Terrorist attack before Nov. 2?

[MelissaInPhilly]

I have the sinking feeling that there will be a terrorist attack on American soil before the election. I'm talking about a greater than fifty percent chance. Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

 

What do you think?

[Johnny Coli]

I have the sinking feeling that there will be a terrorist attack on American soil before the election.  I'm talking about a greater than fifty percent chance.  Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

 

What do you think?

61855[/snapback]

 

Although I doubt it, I'm sure this administration will up the color-coded thing a week beforehand to freak out the masses. There's a better chance that all of a sudden they "capture" Bin laden, probably on the thursday before.

[Satan]

Although I doubt it, I'm sure this administration will up the color-coded thing a week beforehand to freak out the masses.  There's a better chance that all of a sudden they "capture" Bin laden, probably on the thursday before.

61869[/snapback]

 

Yeah, and if it does happen, you'll be crying about how Bush let it happen like all the other dumb sheep.

[DC Tom]

I have the sinking feeling that there will be a terrorist attack on American soil before the election.  I'm talking about a greater than fifty percent chance.  Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

 

What do you think?

61855[/snapback]

 

Honestly - and bluntly, if I may (since I am, after all, a pedantic supercilious anal orifice ) - there will be unless there's not. "Feeling" there's going to be one or not doesn't enter into it.

 

Personally, if I had to bet...I'd say no. Being a terrorist operating in the US ain't nearly as easy as it used to be.

[Mickey]

I have the sinking feeling that there will be a terrorist attack on American soil before the election.  I'm talking about a greater than fifty percent chance.  Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

 

What do you think?

61855[/snapback]

 

I hope you are wrong but given what they did in Madrid, I am not very confident. There are some things that might argue against an attack. OBL believes that we are responsible for what our government does since we are a democracy. This is our first chance to change our government since 9/11 so he might be waiting to see what we do and if there is a change, see what the new President does in the middle east. Also, he seemingly is concentrating on separating us from our allies hence the attack on Spain that caused them to withdraw. He is smart enough to know that an "ally" who only sends a handful of non-military advisors or troops, is not really all that enthusiastic about being there. Those allies can be convinced to leave by an attack since they aren't all that interested in being there to begin with. Again, that made the attack on Spain all that much more logical. He is hitting us where we are soft which is the weak bonds holding the coalition, such as it is, together. Attacking civilians is still a problem for AQ in selling their crap to fellow muslims. They can kill Americans easily enough now that we are in Iraq so there is no need to go after civilian targets in the US. There are plenty of Americans close by in Iraq.

 

I think there is reason to believe that they aren't all that certain what the reaction of the voters in the US would be to another attack on US soil. Not knowing how we would react, any attack they did could backfire on them. It could have the opposite effect they intend. They may know a lot of things but one thing I am sure they don't really understand is how Americans think and react to things. People thinking for themselves in a democracy is just not something they have any experience with. If that is true, it would make more sense for them to just not get involved with the US election. They might have concluded that since anything they do might backfire, better to do nothing in the US until after the election.

 

Just as compelling an argument could be made for them to attack before November 2, I know. I am arguing the other way because it will make it easier for me to sleep.

[Johnny Coli]

Yeah, and if it does happen, you'll be crying about how Bush let it happen like all the other dumb sheep.

61874[/snapback]

Right, I'm a sheep. Who should we blame then? Bill Clinton? Syria? Hillary Clinton? Michael Moore? Who's the sheep, now?

[DC Tom]

Right, I'm a sheep.  Who should we blame then?  Bill Clinton?  Syria?  Hillary Clinton?  Michael Moore?  Who's the sheep, now?

61906[/snapback]

 

How about THE !@#$ING TERRORISTS!!!!

[Johnny Coli]

How about THE !@#$ING TERRORISTS!!!!

61916[/snapback]

I agree with you Tom. I could have made a more articulate point, but the dude was inferring that I was trotting out some party line, by trotting out a party line.

[BillsNYC]

No way.

