Another 9/11- opportunity missed?

[hobbes]

It could happen to be sure. But not because Bush was re-elected, it relates to our relationship with Isreal.

9/11 was planned when world diplomat Bill Clinton was in office and executed under Bush.

Anything that happens now would have been planned well before the most recent election results had come out.

When would be a good time?

Well if you want Bush out and Kerry in, before the last election would have been ideal.

Remember Spain?

Well the election came and went. Not even a mouse fart.

Everyone loves to jump on the bandwagon when something goes wrong. I must give kudos to those people who allowed one of the most internationally charged elections (in history?) to be conducted without a glitch.

Have terrorist organizations been that decimated and disrupted? Are the security measures actually working?

Well, next time something bad happens, and it will, just remember, this election, somebody definitely did something very right.

I like it when things don't happen, sometimes.

[j2k4]

Well said, that man. :huh:

How's tricks, Hobbesy? :D

[Cheese]

Personally, unless the world is very unlucky, I don't forsee a terriorist attack on the scale of 9/11 happening anytime in the near future. The world (particularly USA) is too alert.

However, we will see attacks on "weak spots". Areas that people go on holiday to for instance, like Bali. The whole concept is repugnant to me but this is the way I see it will go.

[Comic_Peddler]

What worries me, is the next big attack may not be in the U.S. at all, but in the U.K.. Why? I feel this way because what would they really gain from attacking the U.S. near election time? Nothing really, they don't care if it is Bush or Kerry in office.

What would it prove attacking The U.S. again? Everyone knows bin Laden's hatred for us already. Has the majority of kidnappings been American? No. They have been countries with smaller amounts of troops there or none at all.

But recently, what did they learn from the Spanish election? Seems they had a pretty large impact on that election.

The larger attacks that immediatly come to mind are first, WTC in the early 90's, in the underground parking garage, secondly WTC 2001, thirdly Spain, in an underground transportation system.

What makes me think U.K. may be a target is the fact they have an election due soon. The terrorists already found out they can have a large impact on an European election. Also, sorta taking from an underground theme from the above paragraph, what effects do you think a nicely done bombing may have on the U.K. if it were to go off in the chunnel perhaps?

Also, I think it would have a huge impact on the alliance in Iraq if the terrorists could in a way have the blame shifted from them to, "well it was because of the U.S. we were attacked?

What do you think of this? Am I just way out of it there?

[vidcc]

Or nothing was planned for the election by the terrorists.

I have to be realistic and say that no matter what we do we can never secure ourselves totally from an attack and the likelyhood of another attack is determined upon our foriegn policy far more than our homeland security.

[manker]

I really don't think that any terrorist group would hit the UK in an attempt to influence the outcome of an election. It could only assist the Conservative party, which are more right than the current Labour govt. If they were in power then our foreign policy would be even more aligned with that of the US. The revenge element would stir a lot of people into voting for a tougher line on terrorists and the Conservative party would promise that.

However, if any election is taken out of the equation - nothing has been officially finalised or announced - then in the short term the impact of the attack would be different. The popular press may change/become more vehement in their views that we should distance ourselves from the US and Blair would be lobbied from both the public and from within the ranks of his own party with 'I told you so'.

Along with the inevitable tougher security measures spiel I think pledges would be made to pull some or all troops out of Iraq.

I know, it looks as if this post is contradictory but I think mid-term measures would be drastically different from campaign time measures -- remember there doesn't have to be an election until summer 2006.

[vidcc]

I really don't think that any terrorist group would hit the UK in an attempt to influence the outcome of an election. It could only assist the Conservative party, which are more right than the current Labour govt. If they were in power then our foreign policy would be even more aligned with that of the US. The revenge element would stir a lot of people into voting for a tougher line on terrorists and the Conservative party would promise that.

However, if any election is taken out of the equation - nothing has been officially finalised or announced - then in the short term the impact of the attack would be different. The popular press may change/become more vehement in their views that we should distance ourselves from the US and Blair would be lobbied from both the public and from within the ranks of his own party with 'I told you so'.

Along with the inevitable tougher security measures spiel I think pledges would be made to pull some or all troops out of Iraq.

