It is a generation of people who have been carefully groomed in the public schools to believe NOTHING is worth dying for, NOTHING is worth fighting for, and war is never right. They have been taught to admire and WATCH heros, but NEVER to fight, but cowardice and submission to robbers, swindlers, crooked politicians, authorities and government is praised and rewarded.

I agree with above posters re: terrorist plots, it seems there are many seemingly effective plots that would be easy and cheap to pull off. I don't know if that means that the authorities are protecting us or that the bad guys really are just a poorly trained and poorly funded bunch of misfits. I, too, was expecting major terror attacks at the peak of the economic crisis.

FWIW though I think the heightened sense of fear (even if it is overblown) serves the public good pretty well. Americans as a lot are - as mentioned - cowardly, lazy, apathetic and nearly braindead. Perhaps it takes a constant, soiled-pants level of fear to even get people to notice someone sticking bombs to the pumps at the gas station or acting suspiciously on a plane.

We can only speculate. I suspect it is a combination of factors, including the following:

---While there are many who sympathize with the perpetrators of these acts, their actual numbers are not that large- especially ones who could operate in US society without being noticed.

---Our domestic intelligence system is really pretty good, with local law enforcement now much more aware and active in this area (e.g., cultivating informants).

---AQ, in particular, is focused on very large, spectacular attacks to make an impression throughout the world.

---To mount a coordinated series of attacks on economic targets like malls or gas stations would require many more resources including people, communications, weaponry, etc. Once you get into that sort of complexity, the possibilities of being detected increase significantly.

That doesn't mean it won't happen. If it does, however, I would expect it to involve only a small number of targets using less than highly skilled talent- sort of like the guys who have been captured recently.

Yes, that's about the only thing I imagined as a possible answer myself. But if I were in their shoes, which I am definitely not, I'd pursue this kind of thing. The problem would be to pull this off more than once because of human resources and likelihood of detection. If you wanted to do this in 50 places (all states) at the same time, you'd need 50 attackers. They wouldn't have to put their own life on the line, though, which should make recruiting easier.

I hope the answer really is that there are not that many guys out there. That on the other hand makes the situation not necessarily look any better. If there are only a few, and just these few can keep the biggest military nation in the world shaking of fear, something is very wrong.

Till

Undressing the Terror Threat
 

There was an excellent article in the Journal today on this topic. Check it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...587677752.html

And that, unfortunately, is the real take-away.

An excellent article. Thank you for posting it.

Last night I watched Washington Unplugged with Bob Schieffer

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...eaturedPost-PE

Charles Glass, one of the interviewees, said we need to do what Margaret Thatcher did during the time of IRA terrorism. She refused to call these thugs terrorists, but rather referred to them as "criminals", because that is all they are, common criminals.

When you refuse to use the term "terrorist" you eliminate a great deal of the psychological impact of their acts.

^^

That might have more impact than anything else. Call them criminals, murderers, sociopaths; treat them as what they really are: isolated, marginal people with violent antisocial agendas.

i think we should stick with the term terrorists. with all the rights we afford criminals in this country it would be a crime to see them as eqauls...

Using the term "terrorist" gives validity to their cause; if you take away that validity, you go a long way toward taking away their power to terrorize.

in theory that is a good point but in reality it makes no difference. on 9/11 we could have called them "rodeo clowns" and the result was still the same. psychological impact? we are dealing with thin skinned america. we go to pieces if we get a flat tire, dont get the special meal in f, or our blackberrys malfunction. i can see a point in there but i dont think it makes any difference...

Excellent article -- exactly what I have been trying to say for years, but was never able to put so eloquently.

Patriots are few, but idiots are many! I am shocked by the number of people who will agree to do anything and everything in the name of imaged safety.

I predict they will be screening people wearing only underwear soon enough but the masses of sheep will agree to it.

But then you also severely dilute the politicians' reasoning for sprawling out government's tentacles.

I agree with you and Prime Minister Thatcher's words, it just wouldn't work in modern U.S. politics.

This has often puzzled me that it has not occurred. Seems doable. They pulled off coordinated strikes in London and Madrid several years ago.

Maybe it is related to the top item. Is keeping Western civilization afraid of their own shadow more important than destroying it?