 

Terrorists don't want Bush as president, and if they do something before the election, people are going to get behind Bush exactly like they did after 9-11 and Bush will win a landslide election. It would also prevent Kerry from doing anything, since you can't not support the president after an attack like that.

[blzrul]

No way.

 

Terrorists don't want Bush as president, and if they do something before the election, people are going to get behind Bush exactly like they did after 9-11 and Bush will win a landslide election. It would also prevent Kerry from doing anything, since you can't not support the president after an attack like that.

61965[/snapback]

I don't know, Bill. The ONLY thing that Bush has to stand on these days is his supposed tough stance on terrorism. An attack would probably finish him.

[OGTEleven]

I hope you are wrong but given what they did in Madrid, I am not very confident.  There are some things that might argue against an attack.  OBL believes that we are responsible for what our government does since we are a democracy.  This is our first chance to change our government since 9/11 so he might be waiting to see what we do and if there is a change, see what the new President does in the middle east.  Also, he seemingly is concentrating on separating us from our allies hence the attack on Spain that caused them to withdraw.  He is smart enough to know that an "ally" who only sends a handful of non-military advisors or troops, is not really all that enthusiastic about being there.  Those allies can be convinced to leave by an attack since they aren't all that interested in being there to begin with.  Again, that made the attack on Spain all that much more logical.  He is hitting us where we are soft which is the weak bonds holding the coalition, such as it is, together.  Attacking civilians is still a problem for AQ in selling their crap to fellow muslims.  They can kill Americans easily enough now that we are in Iraq so there is no need to go after civilian targets in the US.  There are plenty of Americans close by in Iraq. 

 

I think there is reason to believe that they aren't all that certain what the reaction of the voters in the US would be to another attack on US soil.  Not knowing how we would react, any attack they did could backfire on them.  It could have the opposite effect they intend.  They may know a lot of things but one thing I am sure they don't really understand is how Americans think and react to things.  People thinking for themselves in a democracy is just not something they have any experience with.  If that is true, it would make more sense for them to just not get involved with the US election.  They might have concluded that since anything they do might backfire, better to do nothing in the US until after the election.

 

Just as compelling an argument could be made for them to attack before November 2, I know.  I am arguing the other way because it will make it easier for me to sleep.

61898[/snapback]

Like the other two bets (Mickey and DC), my bet would be no. Like DC I think it is impossible to have a "feeling" about it. We just don't know. I also think blaming Bush for stopping an atack and/or upping the threat level, or blaming him if an attack occurs is unreasonable. For one thing, if Bush upped the threat level (in response to something real or not), there is a distinct chance he could lose out because many would claim it was political. I'd hope that any president would up the threat level if the situation merits and downgrade it or leave it alone if the situation merits. Politics should not enter into it.

 

Mickster, as for the rest of your post, I agree with some (AQ probably doesn't have a good read on an attack's impact on US voters) and disagree with some (the real reason for the attack on Spain was Iraq). Iraq and the upcoming Spanish elections may indeed have been a tactical reason for the Spain attack, but radical Islam's beef with Spain goes back about 1000 years. Their tactics may be different iwth Europe because of their perceptions of Europe's likely response(s), but Europe is their enemy as well.

 

If George W. Bush is elected will AQ want us all dead? Yup

If John Kerry is elected will AQ want us all dead? Absolutely

If Nader Wins? Uh-huh

If KRC Wins? Yes, but they'll probably be a little more scared.

[KD in CA]

No way.

 

Terrorists don't want Bush as president, and if they do something before the election, people are going to get behind Bush exactly like they did after 9-11 and Bush will win a landslide election. It would also prevent Kerry from doing anything, since you can't not support the president after an attack like that.

61965[/snapback]

 

I agree with your 'what if' scenario Bill, but I'm not sure the terrorists (or liberals) understand that mentality in the American public. They may assume that we will run scared like the Spainish but I believe people would want Bush to stay in office because he will bring the strongest response. Remember, the media fueled blame game for 9-11 didn't start for more than a year after the event.