I know, it looks as if this post is contradictory but I think mid-term measures would be drastically different from campaign time measures -- remember there doesn't have to be an election until summer 2006.you know i'm not so sure about any real negative effect on the british...after all none of the IRA attacks drew anger on the government.
The only way i can see a difference is those that already object to this war making mischief with such an attack.

I will hasten to add that the british and indeed many other countries have lived with terrorism for a long time and don't tend to have this "fear" many americans have.
911 was probably as shocking because of the fact that America was shown it wasn't invinsible as the actual act of terror was itself.

[manker]

you know i'm not so sure about any real negative effect on the british...after all none of the IRA attacks drew anger on the government.
The only way i can see a difference is those that already object to this war making mischief with such an attack.

I will hasten to add that the british and indeed many other countries have lived with terrorism for a long time and don't tend to have this "fear" many americans have.
911 was probably as shocking because of the fact that America was shown it wasn't invinsible as the actual act of terror was itself.
I believe that the reason the IRA attacks didn't draw much condemnation of the UK government at the time is because it was our fight and our problem. We had nothing to fear from Al-Qaida before our staunch millitary backing of the US but now we're high on their hit list.

If we got hit by an attack I believe the common consensus would be similar to what I've written above and only drastic action, such as withdrawing troops, would placate this. After the narrow victories won by Blair in actually getting the troops out there in the first place, I believe he would bow to any kind of pressure following such an attack.

I agree that people in the UK are probably more normalised to acts of terrorism than our counterparts in the US but masses of dead bodies on home soil making front page news would bring home the needlessness for us to have gotten involved in the conflict in the first place.

I'd hope so, anyway :ermm:

[Busyman]

It could happen to be sure. But not because Bush was re-elected, it relates to our relationship with Isreal.

9/11 was planned when world diplomat Bill Clinton was in office and executed under Bush.

Anything that happens now would have been planned well before the most recent election results had come out.

When would be a good time?

Well if you want Bush out and Kerry in, before the last election would have been ideal.

Remember Spain?

Well the election came and went. Not even a mouse fart.

Everyone loves to jump on the bandwagon when something goes wrong. I must give kudos to those people who allowed one of the most internationally charged elections (in history?) to be conducted without a glitch.

Have terrorist organizations been that decimated and disrupted? Are the security measures actually working?

Well, next time something bad happens, and it will, just remember, this election, somebody definitely did something very right.

I like it when things don't happen, sometimes.
I agree but I don't just attribute it to any glaring security measures.

I work in DC and I can tell you first hand...well not to speak to loudly on the internet, "tightened" security has been bullshit.

There are a number of reasons from working in the State Department, Secret Service and so forth to the fact that baggage isn't routinely x-rayed before it goes on a plane that still makes me truely wonder what really went on with 9/11.

Everyone assumes there were box cutters but no one knows.

I ride past the Supreme Court and when we are on heightened alert status officers stop you to check your vehicle.

It's a bullshit check and it pisses me off.

People do jump on the bandwagon as if there is terrorist attack tomorrow it's because of Bush. It may be or may not be. If Kerry won would anyone have thought the terrorist would lay off?

I don't think Bush has helped wipe out terrorism. If anything he's created more stirrings and members. tbh I think he's right about the Al Qaeda/Iraq connection.

There's tons of terrorism there, :)

[Illuminati]

I think an attack on the UK would have the opposite effect. I do not think it would encourage us to removing troops, quite the reverse. I think the popular feeling would be that of revenge, find the guilty and their associates and make them pay for this.

It would also make it more personal, more "our fight" and would prolong UK involvement in any ongoing action. I think that the main terrorist organizations realize this, however that does not necessarily mean that they will not attack here.

Amen.

One of the reasons for the anti-war movement was that we attacked a country which was perceived to be no significant threat to us, ergo we had no particular right to attack even in self-defence.

A terrorist attack would throw that idea out of the window, and the UK would want blood for the cost. The bad thing about it is that they'd either vote in Blair in again (bad) or vote the Tories in as "Labour wouldn't be able to protect us" (even worse) - Lib Dems wouldn't stand a chance.

True, the Warrington IRA bomb could have been considered an exception in that it was followed by a movement for peace, but despite Colin Parry's dignified way of achieving it he still got what a lot of people wanted - An end to their bombings and a virtual shutdown of the IRA to a shadow of their former selves. Unfortunately I expect there's a lot of people across the country who wouldn't be so willing to seek peace over revenge. :(

[manker]

I think an attack on the UK would have the opposite effect. I do not think it would encourage us to removing troops, quite the reverse. I think the popular feeling would be that of revenge, find the guilty and their associates and make them pay for this.

