>>"Is Homeland Security really so good that it has prevented a whole slew of attacks?"
>Maybe it's worth the billions being spent on it.
Well, maybe... on a positive note, it's also prevented attacks from UFOs and Yetis (or Sasquatches if they were domestic).

>>"In Israel, where I suspect security is far higher than in the US, attacks happen regularly. If >>there was the same burning desire to attack in the US, I can't imagine that all would be >>prevented. I mean, a sniper on the roof firing into the crowds coming out of the blacked-out .
>>NY subways, how hard would that have been? Didn't happen. A gasoline bomb in a rock >>concert, a shrapnel suicide bomber in a suburban mall, a fertilizer and diesel fuel truck bomb >>at a high school... they didn't happen.
>>
>>Why not?"
>A bit wistful?? Maybe because we are at war with terrorists. The Japanese didn't really >effectively attack the West Coast after Pearl Harbor. And lost the battle when they tried to> >attack the tiny island of midway.
>Why not?
Wistful?? I strongly resent that.
Comparing WWII events with terrorist activity makes no sense. Japan didn't send agents into the US (and would have had a hard time doing so with internment and a relatively small Japanese-American population at the time). I don't have any info on it but I suspect there were no major plans to do so. Japan's motivations and plans were vastly different from those of Islamic terrorists.

>>"Is Bush's anti-terror campaign that effective?"
>The thought is kinda of scary isn't it?
It would be wonderful if it were so. Might make it all worthwhile. I don't believe it for a minute though, if only because the logistics of a perfect defense are impossible... ala Reagan's Star Wars.

>>"I think that only an omnipotent god squarely on your side could have prevented such things >>from happening IF THERE WAS A PERVASIVE AND SERIOUS THREAT."
>>
>Oh my, a lefty believing in God, now things are really getting really bad.
That was pathetic. Firstly, I said god not God. Secondly, I never said anything about beleiving in either. Thirdly, I would think a majority of "lefties" believe in God.

>>"Since they didn't happen, I'm left to conclude that such a threat doesn't exist. Not that >>there are no real terrorists anywhere, of course, but that there are none who are really >>serious about wreaking terror on US soil."
>Good idea. Stick your head in a hole.
Never said anything about a hole, either. Prudence is always demanded, but in measure appropriate to the threat. Don't use a grenade to kill an ant.

>>"And that has a lot of implications: justification for war on Iraq, the many questions about >>9/11, the gullibility of a large number of Americans, the motivations and morals of certain >>government officials..."
>
>Yes, lots of implications. Like for instance, Bush winning the second term and picking up seats >in Congress.
I admit it here openly: I don't like Bush the man, and I like his (and I use the term "his" loosely)policies even less. However, there are many people whom I dislike but about whom I can put my feelings aside in evaluating whether or not I like thier policies. I think that the Bush machine is bad for America and bad for the world, and as a citizen of the world I hope that Americans come to their senses before the next election. Another term could be (even more) disastrous.

>>"Does America need enemies so badly that it has to invent them?"
>Like for instance, the Lefties saying Bush is worse than Hilter- apparantly some Americans >need to invent enemies.
Huh? I for one have never said anything of the sort. I think he's worse than a lot of other recent US presidents, but Hitler isn't even in the same realm of comparison. I'm not an American, and I don't need to invent Bush et al... unfortunately they are already there.

>>"And what really drove the 9/11 hijackers? "
>A few turbine jet engines.
That was funny, in a twisted sort of way, I'll give you that.

But what did the hijackers or their puppet masters intend to be the result of the attacks?

Terrorizing the US population? Worked for a while, but it also united them against terrorists, as most anyone could have predicted. If the goal was to terrorize people, a large number of much smaller, less difficult attacks would have done a better job... see the Washington sniper, terror resulting from a couple of idiots with a rifle and no real motivation or plan. If such attacks had occured all over the US, for months, the population would have been terrified, you bet. As I said, didn't happen.

Was the goal to strike at national symbols? Well, that was partly successful, but more effective methods could have been carried out, destroying irreplaceable symbols such as Mount Rushmore, the Liberty Bell, the constitution, etc. But again, the destruction of the WTC and damage to the Pentagon also inflamed public opinion and gave the US military a target, even if a putative one.

Economic damage? Where are the terrorists with a book of matches burning schools, lighting forest fires, igniting libraries? Developing truly diabolical computer viruses? Blowing up power stations, oil refineries, ports, computer hubs?

It makes me think of Pogo's quote: "We have seen the enemy, and he is us" (or something like that.)