[_BiB_]

Like the other two bets (Mickey and DC), my bet would be no.  Like DC I think it is impossible to have a "feeling" about it.  We just don't know.  I also think blaming Bush for stopping an atack and/or upping the threat level, or blaming him if an attack occurs is unreasonable.  For one thing, if Bush upped the threat level (in response to something real or not), there is a distinct chance he could lose out because many would claim it was political.  I'd hope that any president would up the threat level if the situation merits and downgrade it or leave it alone if the situation merits.  Politics should not enter into it.

 

Mickster, as for the rest of your post, I agree with some (AQ probably doesn't have a good read on an attack's impact on US voters) and disagree with some (the real reason for the attack on Spain was Iraq).  Iraq and the upcoming Spanish elections may indeed have been a tactical reason for the Spain attack, but radical Islam's beef with Spain goes back about 1000 years.  Their tactics may be different iwth Europe because of their perceptions of Europe's likely response(s), but Europe is their enemy as well.

 

If George W. Bush is elected will AQ want us all dead?  Yup

If John Kerry is elected will AQ want us all dead?  Absolutely

If Nader Wins? Uh-huh

If KRC Wins? Yes, but they'll probably be a little more scared.

61991[/snapback]

 

Welcome to the chess game.

[BillsNYC]

I don't know, Bill.  The ONLY thing that Bush has to stand on these days is his supposed tough stance on terrorism.  An attack would probably finish him.

61984[/snapback]

 

Lets say there is a huge terrorist attack now, lots of Americans die on our soil. How will Kerry look if he says "Look at Bush, he can't even prevent this from happening. If you vote for me, I'll take care of these guys"

 

He'll be viewed as an insensitive power hungry a-hole and un-American challenging the President right after an attack.

 

Basically, his hands will be tied, and Americans will look to their president for leadership, which you have to admit Bush was pretty damn good at in Round 1 the months after.

[Mickey]

No way.

 

Terrorists don't want Bush as president, and if they do something before the election, people are going to get behind Bush exactly like they did after 9-11 and Bush will win a landslide election. It would also prevent Kerry from doing anything, since you can't not support the president after an attack like that.

61965[/snapback]

 

Why do you think the terrorists don't want Bush to remain president? I think a compelling argument could be made that the very opposite is true. If they are worried about there being a "tough" President, then they might consider that the frat brat, cheer leader who got a cushie stateside gig to stay out of Viet Nam is maybe not as tough as the hockey playing, top student who volunteered to serve and actually saw combat in Viet Nam. Just a thought.

 

If your goal is to unite all Arabs in one jihadist movement you need to have someone who is so hated through out the middle east that all Arabs will put aside their differences and unite to fight that foe. Who do you think is more hated in the middle east right now, Bush or Kerry? Has the average Iraqi even heard of Kerry? Bin Laden will have a lot easier time convincing the Arab world that America is on a crusade against Islam if Bush is elected. The propaganda value to him of the fact that Bush's father already ran one war "against Islam" before the son started a second one is priceless.

 

I don't deny that a compelling argument could be made the other way as well. I just think that folks on the right think that Bush would be more effective in fighting the war on terror and assume that the terrorists agree with them. There are those that believe that Kerry would be much more effective in the war on terror and so think the opposite. Both are making assumptions that only make sense if you accept their premise that their candidate is the better one to fight terror. Of course, that premise is a bias, not a fact.

[sweet baboo]

Lets say there is a huge terrorist attack now, lots of Americans die on our soil. How will Kerry look if he says "Look at Bush, he can't even prevent this from happening. If you vote for me, I'll take care of these guys"

 

He'll be viewed as an insensitive power hungry a-hole and un-American challenging the President right after an attack.

 

Basically, his hands will be tied, and Americans will look to their president for leadership, which you have to admit Bush was pretty damn good at in Round 1 the months after.