It would also make it more personal, more "our fight" and would prolong UK involvement in any ongoing action. I think that the main terrorist organizations realize this, however that does not necessarily mean that they will not attack here.
That is the thing that I'm afraid of.

However, I don't believe it would be the case as the IRA threat was not quelled by troops, thoughts of revenge and gung-ho action. It was mainly done through talks, deals and patience.

I would hope that our experience of that would mean that the UK would not go down the route that the US has taken but would be rather more cerebal about matters and try to act upon the cause of any bombings (foreign policy) instead of trying to root out and kill every terrorist in the world, because that can never happen.

The emotion of revenge is a strong one, granted, but as a country I don't think we have the same mentality as that in the US. We don't think that we can take on the world and win, there is also the case of being a 'junior partner' to the US in anything military, which rankles with many.

All in all I have enough faith in our society to believe popular opinion would be to address the political cause rather than to attempt an exercise in futility - which more military action would surely be.

[bigboab]

All in all I have enough faith in our society to believe popular opinion would be to address the political cause rather than to attempt an exercise in futility - which more military action would surely be.
Popular opinion did not stop us going to war in Iraq, did it?:(

[manker]

Popular opinion did not stop us going to war in Iraq, did it?:(
No. More's the pity.

That's not to say it doesn't matter tho'

Even Blair wouldn't ignore it again, particularly if we'd lost lives on home soil ... would he :ermm:

[Biggles]

No. More's the pity.

That's not to say it doesn't matter tho'

Even Blair wouldn't ignore it again, particularly if we'd lost lives on home soil ... would he :ermm:

Who knows? He appears to pay little heed to the UK public.

He does, however, correctly identify the Palestinian problem as the cornerstone of any lasting peace. It is encouraging that this is once again to the forefront - what is now needed is some indication that there is substance behind Bush's talk of healing and peace. I am at this point unconvinced but would be delighted to be proved wrong.

[vidcc]

Manker
i didn't really put everything in my original post, but my thinking was put more or less showing the difference i see in the UK and USA by Fugley, i feel that the british would take a harder resolve if attacked, but they wouldn't have the reaction of the USA. I believe a lot more could have been achieved sooner in NI without the bombs.
Probably the biggest difference i note is the reaction. The USA as i said is new to attacks at home and even though it's the right thing to do they were like new parents with their first born, going around boiling or disinfecting everything the baby goes near. By the 4th child sanitation consists of wiping with shirt tails. (thanks baccyman for the example) the 4th child grows up just the same in fact possibly more immune to germs.
we will get there

[manker]

Manker
i didn't really put everything in my original post, but my thinking was put more or less showing the difference i see in the UK and USA by Fugley, i feel that the british would take a harder resolve if attacked, but they wouldn't have the reaction of the USA. I believe a lot more could have been achieved sooner in NI without the bombs.
Probably the biggest difference i note is the reaction. The USA as i said is new to attacks at home and even though it's the right thing to do they were like new parents with their first born, going around boiling or disinfecting everything the baby goes near. By the 4th child sanitation consists of wiping with shirt tails. (thanks baccyman for the example) the 4th child grows up just the same in fact possibly more immune to germs.
we will get there
:lol: That's a great analogy.

I do like it and share your opinion, I also think that an attack at home would strengthen our resolve but maybe not in the same way as you and others.

It would strengthen our resolve to get our foreign policy right. It would strengthen our resolve not to get involved in overseas conflicts that could have a heavy implication to our national security because it impinges on the rights of the inhabitants of the countries that we have ridden roughshod over.

Of course the above is my opinion, you can probably substitute the 'woulds' with 'shoulds'.

I would be worried that it isn't shared by the Government but I do believe it would be shared by most people.

I do see the point of view that the converse could be true. The revenge element. I also think that if an attack coincided with an election that the country as a whole would get swept up in rhetoric and that pledges would be made to further align ourselves with the foreign poicy favoured by Bush.

I just hope that we never get the chance to find out for sure ...

