Quantcast The Triangle
College Media Network

Obama-era terrorism: Not as severe as in the past

Bridget Gawinowicz

Issue date: 1/22/10 Section: Ed-Op
  • Print
  • Email
Media Credit: Kent Nishimura Abaca Press/MCT Campus

Human memory works in an interesting way- sometimes we can recall what flavor of ice cream we had at our fifth birthday party, but can't remember what we ate for breakfast mere hours ago. Other times, we forget that a city was attacked by terrorists while under our political reign. Recently in an interview, Rudolph Giuliani publicly forgot that one of the most defining moments of the past decade, Sept. 11, happened during his stint as mayor of New York City. Maybe he had a case of Freudian repression when he stated matter-of-factly, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush."

No matter what caused this memory lapse, it is easy to become swept up in the paranoia of the media and forget how America felt after Sept. 2001. Under the Bush administration (post-9/11), there was a handful of small-scale terroristic actions including a shoe-bomber (the so-called Al-Qaeda devotee was recently convicted) and anthrax attacks. This past Christmas, under the Obama administration, a man smuggled an explosive onto a Detroit-bound plane and attempted to ignite it. Although the plot was unsuccessful, it brought the buzzword "terrorism" back into the American media with a vengeance. In addition to this domestic attack, a suicide bomber killed seven CIA agents in Afghanistan on Dec. 30.

Terror analysts have discovered that 2009 had the highest terrorist activity of any recent year- however, they also found that the plots are becoming more and more unsuccessful. In light of the Detroit bomber, Mark Lowenthal, assistant director of the Central Intelligence Agency for analysis from 2002 to 2005, stated, "[Terrorists are] less capable, even if they're still lethal … they're not able to carry out the intense planning they once did." Another expert, Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. officer and psychiatrist, has been quoted as saying he believes "Al-Qaeda [is] in decline" and that the "new generation of extremists [will] be less skilled and [will] likely pose less of a threat than the network responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks."

Based on these expert opinions, one would think that the mass-hysteria that terrorism had once caused (the Terror Index, markedly increased airplane security) is dwindling and becoming more and more unnecessary. Well, Rush Limbaugh and his cronies want you to think again! After all, terror attacks only happen under presidents who call themselves Democrats- George W. Bush sure took the security assessment that warned America of Sept. 11 to heart! Oh wait …
Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools

Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2

Red Pill

posted 1/22/10 @ 9:01 AM EST

1) He's been in office for a year. Bush was in office for 8 years. Of course there were "more" terrorist attacks . . .

2) There will continue to be terrorist attacks on our country because the US acts as the world police, and people are sick of it. (Continued…)

Greg

posted 1/25/10 @ 3:40 PM EST

To the author: do you think your article becomes more credible when you take quotes out of context? McCain and Cheney think Obama himself is a terrorist? What?

I don't think Bush did amazing things to stop terrorism but your argument seems to be that since no attack on the scale of 9/11 has happened under Obama, he must doing a good job. (Continued…)

Post a Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.



Triangle Video Section: Use the arrows to select different videos.

Advertisement

Poll

Do you eat out more during University City Dining Days?

Submit Vote

View Results

Advertisement