62018[/snapback]

 

if Kerry were to say that, he'd be viewed as an opportunist and a grade A !@#$...not that he isn't already

no one wants to hear an "I told you so" after a huge tragedy...those who capitalize on it will suffer

[BillsNYC]

If your goal is to unite all Arabs in one jihadist movement you need to have someone who is so hated through out the middle east that all Arabs will put aside their differences and unite to fight that foe.  Who do you think is more hated in the middle east right now, Bush or Kerry?  Has the average Iraqi even heard of Kerry?  Bin Laden will have a lot easier time convincing the Arab world that America is on a crusade against Islam if Bush is elected.  The propaganda value to him of the fact that Bush's father already ran one war "against Islam" before the son started a second one is priceless.

 

62023[/snapback]

 

This is exactly why I'm saying they want Bush re-elected.

[OGTEleven]

......not as tough as the hockey playing, top student who volunteered to serve and actually saw combat in Viet Nam.  Just a thought.

 

62023[/snapback]

You really have to stop with that hockey player = tough mantra. You are losing your credibility.

 

Why you ask? Well, I play hockey (goalie in fact) and I'm willing to wager "tough" would not be one of the first 50 words used to describe me.

 

What the heck, I have time, let's start counting:

 

Handsome

Brilliant

Debonair

Suave

Charming

Wonderful

Modest

Insightful

Guapo (I'll throw in a spanish one for ya)

Articulate

Sensitive (JK and the ladies like that one)

Genius

Tough....

 

....oh, I guess you're right. It would be in the top 50.

 

Disclaimer: All or some of the descriptive words about me could be made up and not very accurate. I do, however, play hockey and I don't think tough is near the top of my list of attributes.

[MichFan]

Why do you think the terrorists don't want Bush to remain president? I think a compelling argument could be made that the very opposite is true.

It could, but it would be so laughable why would you even waste the time?

 

If they are worried about there being a "tough" President, then they might consider that the frat brat, cheer leader who got a cushie stateside gig to stay out of Viet Nam is maybe not as tough as the hockey playing, top student who volunteered to serve and actually saw combat in Viet Nam. Just a thought.

 

If your goal is to unite all Arabs in one jihadist movement you need to have someone who is so hated through out the middle east that all Arabs will put aside their differences and unite to fight that foe. Who do you think is more hated in the middle east right now, Bush or Kerry? Has the average Iraqi even heard of Kerry? Bin Laden will have a lot easier time convincing the Arab world that America is on a crusade against Islam if Bush is elected. The propaganda value to him of the fact that Bush's father already ran one war "against Islam" before the son started a second one is priceless.

 

I don't deny that a compelling argument could be made the other way as well. I just think that folks on the right think that Bush would be more effective in fighting the war on terror and assume that the terrorists agree with them. There are those that believe that Kerry would be much more effective in the war on terror and so think the opposite. Both are making assumptions that only make sense if you accept their premise that their candidate is the better one to fight terror. Of course, that premise is a bias, not a fact.

Doh, you went ahead and did it anyway.

[erynthered]

You really have to stop with that hockey player = tough mantra.  You are losing your credibility. 

 

Why you ask?  Well, I play hockey (goalie in fact) and I'm willing to wager "tough" would not be one of the first 50 words used to describe me.

 

What the heck, I have time, let's start counting:

 

Handsome

Brilliant

Debonair

Suave

Charming

Wonderful

Modest

Insightful

Guapo (I'll throw in a spanish one for ya)

Articulate

Sensitive (JK and the ladies like that one)

Genius

Tough....

 

....oh, I guess you're right.  It would be in the top 50.

 

Disclaimer: All or some of the descriptive words about me could be made up and not very accurate.  I do, however, play hockey and I don't think tough is near the top of my list of attributes.

62050[/snapback]

 

 

You're a Boy Scout, eh?

BTW, you forgot cunning.

[DC Tom]

You really have to stop with that hockey player = tough mantra.  You are losing your credibility. 

 

Why you ask?  Well, I play hockey (goalie in fact) and I'm willing to wager "tough" would not be one of the first 50 words used to describe me.

