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.

How's tricks, Hobbesy?

[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

[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.