[vidcc]

Mank

you are correct with one huge point you raise.....NI was home politics....iraq isnt...that's the wild card

[hobbes]

Or nothing was planned for the election by the terrorists.

I have to be realistic and say that no matter what we do we can never secure ourselves totally from an attack and the likelyhood of another attack is determined upon our foriegn policy far more than our homeland security.

Vidcc,

I imagine you would be a terrible terrorist. :lol:

9/11 was a very symbolic attack on America. It essentially said, "You're not all that".

To pull off a terrorist plot right before the re-election of the very man who declared "War on Terror" would be the penultimate statement that Bush can't touch them.

"War on Terror, my ass, I just bombed your election!"

They missed the Mother of all Symbolic Attacks opportunity.

[vidcc]

Vidcc,

I imagine you would be a terrible terrorist. :lol:

9/11 was a very symbolic attack on America. It essentially said, "You're not all that".

To pull off a terrorist plot right before the re-election of the very man who declared "War on Terror" would be the penultimate statement that Bush can't touch them.

"War on Terror, my ass, I just bombed your election!"

They missed the Mother of all Symbolic Attacks opportunity.
So they missed what you think was the ideal opportunity...not really my point, which was they may not have planned anything.
But then did they really need to? after all Bush was doing their job for them. The main theory behind terrorism is to create fear...911 set it up and Bush nurtured that fear. AQ must have been watching with big smug smirks on their faces. All this fear and they didn't have to do a single thing.
The IRA figured this out a few years ago, all they had to do was make a phoney phone call warning a bomb was planted (but just approximately where) and parts of England were cordoned off as a safeguard...even though the IRA were just pranking...maximum chaos...minimum effort.
Bombs are just one weapon in a conflict..... brains are far more dangerous

[hobbes]

So they missed what you think was the ideal opportunity...not really my point, which was they may not have planned anything.
But then did they really need to? after all Bush was doing their job for them. The main theory behind terrorism is to create fear...911 set it up and Bush nurtured that fear. AQ must have been watching with big smug smirks on their faces. All this fear and they didn't have to do a single thing.
The IRA figured this out a few years ago, all they had to do was make a phoney phone call warning a bomb was planted (but just approximately where) and parts of England were cordoned off as a safeguard...even though the IRA were just pranking...maximum chaos...minimum effort.
Bombs are just one weapon in a conflict..... brains are far more dangerous

What fear? Nothing has happened since 9/11. Everyone is back to business as usual.

Basically, by not attacking Al-Queda said, "The war on Terror IS working".

I actually thought about this topic AFTER the election. I thought "Hey, the election went awefully smoothly, somebody did their job."

[Rat Faced]

It was symbolic...

It was the World Trade Centre.

We all suffered losses in that one, allbeit not in the same numbers, and not on our shore.

[vidcc]

What fear? Nothing has happened since 9/11. Everyone is back to business as usual.

Basically, by not attacking Al-Queda said, "The war on Terror IS working".

I actually thought about this topic AFTER the election. I thought "Hey, the election went awefully smoothly, somebody did their job."oh come now...what was the main issue of this election? the war on terror. well if nobody is worried about terror why have a war on it?

I was unaware that AQ had a timetable, perhaps you know their minds better than the rest of us. Even the men that said they will keep us safer are saying that it's not a question of if rather when. So nothing has happened YET....are you saying that nothing will ever happen?
lets face it, most people..yourself included by all accounts were expecting an attack, but any military person will tell you about the element of supprise being advantagious.

Fact is we don't know what AQ plans to do or not do and to make an assumption that just because they haven't done anything yet or didn't do anything when we thought they might, means that we have everything right is a step back to the arrogance that allowed 911 to happen in the first place... in my opinion

[spinningfreemanny]

Fact is we don't know what AQ plans to do or not do and to make an assumption that just because they haven't done anything yet or didn't do anything when we thought they might, means that we have everything right is a step back to the arrogance that allowed 911 to happen in the first place... in my opinion


Everything right? probably not. Something right, however, is likely. There are many more things to do to secure our borders and such, but in my mind, the fact that we have been safe for three years comes into play and if I were to guess; is not exactly what AQ would have in mind.

[Rat Faced]

Everything right? probably not. Something right, however, is likely. There are many more things to do to secure our borders and such, but in my mind, the fact that we have been safe for three years comes into play and if I were to guess; is not exactly what AQ would have in mind.