 

What the heck, I have time, let's start counting:

 

Handsome

Brilliant

Debonair

Suave

Charming

Wonderful

Modest

Insightful

Guapo (I'll throw in a spanish one for ya)

Articulate

Sensitive (JK and the ladies like that one)

Genius

Tough....

 

....oh, I guess you're right.  It would be in the top 50.

 

Disclaimer: All or some of the descriptive words about me could be made up and not very accurate.  I do, however, play hockey and I don't think tough is near the top of my list of attributes.

62050[/snapback]

 

I don't think "modest" is too high up there, either...

[OGTEleven]

You're a  Boy Scout, eh?

BTW, you forgot cunning.

62062[/snapback]

....and linguist

 

 

Thread, meet gutter.

[erynthered]

....and linguist

Thread, meet gutter.

62073[/snapback]

 

 

I was wondering what to you so long to knock that one out.

 

 

You're welcome

 

 

[MelissaInPhilly]

Thanks for the responses. We shall see what happens!

[MelissaInPhilly]

No way.

 

Terrorists don't want Bush as president, and if they do something before the election, people are going to get behind Bush exactly like they did after 9-11 and Bush will win a landslide election. It would also prevent Kerry from doing anything, since you can't not support the president after an attack like that.

61965[/snapback]

 

Who knows how terrorists think - perhaps their rationale would be that Bush allowed an attack to occur, and Americans would blame him and vote Kerry in.

 

After all, after Spain was attacked before their elections, didn't they vote the pro-coalition president out?

[Mike in Syracuse]

No way.

 

Terrorists don't want Bush as president, and if they do something before the election, people are going to get behind Bush exactly like they did after 9-11 and Bush will win a landslide election. It would also prevent Kerry from doing anything, since you can't not support the president after an attack like that.

61965[/snapback]

 

WHY DON'T PEOPLE GET THIS!!!!!

 

Al Quaeda doesn't give a rats ass who is President. They want dead Americans and lots of them. Democrat, Republican, Black, White, Asian & Hispanic. They don't care who, they don't care how, they just want to kill as many of us as possible. It's "us" they hate, not individual people. Now they may have a special desire to kill Bush but I don't think they'd pass up a chance at taking out a couple million of us.

 

This war is going to go on forever. I has existeed for what must seem forever in other parts of the world. Bin Laden just brought it home.

[Paco]

Why do you think the terrorists don't want Bush to remain president? I think a compelling argument could be made that the very opposite is true. If they are worried about there being a "tough" President, then they might consider that the frat brat, cheer leader who got a cushie stateside gig to stay out of Viet Nam is maybe not as tough as the hockey playing, top student who volunteered to serve and actually saw combat in Viet Nam. Just a thought.

 

Mick, I try not to talk over my head, so I apologize in advance if I don't communicate this properly.

 

What the terrorist want...more than anything else right now...is us OUT of the Middle East. As long as we have a presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., they have to fight us there. That is why we are getting attacked all the time in Iraq. These aren't Iraqis pissed because we're in their country. There are terrorists who have been operating LONG before we went in their and broke up their party. I believe that is why we see people crossing borders into Iraq. What you see are terrorist cells coming to the aid of the fight in Iraq because when we DO liberate Iraq, we've taken away one of their big playgrounds.

 

They want us out of the Middle East, if for no other reason than it allows them to communicate better...convert people better...organize better...plan better...and execute their plan better.

 

When we're not taking the fight to them, they take our planes and fly them into our buildings. When we DO take the fight to them, the world as a whole is...oddly enough...a better place for the long term.

 

That's why I believe...YES, they WOULD like Kerry because they know Kerry will do everything he can to get our troops out of the Middle East as quickly as possible, and when that happens, they can regroup, retrain, and then hit us again on our soil.

 

We also can not overlook the strength of having a free Iraq in terms of the entire Middle East picture and the leverage a free Iraq brings, but that's another thread.

