financed it


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,592 ✭✭✭GerM


    No, it wouldn't be better.
    Interesting to see them documented. So in the 10 years preceeding the 9/11 attacks there were 10 people killed by attacks that were perpetrated by foreign terrorists on American soil. The Olympic bombing was carried out by an American. In the 10 years following 9/11 there have been 3 killed by attacks and multiple foiled efforts.

    For me, this information confirms that attacks continue to be made on U.S. soil but the success of them has lowered significantly. There were attacks following the initial invasion of Afghanistan which were knee jerk in their activity. Terrorism was heavily focussed on following the initial invasions and organisations kept their activities to a minimum; obviously they weren't going to attempt terrorist plots initially but, once the focus died down, they were happy to resume activity. Overall, the invasions have done little or nothing to dissuade attempted terrorist attacks. There have been two major terrorist attacks avoided in the past 2 years simply through the vigilance of the public as the U.S. maintains a military presence in invaded countries (100,000 still in Afghanistan approximately).


Advertisement
Advertisement