OK..

This is just silly.

Secure borders?

If your borders are more secure... how come Heroin is so cheap at the moment in the USA?

It comes from outside your Borders afterall, and its a case of supply and demand.... If there wasnt so much getting in, it would be more expensive. Same with any other Drug from outside...

How many "Wetbacks" get in every year?

Your borders are not secure, to anyone that wants to get in and knows how... guess who would know exactly how to get in, whenever they want.

You think they're gonna come in on a Jet Liner with a Machine Gun and explosives in their luggage? Why? Its easier just going in and buying it all at WallMart...

Neither yours, nore anyone elses Borders are "Secure", and cant be made such.

Hell, they built a wall around East Berlin, and people still got in and out.... its just the poor slobs that didnt know what they were doing that got caught :dry:

[spinningfreemanny]

OK..

This is just silly.

Secure borders?

If your borders are more secure... how come Heroin is so cheap at the moment in the USA?

It comes from outside your Borders afterall, and its a case of supply and demand.... If there wasnt so much getting in, it would be more expensive. Same with any other Drug from outside...

How many "Wetbacks" get in every year?

Your borders are not secure, to anyone that wants to get in and knows how... guess who would know exactly how to get in, whenever they want.

You think they're gonna come in on a Jet Liner with a Machine Gun and explosives in their luggage? Why? Its easier just going in and buying it all at WallMart...

Neither yours, nore anyone elses Borders are "Secure", and cant be made such.

Hell, they built a wall around East Berlin, and people still got in and out.... its just the poor slobs that didnt know what they were doing that got caught :dry:

Apparently; you didn't grasp my post...


There are many more things to do to secure our borders

don't cheat and skim; read it again. (man, I am on fire with alliteration this week! Almost like Jesse.)

[Rat Faced]

You miss the point...

NOTHING has been done, its all spin.

Your Borders are as open now as ever, possibly more so... or there wouldnt be so much of the crap getting in, to make it so cheap.

A terrorist that means to bomb the crap out of you, will not be travelling on an airliner to get his fingerpriints taken on arrival...

Why should he, with 1000's of miles of coastline and 2 long Borders he can just go through, with little or no problem?

[spinningfreemanny]

I dissagree;

with 9/11 aftermath; there has been a increased concern over our borders, and increased countermeasures have been taken; if not by Federal government, by the states themselves (here in Arizona, a border state, there has been increased military numbers along the border, as well as scrutiny). As stated again: there is much more that can be done.

This though is not the only front in the war on terror. The US in the Middle East has in my mind taken up much terrorist resources that could otherwise be aimed at the homeland.

[Rat Faced]

So, if so much has been done...

How come theres more Drugs and illegal immigrants than ever getting in?

[vidcc]

one thing i ask...knowing a bit about this... how do you know if someone is a terrorist?

[MagicNakor]

They're "swarthy-looking."

:shuriken:

[vidcc]

They're "swarthy-looking."

:shuriken:
:lol: well the fact is we mostly don't know who is a terrorist.

We have profiling but then that's not 100% science, especially with a multiple personality group such as AQ.

We do the fingerprinting...but that's only good at catching "known" risks, and to be honest AQ just has to use new recruits that are unknown.

At last baggage is being screened in the US.... However dispite lockerbie the USA STILL allows unacompanied baggage to travel.

I do like the "are you going to participate in any act of terror during your stay in the USA?" question.... i can imagine a terrorist saying "darn, if only you didn't ask that"

As manny said we have put some things in place, some things are the right things to do, some are pointless, some things we should be doing we are not.
However even if we did everything possible to do we can never be airtight, so we need to look at why we are a target and address those reasons as well as defend ourselves

[vidcc]

Everything right? probably not. Something right, however, is likely. There are many more things to do to secure our borders and such, but in my mind, the fact that we have been safe for three years comes into play and if I were to guess; is not exactly what AQ would have in mind.
AQ will just adapt to get around anything we do. All "armies" do this. This is not to say we should give up and make it easy for them. But again i suggest that it is just a bit possible that we haven't been attacked since 911 because they just haven't and not because they couldn't.

[scroff]

However even if we did everything possible to do we can never be airtight, so we need to look at why we are a target and address those reasons as well as defend ourselvesBut Vidcc, it's because they hate our freedoms:w00t:

Seriously, you are absolutely right...