 

This is also probably one of the most upsetting parts of the entire WMD thing that everyone is so fixated on. It was easier to explain WMD to the world than to explain how the terrorist networks operate, and that...as it turns out...was a mistake. But it's a fight we were going to have to fight sooner or later.

 

Can I get some verification here? If I'm off base, can someone correct me?

[_BiB_]

Mick, I try not to talk over my head, so I apologize in advance if I don't communicate this properly.

 

What the terrorist want...more than anything else right now...is us OUT of the Middle East. As long as we have a presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., they have to fight us there. That is why we are getting attacked all the time in Iraq. These aren't Iraqis pissed because we're in their country. There are terrorists who have been operating LONG before we went in their and broke up their party. I believe that is why we see people crossing borders into Iraq. What you see are terrorist cells coming to the aid of the fight in Iraq because when we DO liberate Iraq, we've taken away one of their big playgrounds.

 

They want us out of the Middle East, if for no other reason than it allows them to communicate better...convert people better...organize better...plan better...and execute their plan better.

 

When we're not taking the fight to them, they take our planes and fly them into our buildings. When we DO take the fight to them, the world as a whole is...oddly enough...a better place for the long term.

 

That's why I believe...YES, they WOULD like Kerry because they know Kerry will do everything he can to get our troops out of the Middle East as quickly as possible, and when that happens, they can regroup, retrain, and then hit us again on our soil.

 

We also can not overlook the strength of having a free Iraq in terms of the entire Middle East picture and the leverage a free Iraq brings, but that's another thread.

 

This is also probably one of the most upsetting parts of the entire WMD thing that everyone is so fixated on.  It was easier to explain WMD to the world than to explain how the terrorist networks operate, and that...as it turns out...was a mistake.  But it's a fight we were going to have to fight sooner or later.

 

Can I get some verification here? If I'm off base, can someone correct me?

62249[/snapback]

 

You're doing pretty well for a rookie.

[blzrul]

Lets say there is a huge terrorist attack now, lots of Americans die on our soil. How will Kerry look if he says "Look at Bush, he can't even prevent this from happening. If you vote for me, I'll take care of these guys"

 

He'll be viewed as an insensitive power hungry a-hole and un-American challenging the President right after an attack.

 

Basically, his hands will be tied, and Americans will look to their president for leadership, which you have to admit Bush was pretty damn good at in Round 1 the months after.

62018[/snapback]

If such a thing were to happen I don't think Kerry would have to say a thing, especially if it was Al Qaeda. The American people aren't stupid. They'll wonder how it was that he didn't protect us. They gave him a pass before but he's been talking real big about a lot of things and the only thing he's delivered is a bunch of dead soldiers and civilians.

[Paco]

the only thing he's delivered is a bunch of dead soldiers and civilians.

62272[/snapback]

 

And peace on American soil since 9/11.

 

Oh, sorry. That doesn't help your case very much.

[Alaska Darin]

And peace on American soil since 9/11.

 

Oh, sorry. That doesn't help your case very much.

62274[/snapback]

I don't know how good a measure that really is, to be perfectly honest with you. Al Qaeda waited 8 years between WTC Act I and WTC Act II. It certainly didn't have alot to do with our increased "anti-terror" posture - because it didn't really exist at the time.

[John from Riverside]

You're doing pretty well for a rookie.

62261[/snapback]

 

Yep.......I think that is a pretty close description.....

 

 

Politics I know nothing about......terrorism I got to see close up for the final years of my tour in the Air Force.......

 

I would also like to add something to this discussion that people may or may not agree with.......

 

A lot of people jump on the culture of Islam and say that it is one of the main reasons why all of this is happening......

 

I dont agree...I dont blame the culture itself....I think that terrorists have been doing this for SO LONG......that the middle east has entirely lost site of the fact that terrorists are basically criminals who do bad and then try to throw an Islam blanket over it and call it religion or culture

 

I know PLENTY of Middle Eastern people who practice the Islam culture that wouldn't think of harming another person....

