Jump to content

Terrorist attack before Nov. 2?


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. ;):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...