[hobbes]

The reason we are a target is obvious, our support of Israel.

[scroff]

This though is not the only front in the war on terror. The US in the Middle East has in my mind taken up much terrorist resources that could otherwise be aimed at the homeland.
It only took 19 men to topple the towers and hit the pentagon. I'm real clear they can spare 19 men from Iraq or Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is supposed to be in 60 countries... all they need is a dozen guys in the right place at the right time with the right stuff and a little patience....

[scroff]

The reason we are a target is obvious, our support of Israel.
Our support of Israel over the Palestinians... and our bases in the muslem holy land and our history in the middle east.

[hobbes]

Our support of Israel over the Palestinians... and our bases in the muslem holy land and our history in the middle east.


So what are you going to do about it?

[scroff]

So what are you going to do about it?
I'll follow your lead Hobbsey...

[hobbes]

I'll follow your lead Hobbsey...

I don't have the answer, I think the topic is a fruitful area for discussion, though.

Politics and the Middle East are not high on my interest list, so I'm not one to lead such a discussion.

BTW Ruthie, just a reminder, you are posting under Scroggs account and you're making him look like someone who goes to a gay wolf wedding or something.
http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Videos/AttackAd

[Rat Faced]

I don't have the answer, I think the topic is a fruitful area for discussion, though.

We're gonna debate it again?

Alright by me


:lol:

[ruthie]

BTW Ruthie, just a reminder, you are posting under Scroggs account and you're making him look like someone who goes to a gay wolf wedding or something.

LOL..you mean the Tom Cruise comment? That was truly his own. Hmmm, makes a girl wonder. LOL

[vidcc]

We're gonna debate it again?

Alright by me


:lol:
I think we could go round in circles about why we are a target and i think the people at the top know..... it just worries me that they seem to want to just beat the dog until it bites then destory it for biting... then get another dog and start the same routine again.
prevention is better than cure

[hobbes]

We're gonna debate it again?

Alright by me


:lol:

It is not a debate really.

Just consider what the options are.

The US is not going to stop supporting Israel and the Arabs are not going to stop supporting the Palestineans.

The question is, do the 2 sides want peace? If not, then the US has a problem that cannot be fixed and terrorists will always have a hatred for us. We certainly are not going to change our ways because they want us too.



Ruthie,

He keeps calling me Hobbsey. Only the Australian ladies call me that. Maybe he sat on an estrogen patch?

[vidcc]

Isreal is just one, although a big reason. The USA could go a long way here by not taking sides, instead mediate.

We don't have to give into terrorism to look at our actions worldwide and consider if we could change things so that we are not a target.... the biggest thing we need to do is check our egos at the door and stop being so arrogant. I think most Americans know someone that has the attitude that America can do "what it darn well pleases...what you going to do about it?"... If we can learn to do that my opinion is we will be able to say we are safer.

[ruthie]

It is not a debate really.

Just consider what the options are.

The US is not going to stop supporting Israel and the Arabs are not going to stop supporting the Palestineans.

The question is, do the 2 sides want peace? If not, then the US has a problem that cannot be fixed and terrorists will always have a hatred for us. We certainly are not going to change our ways because they want us too.



Ruthie,

He keeps calling me Hobbsey. Only the Australian ladies call me that. Maybe he sat on an estrogen patch?

He thinks you're cute. :blushing: LOL
estrogen? ROFL. I'm a fully functioning non-extra-hormone-needing chick. :P

[ruthie]

Isreal is just one, although a big reason. The USA could go a long way here by not taking sides, instead mediate.

We don't have to give into terrorism to look at our actions worldwide and consider if we could change things so that we are not a target.... the biggest thing we need to do is check our egos at the door and stop being so arrogant. I think most Americans know someone that has the attitude that America can do "what it darn well pleases...what you going to do about it?"... If we can learn to do that my opinion is we will be able to say we are safer.

Excellent point, vidcc. The arrogance and ego of some in this country is astounding. I felt Bush portrayed that with his attitude towards other nations..and he isn't the only one to feel that way. It seems that politically, the US will always take a side, though it might not be as blatantly demonstrated by different politicians.
There are quite a few groups that are made up of Israeli's and Palestinians that put out the message for peace.