 

These !@#$ terrorist organiations have got the world snowed as to why they do the things they do....they simply dont want us there...are afraid of what our way of life would bring to those people.....and quite simply they know that if the everyday "joe blow" masses that live in those countries realized that a better way of life is available they would get torn to pieces.....

 

They cant have that....so they are blowing things up and beheading people....

 

Its much deeper then that....but you get the gist

[John from Riverside]

I don't know how good a measure that really is, to be perfectly honest with you.  Al Qaeda waited 8 years between WTC Act I and WTC Act II.  It certainly didn't have alot to do with our increased "anti-terror" posture - because it didn't really exist at the time.

62302[/snapback]

 

 

We are on untreaded ground when it comes to fighting terroism....we dont know anything yet....

 

But I would like to see If Bushes plan is right

[Mickey]

You really have to stop with that hockey player = tough mantra.  You are losing your credibility. 

 

Why you ask?  Well, I play hockey (goalie in fact) and I'm willing to wager "tough" would not be one of the first 50 words used to describe me.

 

What the heck, I have time, let's start counting:

 

Handsome

Brilliant

Debonair

Suave

Charming

Wonderful

Modest

Insightful

Guapo (I'll throw in a spanish one for ya)

Articulate

Sensitive (JK and the ladies like that one)

Genius

Tough....

 

....oh, I guess you're right.  It would be in the top 50.

 

Disclaimer: All or some of the descriptive words about me could be made up and not very accurate.  I do, however, play hockey and I don't think tough is near the top of my list of attributes.

62050[/snapback]

 

Actually OG, the point was to mock the whole idea of characterizing either candidate as being "tougher" than the other. "Debonair"? "Delusional maybe but not "debonair".

 

Seriously, I hear a lot about how "tough" Bush is. That rich wuss wouldn't have lasted a minute in my neighborhood.

[Mickey]

And peace on American soil since 9/11.

 

Oh, sorry. That doesn't help your case very much.

62274[/snapback]

 

I do not beleive we have not had an attack on American soil because we have prevented them, I think they have chosen, for now, not to attack us here. They have been very, very active elsewhere. I posted a long list not so long ago of all the AQ attacks since 9/11. They have been frightfully effective since 9/11. I do not at all believe for a moment that they have been serioulsy weakened.

[Mickey]

Mick, I try not to talk over my head, so I apologize in advance if I don't communicate this properly.

 

What the terrorist want...more than anything else right now...is us OUT of the Middle East. As long as we have a presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., they have to fight us there. That is why we are getting attacked all the time in Iraq. These aren't Iraqis pissed because we're in their country. There are terrorists who have been operating LONG before we went in their and broke up their party. I believe that is why we see people crossing borders into Iraq. What you see are terrorist cells coming to the aid of the fight in Iraq because when we DO liberate Iraq, we've taken away one of their big playgrounds.

 

They want us out of the Middle East, if for no other reason than it allows them to communicate better...convert people better...organize better...plan better...and execute their plan better.

 

When we're not taking the fight to them, they take our planes and fly them into our buildings. When we DO take the fight to them, the world as a whole is...oddly enough...a better place for the long term.

 

That's why I believe...YES, they WOULD like Kerry because they know Kerry will do everything he can to get our troops out of the Middle East as quickly as possible, and when that happens, they can regroup, retrain, and then hit us again on our soil.

 

We also can not overlook the strength of having a free Iraq in terms of the entire Middle East picture and the leverage a free Iraq brings, but that's another thread.

 

This is also probably one of the most upsetting parts of the entire WMD thing that everyone is so fixated on.  It was easier to explain WMD to the world than to explain how the terrorist networks operate, and that...as it turns out...was a mistake.  But it's a fight we were going to have to fight sooner or later.

 

Can I get some verification here? If I'm off base, can someone correct me?

