Jim Quinn's Theory on A Mainland US Attack

I was finishing office work while listening to the archives of The Quinn & Rose program which aired Friday morning. Many times over, Quinn develops ideas and theories and proceeds to roll them off one after another ... often leaving the opportunity for discussion of interesting points to slide by without follow-up.

I found some interest in discussing and listening to a few other opinions on Quinn's idea of a US mainland hit ...

Quinn stated that an evolving terrorist network may take a different approach to future attack's against the US. It would be of a greater strategic advantage to hit US allies on their home soil, opposed to attacking the US homeland and stirring the hornet's nest. If and/or when the US takes a hit ... GWB's approval ratings will rise, support for the war grows, and the American people will dig their collective heals in to protect itself. If GWB's approval ratings rise ... we all know what that means for the terrorist operations (vs. it being lowered with less perceived support for the war).

By not hitting the US mainland directly, the terrorist have an opportunity to use the US media and it's political divide against itself - focusing on a desire to pull out of the war. In many ways, terrorists' are working to isolate the US in the Global War on Terror. Weaken the worldwide US influence while reducing military support against the radicals ...

I think part one is essentially correct as long as it's in their interest not to hit us again they won't. That could very well change since the London bombings are putting to rest the possibility of any of our most important allies turning tail and running. With the MSM falling further into the anti-war camp (well becoming more vocal about it) that could change and they might hit us again thinking our resolve is failing and a push might put us over the edge.

In other words who knows. :)

It’s easy to rationalize why events unfold as they do in retrospect. Lots of things make sense that are without evidence that they were ever considered.

Maybe in someone could find a few competent al-Qaeda “sleeper cells” still in existence, in one of the world’s most unfriendly environments, they could speculate like this as to why they haven’t hit us. Otherwise, there’s more evidence that they're just too incompetent to pull anything off here if they exist here at all.

But that kind of talk doesn't sell air-time, print or rally the public to war, and it is of no personal advantage of any government analyst to promote so you won't hear much of it.

I have to disagree ... and I have grown take full advantage of an IslamoFascist bash when given any opportunity.

Bombs can be made from over the counter merchandise that couldn't or wouldn't be traced. I'm sorry, but my confidence in our immigration services being strong enough to secure our borders is less than reassuring.

The only real variable, leaning towards your perspective, is the idea of AQ being more of a radical movement opposed to an actual organization with a structure.

Why haven't there been more Muslim crackjobs like the DC Sniper and are we actually involved in deterring the homegrown terrorists'?

1. interesting that we have similar screen names!
2. I've been listening to Quinn's Warroom show since it's 4th day on the air. He's got a unique ability to look through the smoke & mirrors and get to the core of an idea or concept.
3. I think he is correct in his analysis. Primarily, this is a war of cultures; Islam against the rest of the world, particularly Judaism and it's offspring, Christianity.
4. Al-Quaeda et al may be ideologically and socially primitive, but their ability to analyze a situation and morph themselves and their tactics to meet changing situations is well-developed. They are watching us (U.S.) closely, and are able to exploit the weaknesses of our society.
5. They are wise not to attack the U.S. directly at this time. They saw the reaction from the WTC/Pentagon attacks and how it roused the American spirit. Notice that we did not react strongly after any of the other offshore attacks on U.S. interests. The only reason that they attacked us on 9/11 was because of our weak responses to the previous bombings.
6. Finally, time is one of the great equalizers and verifiers of what's real and true. Through these many years, most of Quinn's analyses and predictions have come true over time. One of the finest recent examples is the Oil-for-Food scandal. From the very beginning, Jim speculated that there was some underlying reason why the Germans, French, and Cofi Anan did not support a "rush to war" and wanted the inspections and diplomacy efforts to continue: we now learn, almost 3 years later, that ALL of them were indebted to Saddam Hussein via kickbacks from the Oil-for-Food program. Another is Oklahoma City (the Timothy McVeigh/Iraqi Intelligence connection in Germany--but let's save this topic for another day).
Quinn has been WAY ahead of the curve, even Limbaugh, Hannity, and others, on several issues over the years.

Conclusion: Listen to Jim. He finds the truth because he asks the right questions. His show is different because he isn't simply a political blow-hard...he's like a teacher who does his own homework first, disseminates the information, then trusts that his audience is smart enough to think for themselves.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.