Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Originally posted by RedDragon
reply to post by Mr Tranny
I really don't think that's the case.. They've already explicitly stated their goal. It's to get us to react to terrorism by invading countries and thus bankrupting us.
How would a homeland attack differentiate from the “bankrupt us” strategy?
The towns, cities, and states are already broke from the total lack of fiscal policy. They have no extra money to support armed forces to keep the militants under control.
Them, and the federal government having to support local heavily armed groups to keep the militants under control will help push the local, and federal government into bankruptcy.
Having to support military force at home, in addition to everything abroad will just be additional burden to bring us down.
That strategy would be ridiculously complex, prone to execution failure, costly, and questionably effective.. They could care less about taking over our country, or installing Sharia Law... They really don't care about us or what we do here at all. We're not that important. They just want us out of their holy lands. That's it.
So, much more effective to just carry out a scary attack every now and then and wait for retarded-us to respond with brute, costly force until we can't afford it anymore.
They spend maybe $5,000 on box cutters and plain tickets, we respond with a $3 trillion invasion, doubled military spending, and an expensive Department of HS. That's exactly what they wanted us to do.
If we keep running up our debt, eventually we won't be able to afford our bases and operations in the Middle East. So, then we have to stop them and withdraw our troops. Then they win. That's their strategy.
edit on 2/2/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)