62249[/snapback]

 

They do want us out but that is not their ultimate goal, it is a step on the way. The thing is, neither Kerry nor Bush nor any other American President is going to completely pack up and leave the middle east. We are not just talking about Iraq here. Do you think that they think that simply by Kerry taking office the US is going to abandon Israel or Saudi Arabia or even Kuwait? These people are not idiots and they are not crazy. We can't and won't leave the middle east because of the oil. As for Israel, based on moral and political grounds, we are never going to up and leave them high and dry and it doesn't matter who is in the White House.

 

Your argument, as I understand it, is basically that they want us out and they think Kerry will leave so therefore they want Kerry. I disagree with the second assumption that they think Kerry will leave. I know the right in this country thinks that or at least pushes that idea as part of their campaign against Kerry. Fact is though, that is seriously flawed thinking unless you seriously think that Kerry would abandon Israel and allow the most important commodity in the world and the largest deposits of that commodity to fall into the hands of terrorists. Seriously, do you think that is what is in Kerry's plan?!?!?! Its ridiculous. Not your argument but the assumption that Kerry would really be any less dedicated to protecting the world's largest known deposits of oil and Israel than any other President.

 

OBL wants us out but he knows that is not going to happen based on an election result. To make that happen he has to leave us no choice and the only way to do that is to kill us, and kill us, and kill us, and kill us some more. To do that, he needs resources: soldiers, weapons and cash. He needs suicide troops by the boatloads. To get what he needs, he has to unite as many muslims as he can. At this point, Bush is probably the most hated man on the planet by muslims in the middle east. He is a great catalyst for them. That fact that his father already made war on Islam is perfect for their propaganda. To paint us convincingly as the great enemy of all Islam, he has to isolate us from the rest of the world so that we become a singularity, an anomaly of anti-muslim evil. That easily explains the concentration of attacks on our allies. He is exploiting the weak bonds holding this coalition, such as it is, together.

 

None of us know what OBL is thinking. Also, he is not the only terrorist in the world. There is no reason to suspect that all terrorists hold the same opinion on who they would like to see win this election.

 

I think the idea that the terrorists would want one or the other to win is campaign rhetoric of the worst kind that exploits the tragedy of terrorism and our fears of the future. I have never pushed an argument on this board that Bush is the favorite candidate among the world's miscreants. I have only responded with an argument that in fact that could be so, in response to others trying to tar Kerry with those feathers. I don't care if they want Bush or if they want Kerry. We will decide what is in our best interests and vote accordingly and as for what terrorists think, lets all give them a collective :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: by not falling in to this kind of discussion.

[blzrul]

Well, this morning's Seattle PI front page story is about the terrorists targeting our ferries. No surprise I guess - those things hold upward of 150 vehicles each.

 

However I'd probably look to the mechanics or dock workers instead of vehicles, since there are bomb-sniffing dogs screening all vehicles now. Easier to sneak something in and plant it in the engine room.

 

We're taking the 10:15 or 10:45 Kingston Ferry this morning on our way to Dungeness. Eat that terrorists.

[Captain America]

Well, this morning's Seattle PI front page story is about the terrorists targeting our ferries. No surprise I guess - those things hold upward of 150 vehicles each.

 

However I'd probably look to the mechanics or dock workers instead of vehicles, since there are bomb-sniffing dogs screening all vehicles now.  Easier to sneak something in and plant it in the engine room.

 

We're  taking the 10:15 or 10:45 Kingston Ferry this morning on our way to Dungeness.  Eat that terrorists.

63303[/snapback]

You have all the answers feel free to check it out yourself

[_BiB_]

Well, this morning's Seattle PI front page story is about the terrorists targeting our ferries. No surprise I guess - those things hold upward of 150 vehicles each.

 

However I'd probably look to the mechanics or dock workers instead of vehicles, since there are bomb-sniffing dogs screening all vehicles now.  Easier to sneak something in and plant it in the engine room.

 

We're  taking the 10:15 or 10:45 Kingston Ferry this morning on our way to Dungeness.  Eat that terrorists.

63303[/snapback]

 

Eat some crabs for me. Dungeness. Mmmmmmmmmmm.